Redstate

I am new and appreciate the help.

as Columbo would say, "one more thing."  

What is IMO?

Very good question.  Here a few often used one:

IMO - In My Opinion

IMHO - In My Humble Opinion

WRT - With Respect To

IIRC - If I Recall Correctly

Hmm.. I'm drawing a blank on others right now.

HIDABOORN.  

Heh. Just kidding.  (Sorry, I haven't had my morning caffeine yet).

FWIW - For What Its Worth

<NT> - no text - usually used if your comment is only on the subject line

One more term:

Moby - a particular kind of troll modeled after our favorite musical artist, Moby, who said that liberals should pose on conservative sites as conservatives and generally make us look really, really bad.

           

I violated the profanity rule yesterday in my comment over in Tankertodd's diary about the AI report.  It slipped out.  I was furious.  

I'm glad it was worth my time.  And glad to have you here.

is a great idea.

Gonna try to get markos to steal it.

I like their latest comments list too.  I suppose it would just fly down the page at dKos with the number of people posting.  But something like that at dKos would be nice.

simply unworkable.

I guess that is the sincerest form of flattery.  Thanks.

FAIK -- Far as I know.

BTW -- By the way.

IOW -- In other words.

Finally, for the love of all that is good and holy (and to appease Thomas), remember that it's:

"by the bye"

not

"by the by."

Also, and since we're on the subject of pet peeves, I personally detest:

"BWHAHAHAHAHA"

All evil cackling should be kept to oneself.

I probably overlooked it when I first joined the site, but where (if anywhere) have you spelled out instructions for certain punctuation in postings, specifically bold and italics?  Or do we simply have to type our posts in Word and then cut and paste if we want to add any special punctuation?

Anyway, I second the motion that this post was well worth your time.

about rules for using bold/italics (there are none but please use bold sparingly) or how to create bold/italics in your posts (supported HTML tags are visible below the Preview/Post buttons on the Post Comment dialog screen.

A troll (or more correctly a troller) isn't somebody who starts arguments though snark. Snark is a device where you can tell what the author really means. A troll write serious comments, often at the extremes, in the hopes that other will bite and argue back as if they are arguing with a real person. In reality they are fight a constructed tarbaby that will keep the fish tangles up in illogical rantings.

The word comes from trolling, a fishing term for trailing bait behind slowly moving boat.

The reason trolls kill sites is because people start to dismissing legitimate disagrement as trolling, although a few entertaining and well constructed troll personas can make a sight interesting.

The volume over there is just too high, the penalty you would pay in database queries would exceed the usefulness.

Although you guys have the 'pros' over there - literally - let me know if you guys want the code that runs redhot. It's pretty straight forward.

I really do like that feature.

dKos has Open threads periodically where users can just make comments that are insufficient to write a diary on.

Maybe there should be a Readers' Comments diary periodically opened so that people can add to or discuss the Editor's comments on Redhot.

For instance mcjoan has written a diary over there in response to Doverspa's comment about the factcheck abortion numbers.  I don't know if he has seen it, but I would be interested in his rebuttal, either here or there.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/26/153810/511#12

were large, smelly creatures who, according to various sources of information (Tolkien) have been known to turn into (Flint)stone when the sun shines on them.

That certainly is a more accurate description of the trolls we have around here, at least.

is here

nice point

I clearly have been in violation of several rules here. And indeed, had no conception that postings from more liberal members of our country and society into a public communications entity were so discouraged, especially when constructing a diary.

Then again, I got that whole premise incorrect,... this is a privately held company and organization for the promotion of the republican party, I have to drop my head and shake it in disbelief at my stupidity

Really missed the fine print on this one. Must have seemed like some hag extremist attempting to bother the entire process, Jezzzz, I am really, really, sorry.

I honestly thought this was an open forum. Ummm, well,... just forget what I said, delete my poorly understood postings... and lend me some forgiveness if you would.

Again, sorry folks.

Sincerely,

HJ Garwood

http://www.acronymfinder.com/  

because I need a translation cheat sheet for '733T d00d' speak

For one, these are not rules but tips and encouragements.  However, yes, this is a Republican site as stated in the mission statement:

RedState.org is focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States. We hope to unite serious, innovative, and accomplished voices from government, politics, activism, civil society, and journalism to participate in this work.

And we may be somewhat at fault since we seem to be rather tolerant of lefties as long as they don't get offensive.

Sorry, it's genuine, thanks, just a bit confused, if you will...

By tolerate, do you mean by me being here at all because it is a private sight (lobbyist group, party recruitment, support, if you will) and I am, kinda, really not welcomed?

Or, ... well,... I'd rather not speculate anymore, or make some kinda suggestion that might be taken the wrong way.

So in closing,... Um,  I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant, could you elaborate, sorry to ask.

You and all posters are welcome here.  Just please act like one would when in someone else's home: with respect.  If these past comments are an indication, you seem quite able to discuss something without flamethrowing.   So feel free to joing in discussions and participate.  For an example of what not to do: see here.   Liberals who have earned my respect on RS include the recently absent Amos and Azizhp.

FWIW, we are 527, the same as MoveOn.org, the Swift Boat Vets, Progress for America, and a bunch of other political organizations that popped up after McCain-Feingold.

Man, I'm sorry.

What are the requirements for an issue to be important to a Republican?

Who decides what issues are going to be important to the Republican's?

If for instance, one Republican (John McCain), has a stance with an issue that is against the another Republican (Frist), who is it that decides what issues are going to be important to Republican's?

If (Frist) wants the stem cell bill, but (Bush) doesn't, who decides what all the Republican's are going to support?

What is it exactly, or who is it that decides what will be imporatant to all Republican's when this happens?

Is there a chain of command somewhere, or a system of rules that I can read somewhere that can help me decide what I am suppose to want to support?

I'm really confused on what it is that decides what is important to Republican's and can qualify as a strictly Republican issue that only Republican's would want to write about in a diary?

I mean here is my dilemma, so I am sincerely asking for assitance.

I am not a Democrate, or a Republican, or an Independent or some social value nut convince that airwicks will doom us all, no that's not me.

I am a Liberal.

I voted for Kennedy, supported Johnson (did not vote), Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan again, Bush, Clinton, Clinton again, Bush, Kerry

5 Democratic

5 Republican

and went 9 outta 10.

Basically, when it comes down to managing and running the country I will put all other things, all other interest, all other beliefs behind the protection of the institutions and the fundementals they operate under that make up my country.

I was really peed at Nixon. Whatergate

I was really peed at Carter. Iran

Like Reagon alot, I was also forgiving.

I felt sorry for Bush Sr.

Liked Clinton at first, then didn't like him at all, then something happened that has really bothered me, I mean really , really bothered me since it happened, and I am not sure I am even close to being over it.

Literally, in the middle of nearly feeling genuine hate for this guy, the Republican's go off and try to impeach the guy on grounds that I just felt my knees get weak with when seeing it.

The abuse of that impeachment process literally sent me totally over the edge. The institution was totally abused, the action was as far away from what it's original intent was that I felt I would never vote for another Republican President for a duration of a least 20 years for punishment to the party for that abuse to the institution, my free vote was over in my mind.

Of course, the very next year I turn around and for Bush, I mean what where my options really? Gore? Great man, very good heart, great insight, dumb as a puttin a finger in chili.

And, the only reason I did not vote for Bush again, is because I really do feel he lied to the American People, and did it deliberately. They can lie to me when they take my money. They can lie to me when they tax me. They can lie to me and tell me schools will improve. There's a bunch of lies I'll be more understanding with, but never accepting. But there is one lie, which I personally have no tolerance for. And that's the lie that send's America into war for falsified reasons.

It was dumb, I would have supported anyways, there was no need for that deception.

So where does that leave me when it comes to party support?

I don't know Dover, I really have no idea where that would place me in the political spectrum of things.

I am a person that thinks:

"The state should stay out of every single solitary issue except for those that directly effect the state".

Thanks for the post. You should set up a permanent link to it on the front page -- probably won't get many readers on a Labor Day weekend.

One thing that's always sort of frightened me about redstate is that once you hit post, you're toast. I had some bad info in a post last week, and to make things worse someone recommended it. I hit the "contact" email link and asked that it be taken down (and maybe it was).

I know the editors can't police much more than rude behavior, but what do you do when that happens?

Given the nature of the topic at hand, I enjoy the dissuasion of profanity in this forum. When commentators are required to give pause before they respond quickly, the sparks within a conversation tend more towards the intellect. The other effect, of course, is the ability to enjoy quite creative analogies that, otherwise, may not have been as well scripted.

I imagine a small "warning" system in place, where a certain frequency of profanity in a given time period would create suspension of posting privileges. After all, even in idle conversation is the occassional curse required.

of person I'd love to have around here.  Your posts here are earnest and sincere.  Even when you make points that I disagree with (i.e. the lies part), you do so from an explanation viewpoint not an accusatory one.

And it matters much less to me where you fall on a political spectrum than it matters that you are respectful and sincere.  As long as those qualities are in your posts, I hope you stay around and join the discussions.  You seem like a good bellweather for the country anyway (9 for 10) so it'd be good to hear your opinions.  I'm only 1 for 2 so far.

As for the "official" Republican positions on issues, well there is the platform if you want the true official positions.  But on RS, we definitely encourage debate on these issues and expect it.  We have people who hold views that are in the minority of the party (and the minority of the country in the case of gay marriage) on the site.  We have pro-stem cell research posters, anti-death penalty advocates, and people who don't really like the President all that much.  However, most of these posters generally support Republicans and want to see their position win over the rest of the party (ideally).  So posts, diaries, and comments are not meant to be regurgitations of talking points or lockstep Bush support.  The McCain vs. Frist type debates should be reflected on RS, although most Republicans are siding with Frist right now (as is evidenced on the site).  Ideally, the site will reflect the general state of the party and the debates going on about strategy and policy.

Personally, I hope it is a good resource for independent or non-Republican readers and commenters to get a feel for how Republicans and conservatives see and understand policy and values, including the diversity of opinions.

I look forward to seeing your take on some of the things that come up on the site.  It's always nice to have sincere non-Republican posters around.

to the directors on a fantastic site?

Love the format, love the interaction.

This is one hell of a place to waste a lot of <s>my employer's money</s&gt time!

I was taught that a true acronym had to actually

form another legitimate word. For example, CORE.

It stands for Congress of Racial Equality but

at the same time "core" is a distinct word. I

think many of the things you call acronyms are

simply abbreviations. Am I wrong? Always eager

to learn more about proper grammar.

doverspa- thanks for taking the time to explain all the ins and outs of RS to us...it all makes sense now!