Deranged Rhino

I don't want to do it, but would because I'm here enough. I'd love to see some others do it, but I have a feeling they wouldn't want the job (thinking of Buffalo Gal, Doc Brown, Azalin, KRC, and a few others).

Not sure why that's funny? Q doesn't use anonymous sources, Q shares information which can be vetted on its own so the reader can make their own determination as to its validity. Which is what journalists are supposed to do, yet all the links you provided go out of their way NOT to do. Might want to check your cognitive dissonance. It's on the fritz

Because most of those sources you linked cite anonymous sources as the backup to their central thesis. What have we learned about news articles that rely on anonymous sources over the past several years? They're 99% bullshite.

But they're not all true

?

The Dungeon has long carried with it a comedically poor reputation among the other boards on TBD. Compared to the rest of the site, it's the Wild West, with a long standing tradition of self-modding and handling any disputes/spats in-house rather than letting it bleed over and contaminate the rest of the boards. This is because PPP was largely populated by adults, capable of having a conversation with someone else who did not share every single opinion they did. But as the political discourse in the country has become more divisive and explosive over the past 15+ years -- ramping up to new levels over the past 4 -- PPP has become even more of a tinderbox and now we find ourselves at a crossroad... Over the past several months the board has been flooded by new (old) voices and accounts whose strategy is to throw bombs, provoke a response, then run to a mod off the board and complain about "how nasty those PPPers are!" This has forced the mods to pay more attention than they would like to the Dungeon, and created unnecessary bleed-through of political topics onto TSW and other parts of TBD. This seems to be a deliberate strategy on the part of a few posters. Their goal is to destroy PPP. They do not like what is discussed here, thus they wish to shut it down entirely -- and to get that job done, they are purposefully throwing bombs then running to mods. We know the names. But it's important to understand the tactic being used against this board in order to combat it. Coddling or egging on the sock puppets, as we've done in the past, or mocking them into extinction, as we've done in the past, won't work this time because their goal has changed. Their goal is to provoke that exact kind of reaction to use it against us to get the place shuttered completely. Personally, I've found PPP to be a wonderful addition to the TSW site overall. Despite my initial misgivings when I first ventured down here, I've seen that when PPP is working properly -- which is does more often than not -- it represents a place where people can exchange ideas and discuss controversial topics without dirtying up the rest of the site. There have been countless times where opposing views have been presented by knowledgeable posters and created threads/discussions where both sides not only made great points but helped share new information and opened up the minds of "the other side". Yes, tensions sometimes get high and people get snippy -- but prior to the "cry for mommy" tactic, those could be sorted out quickly and painlessly either through self-policing or (good natured) group mocking/shaming. But that tradition has been made more difficult than ever by a group of people looking to sow division and hostility just so they can use it to run to a mod. So how do we fix it? It starts by stepping back and remembering the purpose of PPP: The purpose of PPP is, above all else, to keep anything political away from the primary boards. The primary job of PPP is to stay in the dungeon and keep the mudslinging confined within rather than polluting the rest of the board where most people are looking for an escape from just these sorts of divisive debates and bomb throwing. The discussion of these types of politically charged topics can/will lead to a debate, even confrontations from time to time, but they should be handled in house -- not the shoutbox, not TSW, not OTW, and not by running to mods who try like hell to stay out of the dungeon in the first place. Not to protect PPP, but to protect TSW and what Scott's built for us over the years. The best way to do this is to adapt some sort of new Rules of Engagement designed to make the mods' lives easier, and to keep the dungeon open and functioning. Things are going to get more heated as we get closer (and past) the election in November. The attempts to get PPP closed down will also increase. So consider these ROEs as a way to thread the needle of keeping this sort of board functioning despite the vitriol and sabotage: 1) Follow the ToS: This has always been a rule in PPP. Even though we've been given more slack in terms of how we communicate with one another or about one another, the general TOS have always applied. The infestation of posters trying to destroy PPP do not abide by this ROE, they flaunt it in the hopes of getting regular posters to take the bait then run to a mod. The way to combat this is not to engage at all with these types (we all know who they are). Yes, in the past it's been fun to quote or engage with the sock puppets and beat them around a bit. But now that's what they're hoping we do in order to provoke outrage from the mods. The only solution to this is not to engage at all with those sorts of posters or any threads they start (and remember, starting multiple threads on the same topic, or crusading, are violations of the TOS -- let them do it to get themselves in trouble, but don't engage). 2) Show your work: PPP is about expressing your own personal political opinions and thoughts, regardless of your partisanship. That should be fostered and protected and the way to do that is to follow this simple rule: Present any argument/opinion you wish -- but be willing and prepared to show your work, back up your opinions and analysis by engaging in an actual discussion of the topic. That means sticking around to have an adult conversation, not just throwing bombs or insults then fleeing the scene. If someone is unwilling to engage or back up their work, they should be treated in accordance to the 1st ROE and ignored. Call it a good old fashioned shame shunning. That's it. Two very simple, very clear rules. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction. I personally think adding a new PPP mod might help as well, someone who knows the lay of the land and respects the traditions down here -- but can step in quicker than calling for the main mods when things get testy. ... Feel free to add any thoughts, ROEs or ideas to this thread.

Here's a link to the press conference (not that exact clip)...

They're not journalists -- they're propagandists with by-lines. This is a disgrace to the "profession".

His brain is a fried egg

That's a good point as well, and very likely. Barr said for weeks now to expect Durham sometime around Labor Day... here we are.

This is killer for Biden's campaign -- they just don't realize it yet. This shows the "Iran Deal" wasn't a deal at all, but a bribe.

Biden was terrible again today. Stilted delivery despite having a friendly press there delivering (clearly) planted questions. (First question was from the Atlantic for example) No Chance Joe doesn't have the stamina to make it October, let alone do the job he's running for.

and

In this context it means: fictional person who does not exist. The NYT track record on using such sources makes that abundantly clear. How can you continue to take them seriously when they lied to your face for years about Russia (!) and Mueller using only "anonymous sources" who turned out to be either completely wrong or non existent?

All these stories converging today, including the coordination of the Atlantic story with Biden's presser (and planted questions), really makes you think that someone expected a big story to drop today from Mr. Durham... It's almost like clockwork now. (Getting your opponents to expend ammunition prematurely is always hilarious)

Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong.