All I did was post HRC's own words.

More and more of us are craning our necks to see around the corner even if our feet aren't quite there yet.

And I agree with everything you say.

(First, let me say that I somehow ended up at sensetolisten's 'HRC path liar' diary at dKos, mistakenly though it was Raggedy Ann's, and mistakenly posted my reply to stl here, in Raggedy Ann's thread. My apologies to all for that error.)

Second, I just now read Raggedy Ann's diary and happily rec'd and tipped it (haven't read comments yet, but I will). This is an excellent diary with a calm tone, that peacefully promotes the Progressive cause and Bernie Sanders, without rancor -- and certainly with the smears and ad-hocs in the diary I criticized. Very well done, Raggedy Ann!

So now I can reply to your comment, CantStoptheSignal. It is unlikely that I would withdraw from any website over one diary. But after reading stl's diary at dKos -- while still mistakenly thinking it was RA's -- I saw support and praise for what I thought was the 'hrc/path' diary, and was dismayed. (Broad-minded tolerance is one thing, praising Atwater-esque tactics another, imo.) Because I care about this website, I felt I had to speak up as I did. I do not want c99's tolerance to devolve into acceptance of hate-speech, smears, ad-hoc attacks, or other Atwater-esque tatics.

I agree that we, as a nation, are in a crucible right now. And I think that we must remain conscious of the fact that c99 is in its own state of accelerated change, having received hundreds of new member since March 4 (kos' Ides of March Edict; anybody got real numbers, please?). I think that, as members of both categories, we must give careful attention to the question, 'What do we want this nation, and this site, to become?'.

The first part of Raggedy Ann's diary is an excellent example of how we, as members of a nation, can most productively orient ourselves toward creating a new future for our country. Of course, at the moment, we are pointing that energy at electing Sanders. But (as you and I have already discussed) we who call ourselves 'Progressives' must begin NOW to prepare the groundwork for a different future for our country, and we must begin creating ways to move forward on that path so we will be ready to continue whether or not Bernie wins.

If it serves no other purpose, stl's rancorous and rancor-generating diary shows me that is is time for c99 to begin to think about 'what do we want to become'. (In my twenties, I challenged my reprobate Dad with what I thought was the killer question: 'Why, you don't even know what you're here for!'. He grinned that grin and bellowed, 'Yes I do! I'm here (pause) to be (pause) the BEST bad example I can be! And of course he got me laughing.)

C99 began when, in (Fall?) 2014 (after continuous warring-states status for a year and a half, beginning (for me) with the Snowden Wars in June - Sept 2013), when the so-called 'Rox-Sux' wars had been going on for a while, very viciously, and kos laid down an edict and the Roxxers swarmed mercilessly, causing one well-respected person to close down her daily 'digest' diary and self-deport (or was she banned? Better memory than mine needed, please.) Anyway, a great number of people were banned or self-deported, and many others remained but sharply cut back on their involvement. Some of these people started the first Lifeboat -- a gmail group I was part of at first -- which eventually became c99.

The c99 core-group has been together now for what, a year, year and a half? And although all came to the Lifeboat with varying degrees of what I consider 'dKos PTSD', they've had a long time to work through that and agree together on how they practice their discourse here.

The current influx of new members, many in various states of 'dKos PTSD', or otherwise having been engaged in high-stakes battles for some time, may need some time to relax and discover that this is not dKos or any of the warrior-states', but then again it is not the anti-dKos, a safer place to throw stones from. (I for one hope it is not allowed to devolve into Howling Monkey Island, and I trust it will not.)

Another change to c99 becuase of the recent influx is that c99 (formerly known to few, mostly by invitation) is now 'a thing' at dKos -- which, like it or not, has incredibly wide readership all over the world. Dual-membership people are now including c99 in comments, inviting friends or likely 'good fits', quoting/citing posts/posers here, and cross-linking. Which means that c99 now has much higher visibility worldwide than it did two weeks ago. (For a number of people, stl's diary at dKos will be their first exposure to c99; if it had been your first exposure, what would your opinion of c99 be? Would you want to see more?)

So I think it is time for us here at c99 to begin to apply ourselves seriously to the question 'What do we want to Become?'. By 'seriously', I mean something like a weekly diary which discusses questions like, 'What kind of rhetoric can we allow? Are there types of rhetoric we must disallow? If so, what the rhetorical boundaries, and how are we to set and enforce them? Our 'no-name, tip only' acknowledgment system has worked wel so far -- but do we need to expand it (using dKos' hostility-provoking Tip/HR method as the Best Bad Example) so we can 'discommend' (if that's the Klingon term) behaviors like ad-hocs or Atwater tactics? And if so, how? If someone write a diary that we at c99 'discommend', and cross-posts it, are we supposed to let that post (which contains c99's name/link) remain unchallenged or should we go to that site and post about c99's disagreement/'discomending'?

I can understand that initiating serious discussion about these things will be uncomfortable for most of us. But the first step in building a new groundwork is breaking new ground. And if you're wanting to build a new community on a new groundwork, the first and most important part of groundbreaking is deciding where the sewer lines should go in, and digging them first.

So I don't know if I responded to the point you raised, CantstoptheSignal, but this is the response that poured out as I began my reply to you.

Best wishes CW

whether Hill is a compulsive liar?

somehow, connected to sensetolisten's diary was appalled, and thought it was yours. My criticism of the 'HRC as pathological liar' above was intended as a response to sensetolisten'S diary, NOT TO YOURS. I am genuinely sorry for my mistake, and I am genuinely sorry for any dismay or pain my error may have caused you. I will add a a comment to my comment above, so that readers of my comment above know of my mistake. And I will got to stl's diary here and put my criticism there, where it belongs. (My comments at dKos were in stl's diary, so I don't think I need to correct anything over there, but if you think I do, please let me know.)

I really mean this as a sincere apology, but if you are still hurt or feel in any way that this is a 'nopology', please let me know so we can talk it out until you feel I've truly made amends.

Because of my link/tabs mixup (I tried to reconstruct it but couldn't find my error), I still haven't read your diary of today. After I have done my best to rectify my mistake, I'll read it at both sites.

Best wishes, CW