CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 06, 2010 06:23 PM UTC

Steve Harvey

  • 53 Comments
  • by: Teeter

I don’t know this guy and wasn’t around these last few weeks–traveling and busy and all that–but I have been lurking awhile then signed up.  I mean to come by more.  So I don’t know what happened.  But some of his postings were funny, most were interesting and that BJ character (am I allowed to call him BJ?) is usually kind of foolish.

Anyways I wrote one article here yet, been meaning to write some more

So, what do people think?  Poll follows…

Should Steve Harvey be permanetly banned

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

53 thoughts on “Steve Harvey”

  1. I don’t know the story about what Steve did, but IMHO opinion, he should be out campaigning and raising funds instead of spending so much time on blogs trying to convince people he’s right.

    1. And yet, having vibrant and well-run campaigns even in sure loss seats is important because it helps higher up the ticket by helping to engage the voters that the big campaigns may not reach as effectively.

      So while I understand his willingness to troll blogs rather than campaign, on balance I agree with you. Even though he’s going to lose, he took on the responsibility of running a campaign with that full knowledge. He still retains that responsibility, and should be working to fulfill it rather than engaging in blogfights with prepubescent Republicans.

      1. Yeah – he should be banned.

        I can’t believe he let himself get drawn into a pissing match with a grad student.

        If he did that on a blog, I can’t imagine how he would be if he actually won a seat in the Legislature (’cause there’s some people there with about as much tact as Mr BJ).

        In any case, thanks for the info!

        1. But I’m curious – why do you think he should be banned for this? Beej did give all that info voluntarily. So far, no one who supports the ban has really been able to explain this.

          1. If BJ voluntarily offered up his info that’s his problem for being so stupid.

            IMO, Steve shouldn’t have reposted the info in the way that he did. That’s in violation of everything we have here. The rhetoric may get heated, but no one should post someone else’s personal info, even if the poster in question ‘outed’ himself first. Steve should have let it lie and avoided the temptation to stoop to that level. If he was angry enough to do that with BJ, who’s to say he wouldn’t do it with another poster who disagreed with him?

            1. He posted all of that information while posting under his own name. Most of that information has been repeated several times, and is very much out in the open. The whole discussion of undermining the anonymity of someone who had not anonymity, and was not trying to have any anonymity, just doesn’t make any sense at all.

              Again, if that’s where the line is, then any reference to any information that David Theilan or Steve Harvey has ever shared on the blog would be an “outing” as well. But we all know that it isn’t.

  2. He should keep making new accounts and not just let it die! Steve is totally sane, and not maladjusted whatsoever! He has more sock puppet hours logged than call time hours logged, I would wager.

    At least it’s been an entertaining distraction from the primary threads.

    1. the sockpuppets exist only to respond to misinformation, and are only replaced when deleted. In other contexts, a person has a right to confront his accusers, and defend himself against the accusations. There’s no reason why that shouldn’t be so here.

      1. Not blogging at all. But that would be wayyyy too hard.

        I’m still not really grasping why you’re so upset about your real name getting banned. Steve’s still here, right? He’s free to blog under god knows how many sockpuppet accounts. So what did Colorado Pols really do?

        What ever happened to Yevrah Evets or whatever he was? Pick one anonymous use name and stick to it. Like I said, it’s entertaining right now, but after the primary it’s probably going to get pretty old.

        I still say Steve should take a break from the blogosphere before he bursts a blood vessel and dies.

  4. Steve intentionally outed BJ, which is explicitly against Colorado Pols rules, and we had no other choice but to disable his account. Steve wants to argue about the definition of “outing,” but are rules are very clear: Don’t divulge the personal information of others. Period. Here are those rules:

    First off, it is your right to post anonymously at Colorado Pols. Anyone who attempts to “out” someone by posting information or hints toward their identity will be banned from the site. We want everyone to feel comfortable posting in the manner in which they are most, uh, comfortable.

    At Colorado Pols, you are allowed to sign up under any pseudonym you choose; we don’t care if you want to use your real name or not, and if anyone else cares…that’s their problem. We will do our best to protect all posters against anyone who tries to reveal or hint at someone’s real name.

    Steve knew the rules, because he even commented in a post we wrote a few days before about how people need to calm down in the comments and that we will not tolerate any attempts at “outing” someone else.

    It is true that, over the course of many months, BJ divulged bits of personal information; Steve will argue that because BJ gave out that information voluntarily, he could not be “outed.” But the information BJ gave out was never done all at once — and we certainly didn’t know all of the information about BJ (nor would most visitors here). Someone (Steve) would have had to collect that information from various places in order to piece it all together, which Steve did here.

    Steve intentionally displayed as much of BJ’s personal information as he could. Did he do it because he was angry at BJ? Was he trying to prove a point? It doesn’t matter, because our rules are very simple — you don’t divulge personal information about other people that is not explicitly clear from their own user name. There is nothing arbitrary about this rule. It’s clear, and always has been clear. Just don’t do it.

    From past comments on Pols, it is clear that Steve has always had a tendency to get caught up in “flame wars” and to take things probably more personally than he should. Maybe he just got overheated and let his emotions get the better of him. But at the end of the day, he broke the #1 cardinal rule at Colorado Pols. Everyone who breaks that rule gets booted. Even Steve.

    Steve is obviously upset about this, and that’s his right to be upset. But this is a very simple, cut-and-dried situation (no matter what he says otherwise). Steve has since repeatedly tried to come back to Colorado Pols under new sockpuppets (which have been deleted as well) which is a pretty good indicator of what he thinks of rules and whether they should apply to him.

    You don’t have to like our posting rules, but you do have to follow them if you want to be here. And we really don’t ask much of folks. We let people say pretty much anything, including strong criticisms of Colorado Pols itself; there aren’t many big sites in Colorado that would let you do that. We don’t ask much in our policies, but we don’t make exceptions, either.

    We didn’t want to ban Steve. We’re not happy about it. But we can’t, and won’t, pick and choose how we will deal with users who break the posting rules.

    And that is all there is to be said about this, so please, leave the dead horse where it is.

      1. But hopefully this will put this to bed and we can stop discussing something that really shouldn’t be controversial. Like we said, we didn’t want to ban Steve, and there was certainly no ulterior motive here. We have a responsibility to enforce the rules evenly and clearly. BJ may be guilty of baiting Steve into doing what he did, but ultimately it is Steve’s responsibility to not break the rules.

        Hopefully this also removes any potential ambiguity for others — you do not reveal someone else’s personal information if they choose to write under a pseudonym. There is no excuse or rationale for doing so. Just don’t do it.  

      2. aren’t worth the paper they’re not printed on.

        At this point, my opinion is that this issue may have become one of ego (and that’s where I start to lose empathy).

        I am convinced that Hamlet knew the answer to his question before he asked it.  It most definitely “tis [far, far] nobler to suffer the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune.”

        We have all known lots of good men and women that have suffered more self-inflicted pain and derision from their own deeds to redress a perception of unjust personal greivance, than the grievance ever casued them.  That’s always a case of, “more’s the pity.”

        In my opinion, one of the few truly great and admirable human beings alive on this planet today is Nelson Mandela.  I’ll certain that no one reading this can even begin to imagine Mr. Mandela, one of the most egregiously wronged persons alive, engaging in some petty internet flame war because he felt he was owed an apology.

        Thankfully, the Steve Harvey that I have grown to admire in the relatively short time that I have been frequenting this site is a man of mature character and thoughtfulness.  I’m secure in the knowledge that he won’t be foolishly wasting any of his, or any one else’s time, time in childish and foolish exercises of self-validation.

        (I do hope, however, that he does concoct a way to return to this site in a positive manner.  I have already missed the usually thoughtful, well reasoned, and well explained views he provides to our discussions.  And, I can’t imagine that Pols doesn’t also share this same wish.)

        1. Thankfully, the Steve Harvey that I have grown to admire in the relatively short time that I have been frequenting this site is a man of mature character and thoughtfulness

          That could use a few drops of loc-tite.

          1. My grandfather was a man who could always draw out the best in me by expecting me to be better than I was naturally inclined to be.  I actually tried be better than my inclinations because I wanted to live up to his expectations.  It’s a lesson I have found to have value.

    2. … since no one else even addressed the question I raised (namely, whether the fact that beej divulged this info mitigates this at all).

      Right now, because I remember details like this, I know the personal names of those who post under the handles “parsingreality” and “Phoenix Rising.” Both parties gave that information voluntarily, along with things like where they live and what they do for a living. In short, the same thing that beej did. (And, BTW, I remembered most – but admittedly not all – of beej’s info too.)

      Can I be assured that I wouldn’t be banned if I shared this info? I know that HOW Steve posted beej’s info matters, and I wouldn’t share PR or parsing’s info out of anger, but I currently don’t feel able to even mention any individual bits of info in passing, as I have in the past.

      And I suppose I should ask why the offending comments haven’t been deleted.

      After this, I promise to be done with it here.

      1. Even DavidThi808 has stated that he likes posting with a pseudonym so that his opinions are not easy to find with a google search on his name. So by the bjwilson83 standard, is it a bannable offense to mention his name or his profession or the name of his company while debating him, if he chooses one day not to mention it himself?

        1. Why would you need to mention someone’s name or profession or the name of their company? That information helps other users figure out the identity of someone who uses a pseudonym, so it is not allowed.  

      2. A passing reference or a friendly hello to someone like DavidThi808, who regularly mentions his full name, wouldn’t be a problem. But calling him David would be different than writing something like, “So you’re David Thielen, who lives in XX city, is XX years old and does XX for a living.” That, of course, is entirely unnecessary.

        We wouldn’t say the same about parsingreality or Phoenix Rising, because while they many have mentioned their real names at some point, the certainly don’t make a habit of it. The important point is that there is no reason to use their real names here. If someone writes under a pseudonym, you should address them here under that pseudonym. If they wanted you to call them by their real name, then they’d probably use their real name as their login in the first place.

        Again, there are no good reasons that we can think of where it would be necessary to address someone under a name that is not what they use for their pseudonym.

        We think we did address whether it is relevant that BJ divulged personal information before, but here it is again. In Steve’s case, he wrote BJ’s full name, his age and what he does for a living. It doesn’t matter to us if BJ had made that information available elsewhere at some time in the past, because there was no good reason for Steve to do that other than to make BJ uncomfortable. And that’s not okay.

      3. We realized that there was a way in the SoapBlox software to disable account without erasing all comments ever made by that person. Since Steve had so many comments on so many threads, it would have been overly disruptive to delete them all (which deletes all subsequent responses). We will delete the “outing” comments in question individually.

    3. .

      and can look up everything down to my shoe size elsewhere on the ‘net.  

      But I’ve had death threats from people who actually kill for a living, so I don’t want them following me here.  

      The handle allows me to disclose selectively so that only regulars can piece it all together.

      For other folks here who disclose selectively over time, outing could affect their livelihood.  Employers do google employee names from time to time, and even if conduct is legal, personal biases can come into play.  

      Folks in “top dog” positions like Dave from the 808, Sir Robin and MotR don’t have to worry about that so much, but most here work for somebody else or several somebody elses, or are accountable to the public in other ways.  

      Steve is interesting to read, some of the time, but he has a personality characteristic that can get out ahead of him.  This is offered as constructive criticism from another person with a counterproductive personality characteristic or two himself.  

      I hope he is chastened by this.  Not cowed, and certainly not incensed into retribution.  This is one of those chances to grow that aren’t so welcome when first encountered, but maybe, over time, is revealed as a good thing, in some ways.  

      Then, when the steam is no longer shooting out of his ears, maybe he can climb back into the saddle on an ordinary steed and rejoin under an anonymous handle.  

      I monitor all of the ISP addresses folks post from, and I get the impression that one of Steve’s neighbors, the one he steals wireless connectivity from, has come aboard to present his side of the story, probably at Steve’s pleading insistence.  That neighbor should let it go, as should Steve.  

      Come back when this doesn’t make you crazy, because right now, it still does.

      Love and Peace.

      Brian

      .

    4. I live in a house with five people. We have one router, one network and five computers. (Not to potential thieves — they all suck — you wouldn’t want them.) When one of the other house members tries to create a blogger account, it keeps recognizing their computer as mine because of the shared IP address. To Pols — How do you know Steve’s family or roommates (or coworkers) weren’t trying to do the same thing?  I’ve always wondered about this. Seems kind of unfair to assume.

      I do appreciate the adherence to rules though. I’ve been outed a number of times on Pols and the other blog. Most of my political friends here know who I am, but we deserve the right to use a screen name so we can talk to each other freely here. I’m just sorry Steve got caught — he’s been one of the good guys, and I know the ones who outed me are right back on the blogs.   : (

      Good lesson for us all. “Miss you, Steve!”

    5. I forgot about the hinting part. Since so many of us have worked together at various jobs in the past, it is good to be reminded mentions of personal stories that could serve as a hint are off limits. Thanks.

  6. Steve – my brother – you’re a candidate for State House like I was in 2008 – more importantly – you’re a first time candidate – a few things –

    1. Stop reading blogs – save it for post election – reading blogs right now will only mess with your head

    2. Keep your cool – take deep breaths – if someone gets under your skin, then they won

    3. Even if you lose this race, you’re still building a reputation for the future – don’t forget that – win or lose, this isn’t gonna be your last race – be mindful of the history you’re leaving

    Be well my friend and hang in there!  

    1. Enough already.  If (and when) Pols bans me, I’m going to go outside, and play with my kids and hang with the wife.

      This is freaking out of hand.

      Pols, you might as well just sell the blog to him because this is such an earth-shattering deal.

      Fuck it.  He outed someone to be scary, and he’s gone.  

      Could we please just move on?  This is like first grade.

    2. “Colorado Pols is obsolete” meme that Steve seems to be pushing now over there.

      This is a place that different viewpoints can be aired.  Squarestate is a purely left-wing site, no conservative thinking allowed.  

      As long as everyone is allowed to speak their mind here, Colorado Pols will continue to be at the forefront of online political talk in this state.  Squarestate will always be more like Colorado’s Democratic Underground, no fringe is too far out.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

201 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!