The Current Jam

The following is a scathing (draconian for those that love that word of the day that www.dictionary.com have up…well daily – free plug) opinion encased in bitter disregard for a business model that would allow such stupidity to exist, let alone continue unabashed. I am a disgruntled former poster. I’m someone that thinks fairness is necessary to keep no matter the location, online or off, fairness should be present. Fairness is necessary. If you disagree on that then you should never be in a position that would allow you to be unfair to others.

Fairness is defined (by awesome dictionary.com) as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. I’m going to go into how Current TV and Current.com have not followed fairness by going word by word. First, I have to tell you how it was so you have context of what’s missing. Then I’ll gladly get into how they are not free from bias, dishonesty or injustice.

What is CurrentTV? CurrentTV is a station that gave the viewer more of a voice than traditional news stations, such as CNN or anything local. It was supposed to be heavy on the viewer content. Such as someone’s webcam or an actual video of them going out and showing their community concerns. This was something that CNN noticed with their “Ireporting”. That’s the sell of CurrentTV: that the viewer would be able to speak out. CurrentTV would have their own (and it was good) content such as the political satire cartoon “SuperNews” and other things that were similar to The Daily Show but more quick and hard hitting. Their Vanguard team is/were awesome. Now it seems plastic and forced.

Current.com had a voice bot that would read the popular news titles of the hour as well as a single post for that article. I was the chosen poster 62 times. These clips are no longer on Current.com or I’d link one as an example. They were about 1:30 – 2 minutes long and fit at least 3 stories in each clip. If you were a chosen poster you’d get an email with the subject title: “Current US wants you” or “Current UK wants you.” They had different stories that were popular for the different countries that CurrentTV is located. The bot would read the title of the article, summarize it, and then state the chosen post by showing the poster’s screen name, avatar, and quote. It was awesome. I saved those emails so that I could watch them or share them with others. No 24-hour news station did that….until they started reading Twitter on air. No anchor could have a cool voice as the female bot.

I don’t know if these stations took things from Current to be popular and to make themselves look better, but it really seems like they did; which doesn’t explain why Current.com and CurrentTV had to alter so much to look the same, when what they had was unique.


I like Current.com because of the different (for now) opinions that everyone has. If I wanted to only see my own opinion, I’d make a blog about it. I don’t care to do that often enough. I like forums and the different people that’ll come in and share their views no matter how crazy they are or how much I disagree. I don’t like people agreeing constantly, it’s like having a bunch of Yes Men around and that’s informative. I’m not a fan of the mob or gang mentality. Different perspectives end up giving a whole picture if you know how to put the pieces together. If you have only one security camera on your property you don’t really have anything protected. You need several to see the whole property. Opinions are no different. In order to see the whole picture, different perspectives need to be taken into account.

Let’s get into why Current.com is NOT ruled with a fairly.


From their own words to a boomerang effect.

Current connects young adults with what is going on in their world, from their perspective, in their own voices.

“…in their own voices” means as long as it’s liberal. That’s the lynchpin to Current.com - that way of thinking is paramount. That is their bias. There are countless examples. I’ll give a few and show Current’s love affair with the L word.

The Current voice isn’t anything but a liberal one. That would be ok if they’d admit to it instead of pretend to be fair. If points it out, they’ll state that it’s the posters that decide what becomes popular and not site bias.

What they do not tell you is they prune the posters until there is a powerful single minded viewpoint; a liberal one. Look at any article on homosexuals or police and you’ll see that the single viewpoint that is acceptable is to think like a liberal. No other thoughts are acceptable.

Everyday one of the ten things (mentioned shortly) will be on their top stories list. There is so much going on in the world and yet somehow liberal minded bias keeps focus on a limited number. Amazingly there’s a lot of hate that they fester in order to function on Current.com, but unless you hate what the dogmatic liberal minded-control freaks laced with bias hate, you’re not going to last very long. They have no stomach for people who think outside the liberal box. Now watch as they go and run around and point out all their conservative posters. It’s like the racist running around gathering all the black people they ever talked to and using them as trophies of how they are not racist. It’s like using the Tea Party video to show there are not minorities and then stating OMG these people are racist. That’s the same mindset as the BET awards. Where are the white people?

Current.com is the first fully integrated web and TV platform where users can participate in shaping an ongoing stream of news and information that is compelling, authentic and relevant to them.


Who is “them”? I didn’t ever feel as if I were part of “them” when I posted there. Maybe because I’m not infected with Current.com STD (Single Thought Dysfunction). When I first posted there, I was no different from when I left. I don’t become “worse” or “comfortable” I post the same from the initial post until the final post of any forum I’ve ever been a part of. The difference is the attention I start to receive for my comments. If one could see what I said that were picked for those clips they’d see no difference over what I said in December 2009 that got me into fake trouble.

Next: Current Injustice.

The following email suspended me at the end of October:

Hey J_Jammer,


We noticed you violated our community guidelines once again. As we have discussed with you, we do not allow personal attacks on Current. You have continued to post comments (like the one below) which contain personal attacks. We have previously warned you about posting content that violates our community guidelines and told you that any additional violations would result in a more severe action being taken. You have disregarded our warnings and continued to post such content. We have therefore suspended your account for two weeks Current.com.


Sincerely,
Danielle
Online Community Team


Comment:
“You would know, stalker.”

It’s like the stupid law: three strikes you’re out. Steal bread three times and are caught three times you’ll go to jail forever like a murderer. That’s injustice. Either I’m very good at insulting, or someone is egging on the nitpicky nature of the lower rung of a dying online community. Injustice.

It’s wrong to call a person who follows you around and makes comments solely about what you post (while ignoring the topic all together) a stalker, but it’s ok if you tell someone they are stupid as long as you use big words you looked up in a thesaurus.


A reply to Janforgore (pretentious name, by the way—totally shows in 99.9% of her comments…don’t love trees and want to sex ‘em…then you hate the earth and want it to die.) by eldamon:

That lacked your usual verbosity, which isn't necessarily bad but it did fail to address the question. Perhaps you could elaborate, succinctly if possible.


Call someone a stalker get banned. Tell them they are stupid via vocabulary word of the day it’s ok. That’s injustice.

Or telling them that they have a problem that you have no proof for. Another reply to Janforgore by DeliaTheArtist:

If that's what you got from the comment, you clearly missed the point. I asked you to consider, from your own spiritual perspective, what effect your words might have on others - was your response thoughtful, or even relevant? No, it was snarky and childish. This is your moral higher ground? This is where your spiritual path has led you, to a snide superiority complex? This is what you've learned from Christ?


She’s mocking Jan’s beliefs because she’s not being as Delia would like her to be. How’s that any different than calling someone a stalker? Injustice.

On top of telling her she has a complex (which she does) Delia (who also has a pretentious screen name) tells her that she is useless and a disappointment to Christ---a person, by the way, that she doesn’t even believe ever existed, but she uses every opportunity to mock anyone who believes otherwise. Not only a double standard and an injustice, but if it were racial then Delia would get into trouble (maybe). However, because it’s about Christian beliefs it’s ok. Injustice.

I flagged Delia’s comment and I flagged what Jan had said as well, but I was told that they didn’t break any rules. Nevertheless, my simple comment of pure fact telling someone that they’re a stalker was enough to ban me. Injustice.

Then the nail in the coffin:

Hey J_Jammer,

It’s come to our attention that a recent comment you made is in violation of Current’s Community Guidelines ( http://current.com/s/community_standards.htm). As we have discussed with you in the past, we do not allow bigoted remarks or personal attacks on Current. Your account has previously been suspended for two weeks for the continued posting of comments that are in violation of our Community Guidelines.
As you have been informed, any further posting of content that violates Current’s Community Guidelines after your suspension was over will result in a permanent disabling of your account on Current. As you have disregarded this and continued to post such content, we are permanently suspending this account.

Sincerely,

Danielle
Online Community Team

Comment:
“They should put a gun in his and and a few gold teeth in his mouth and that would be the black thing to do.”


They didn't show where the comment came from. They said it came from the Prince of Persia article and I thought it was from the Black Jesus article. Doesn’t matter, there are several posts in both articles that are far worse than the above quote. There are attacks on being white and Christian. But that’s ok. Injustice.

Danielle links the community standards that are more ambiguous than the Ambiguously Gay Duo, and expects that to be ample proof of a violation. I send back several emails asking why is it a violation. I explain why doesn’t violate anything under any rule in any place in the known universe. They could not give a reply because they knew they’re unfair and unjust. They permeate injustice.

However, Nettle made a video complaining about several things including me being ban for the comment above. What one can notice in these comments, under Nettle’s video, is that the two things I got into trouble for do not even come close to the vicious comments some posters made about me. To understand further how annoyed I was by the unfairness of it all you may read my DeviantArt Journal.


It should be the same standard for ALL posters and mods on the entire site in order to be fair. That’s stated in their own rules that everyone has to abide by the same rules. What they fail to tell you is that the rules are subject to interpretation via liberal colored glasses and that interpretation is done by those who have grudges and a necessity to show injustices in all it‘s hypocritical glory. Nothing is fair about a person who oppresses someone else even if it‘s online. Injustice. It’s like a Caesar with his thumb up or thumb down business. There’s nothing logical about the interpretation of the rules. They rule by feeling more than fairness. Injustice.

I’m a very consistent person in what I state. I don’t alter my statements to cater to
comfort those around me. I might not speak because I cannot lie about what I think. I’ll do it to keep from upsetting someone. I refuse to flatter. And yet I get into trouble for being consistent. Some state it’s because I’m aggressive in my approach. I say that people show their true colors when they are angry far more than when they are clam.

What shouldn’t be consistent but is are the top ten articles that are shown on the right side of the front page of Current.com. These ten are not always on the actual top all the time, but there is hardly ever a time when at least two exist there. I list the following in no particular order:

1. Hate on Sarah Palin. (stupid *vulgar word for a woman*)
2. Hate on any talk radio or TV personality that are conservative.
3. Pot legalization.
4. Gay Marriage necessity
5. Hate on Christians and the Bible
6. Atheist are Awesome/victimized Atheist
7. Anti White anything

8. Blame Bush for Obama’s lacking
9. Excuse Obama’s lacking because of 1st year (no matter if it’s second year it’ll just turn to 1st term) or just patting him on the back needlessly because he’s not Bush.
10. Go Green even if it makes you puke or lose your home….whichever comes first

Harry Reid talked about Obama’s skin color. The way he said it, sucked. I don’t care what time frame I would be in…I’d never say something in that manner. But it’s ok he’s a liberal, he not only gets a free pass in most of the media and Congress, but also on the “fair” CurrentTV and Current.com. It’s dishonest. Where was that story? It didn’t even make the top ten on the front page. Of course Rush's mocking comments of Reid via the Haitian earthquake is on the top ten (Roger Ebert’s Letter to Rush). That is, of course, dishonest. It shouldn’t matter who says what so much as why they said it and what does it mean. However, for some reason jumping to the “island of conclusions” is a great idea. If only that island floated away with those idiots, because the world would be better for it; no humans. Everyone jumps to conclusions, but there are those that settle down and realize that maybe they jumped the Nerf a bit. It’s dishonest to conclude that one person is racist via a comment that is no different than someone else’s comments. In this case Reid vs. Rush comment including my comment.
It’s dishonest and it’s unfair.

Who owns Current?

Current is one of the few independent media companies with national cable and satellite TV distribution. It is financed by private investors and individuals.

That was then….this is now:

In late 2009, after the announcement of the Comcast-NBC merger, the Comcast Corporation submitted a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed it owns a ten percent stake of Current Media LLC.


It’s dishonest to not inform all that they are no longer only backed by independent companies. It’s dishonest that they don’t show that Comcast owns a fraction. And how long has this been going on? 10% stake in an “independent” news organization? Not so independent any more and certainly leaning whatever direction that 10% would have them lean. Right? Just think about it, had the person that owns Fox News (Rupert Murdoch) bought a 10% stake in Current how many people would have a problem with that? Hello….99% of that site whine. So why don’t people have a problem with this? I understand that 10% stake in a business doesn’t mean controlling interest. It’s just funny that if it were Fox News that had 10% stake in it there would be an uproar.

Where’s the viewer content? Why has the bot been removed? Why has the front page changed from just news to showing all kinds of pandering things that are mainly just prattling via entertainment or GO GREEN crowd? How is this different than Yahoo’s front page or any other news organization’s front page? Yahoo has buzz up where news rises higher when members click on the button to BuzzUp. Why must Current.com change to comfort others when what they had before was just fine for all the regulars? They stood out as different and better than other news websites. Why are they hiding the reason they had changed everything? Dishonesty.


These are all startup networks: Why and how does Comcast have an ownership stake in them? It’s not hard to understand. These startups did what they had to do to get carriage on Comcast, and that meant relinquishing shares of their companies to the cable giant.

They sold their souls to the devil in order to be shown. They could have garnered a new era of Internet-TV. Instead they, the independent mind and the voice of the young, decided to allow themselves to be pillaged so their goods could be shown for a price. Pathetic and dishonest.

We've crafted these guidelines to ensure that everyone within the community has the best experience possible. Keeping Current an enjoyable experience is everyone's responsibility - it starts by being accountable for your behavior on the site. If you don't feel that you can abide by our Community Guidelines as outlined above, maybe Current isn't for you.


Showing any deviation from the Top 10 list makes you an enemy of the Site (their liberal control) and they’ll nitpick until they fake a reason to get rid of you (injustice) and then they’ll fall back on the “you didn’t follow the guidelines” totally forgetting to insert “MY” in there (dishonest). So they should really be stating: You didn’t follow MY guidelines. Showing that Current.com distances itself from fairness every chance it gets. I do not understand why it’s so difficult to run a site that has multiple opinions. It seems that mods (on any site) think they are only logical sans any emotion (bias thinkers). If that is the case then why is it that their decisions seem so emotional like a teen dressed all in black? (again bias) The internet is supposed to be a realm of information but apparently there are gods of the internet and they are either the Government or Mods (injustice). Pick the lesser of two evils, if you can differentiate.

Remember, keep things respectful and try not to step on other community members' right to disagree. If you have any questions, please feel free to send us a note at yourfriends@current.com.

That last part is my favorite. The right to disagree is just for those that see morals as an ambiguous mess (via their bias). That is unless it has to do with racism (against only blacks and Mexicans – because the others don’t matter--injustice), feminist double standards, religious hate (specifically Christians via dishonesty), Homosexuality and rape. Then it’s black and white. There’s no such thing as a gray area with those topics. And with that line of thinking there’s no gray matter either. They wear unfairness like a badge of honor.

On May 4, 2004, INdTV Holdings, a company co-founded by Gore and Joel Hyatt, purchased cable news channel NewsWorld International (NWI) from Vivendi Universal for the express purpose of launching their new network with the space on some digital cable lineups (and DirecTV) that NWI had. The new network would not have political leanings, Gore said, but would serve as an "independent voice" for a target audience of people between 18 and 34 "who want to learn about the world in a voice they recognize and a view they recognize as their own."

What was that? Let me say it LOUDER in internet shout: THE NETWORK WOULD NOT HAVE POLITICAL LEANINGS….AN “INDEPENDENT VOICE” (showcasing bias and dishonesty). Can anyone show that Current.com and Current TV have NO political leanings? The top ten constant articles show that there is a massive leaning. The no mention of Majority Speaker Harry Reid on the front page shows there is a massive leaning via dishonesty.

The target audience is me. The people that got me into trouble are outside that target audience. They are older than the age cut off of 34. (like Janforgore, Keithponder, Jubal or Vierotchka) I didn’t get to hear about the world through anyone’s voice other than leery liberal lip that spits vitriol, injustice and dishonesty. That is in no way my voice. That voice is boring and it takes a bat and beats a dead horse like in Gone with the Wind (injustice). She was a liberal in training. Conservative is not my voice either. My voice is my voice and what I decide is important should have equal weight as others on that site and what I say should be taken in the same context as what Reid had said, which was worse than what I said (injustice, dishonesty and bias all rolled into one. What is that? That‘s right UNFAIR). What he said is a secret that the black community does not talk about openly.

Do I have a problem with liberals or democrats (anyone that says I do is being dishonest)? No I don’t. I just find it frustrating that a group of people that claim to be progressive could do everything in their power to create a slippery slop, slide around, and pretend their pretentious white clothes are clean, ignoring the hypocritical mud.

CCurrent.com and CurrentTV changed. Why must they be unfair? To stay “current” or relevant? Do they have to? Some people think that they’d have to so that they wouldn’t go under. Eventually everyone changes to be more like everyone else so that they can stay afloat in the same business. Is that necessary? Patrick Gottsch created a 24-hour cable television network that focuses totally on rural America. What’s it about? It’s a blend of “four program genres: agriculture, horses, rural living and country music.” Gottsch said something that I think is to the point and right. He said, “No matter where you go, agriculture is important. Everybody’s gotta eat.” He may sound as if he’s simple, but complicated doesn’t equal rich, sometimes it equals drama and ain’t no one want any gosh darn drama in their life.

National news media as well as the big city news do not look at rural areas enough. Big tornado hit a small town and decimates it then that’s news. Otherwise they are ignored. There are millions of people in America that want news like this and he formed a station that they love. “…but as a mix they aggregate a Nielsen-rated audience of 13 million weekly viewers from small towns and farm communities across the U.S.” That is a lot of viewers and that is certainly more than Current TV has ever gotten in a single week. According to
TechCrunch’s screen shot of Current’s website it shows that it gets an average of 1 million visits a month. Go to that same website now and what do you find? You have to request to see the data. Why? You can see the webtraffic of any other website like Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSNBC, CNN and NPR. But you can’t get the webtraffic for Fox News either. Hummm….

On that country channel, they have “executives from John Deere show up to chat about their new tractor line.” I’m not all interested in most of what this article talks about. Nevertheless, based on what I’m discussing about Current’s need to alter their platform to survive it is amazing and exciting. Here is a man that created an idea that fused together loves of a big part of America and people are gobbling it all up. They love it. They love the attention their “little” world is getting. Why shouldn’t they? This little old station, RFD, might even have a heavy hand in the decision of the 2012 Presidential campaign…well that’s according to Gottsch. “There are more rural states and senators than there are urban states and senators.”

Current might have had money problems and yes, money is important to stay afloat, but how one gets the money matters a lot. Did they have to go to a cable company to sell their right foot? No, they did not. They could have come up with creative and innovative ways of staying relevant and afloat without selling any part of them. They could have had people donate money as NPR does on a yearly base. They could have hosted big city parties where they put cover price and have speakers and fun, anything that would generate money from those that view the station than those that could potentially cause the station to walk in a creative circle, i.e. controlling one foot. If Current.com and CurrentTV told the netizens and viewers that they did not want to ask a big business for help send in what you can, people would have done it.

Even though Gottsch had to work hard to get where he is with his station, he did not compromise his idea so much so that it changed. He kept it intact, he eventually made it, and feels appreciated for what he provides and even more so in years to come. If Current has to drop it’s channel and solely be on the internet, why not? Why not until they can find a home like RFD?

Current’s Slogan: Your World. View….(as long as it has bias, dishonesty and shows injustice)

The above is their slogan. It seems that it only works if you are liberal minded (bias, dishonest and unjust). How are they not like Fox News? I’ve failed to see any distinguishing marks. Everything that made them unique disappeared and what we have is a Liberal Lucifer of massive BS that they spin in hopes to keep all in their tangle web in which they wove with deception (dishonest beyond a doubt).

People posting at Current.com are being coaxed into believing that what they have is unique when in fact it’s like anything else that is out there (Current.com‘s dishonesty). For those that dislike Fox News so much it should pain them to realize that Current is following along the same lines (injustice, dishonesty and liberal (instead of conservative) bias). For all it could be and all it has been in its glory days Current.com and Current TV have fallen into line with everyone else's bias, injustice, and dishonesty. They’ve become just another news channel and why should anyone pay more to cable to watch what they can already see with CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and Comedy Central (bias, injustice and dishonesty)?

Fairness is defined (by that awesome website dictionary.com) as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Current.com is bias via their front page’s constant need to be liberal with the same BS articles over and over again. Current.com and Current TV are dishonest because they presented themselves as one thing on the onset of their creation and have since deviated from it in hopes no one noticed their subtle change into another Fox News; that would be for the lying liberals instead. Current.com is unjust and shows an injustice via their banning polices by their own bias and dishonesty as proof. Therefore, Current.com and Current TV are nowhere near the definition fair. It should not be ok with anyone that they are unfair. Hate me if you must. Dislike me if you have to, but do not lie about me.

They won’t only be unfair to just me, they’ll be unfair to others. It is an unhealthy precedent for them to set. For a station and website that was founded on the idea that they are about people having an opinion, it is unfair for them to sanction punishment for an opinion that someone had just because they did not agree with it. Their banning polices should be without bias and dishonesty and it should be far more specific than in general as it stands. This allows mods to be dishonest and pass on judgment for those that they do not like. Danielle has great reason to dislike me because I was not kind to her. She was not worth being kind to. However, just because I was not kind to her doesn’t mean that it warrants banning. Her personal dislike of me should not play into who gets to post on Current.com. If that is ok with you, then you had better prepare for when you step on someone’s online toes. You’ll be next.

The verdict is that Current.com and Current TV are unfair in their practices. Will they be different than other stations or get lost in the fray? So far, they seem to enjoy the sheep’s clothing that they wear so proudly. Changing their practices does not seem like something they care to do. Mourning what was is ok, because it’ll never (as it stands right now) come back.

15 comments:

Uncle Monkey said...

I have actually had several people I know on other sights tell me they avoid this site because of it's obvious bias.

Anonymous said...

J_Jammer, You seem to be upset at Current just because you think Current is being liberal because you don't agree with all of the stories. You can be upset at Current for any reason. But like you said in your article, Current's target audience is young adults and young adults tend to be more liberal or more modest. Young adults support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana more than old adults. Why does the story about Texas executing mentally retarded prisoners have a liberal bias if it's true?

What you didn't say in the article is that a lot of the stories on the front page and all in the top ten are determined by how popular the articles are (how many views and comments they get) the articles at the top are picked by the editors. They went over how they picked those articles and addressed some anger at it in a blog post a short time ago. I don't think all of the stories belong on the front page.

You also didn't say that the top ten list is updated many times through out the day. That top ten list you show, the one with you saying "4 days ago there was an earthquake...10 popular stories and only ONE is about the Earthquake, but only because Obama is mentioned," you are WRONG. The #7 story, the one you label "Christian hate article" is about the Haiti earthquake. You should have clicked on the links and read the stories rather than just reading the title. You also didn't show a top ten list from a day or two after the earthquake, there were five or more stories about the Haiti earthquake in a single top ten list. By the way, you didn't say which earthquake, the was one in Venezuela less than a week after the one in Haiti.

As for the Harry Reid story, there probably hasn't been much interested in the story because Reid made those remarks two years ago. It's old news, not "current." He said that "something about Obama and his skin color" that you don’t want to repeat: "Obama could become President because he was light-skinned and has no Negro dialect" (even though you wrote “They should put a gun in his and and a few gold teeth in his mouth and that would be the black thing to do.”), Reid was telling the truth, people wouldn't have voted for Obama if his skin was darker because then he wouldn't be closer to "normal" although he shouldn't have said Negro in my opinion.

Not all the stories on the front page or top ten list are "liberal." Dagum got a story on the top ten about Glenn Beck and "the main stream liberal elitist media," the story wasn't negative towards Glenn Beck. shanklinmike has been featured many time on the front page and he is a libertarian.

I actually do agree with you on the changes made to Current. They are becoming too mainstream. They used to different, now they're becoming more of the same. Thanks for telling me about Comcast owning a 10% stake of Current. That was a shock to me.

DCA said...

I actually found this story on Current.com. Hollywood_Dump posted it.

Uncle Monkey said...

He does have a point with certain people going after anything that puts this administration in a bad light. Even when it is documented, mainstream or on video. Diversion tactics and deflection from the topic at hand seem to be a specialty of this fraternity. The site would be much more interesting and informative if it would allow the truth to come out about all topics without sending out predators to whose sole intent is to misinform and alter the truth. For a liberal site, these techniques are eerily similar to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. This may seem cute to some but is extremely annoying to anyone wanting to use the information provided for educational purposes.
My nephew and members of his organization are bloggers at the site and they printed out examples of this and I must say as I read J_Jammer's post it was like a play by play with the names even matching the players.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry this ban bothers you so much. I really thought you would have moved on by now; you're very busy with other things. You obviously don't like what Current has become (it has changed a lot), so perhaps it's best to justs put it behind you. I do find it strange, though, that you took a screen shot of the H.E.M.P. group page, then point out that they are all articles on marijuana or "pot love" articles, which you find boring. Of course they're articles on marijuana! It's the H.E.M.P. group! :) You're being a bit misleading there.

And your quote, “They should put a gun in his and and a few gold teeth in his mouth and that would be the black thing to do.” I'm sorry, man, but that's offensive. Was it an attempt at humor or sarcasm? Sometimes these are hard to detect in writing. I think anyone would have gotten into trouble for that one. I wish you the best.

Anonymous said...

You know exactly what you are doing and you just love how people are responding to your twisted truth. I bet it gets you off at night just thinking about it.

If I could have given the reason for your banning you would have been plain and simple "because your a fagot conservative nutjob" just to piss you off so you would get all flustered and cry more like you are here.

Anonymous said...

J Jammer is right. Current is left leaning but I find many right leaning posts and comments as well. Bottom line is that Current's demographic is left and therefore most of the stories lean that way.

However, J Jammer has posted numerous hateful, distasteful, and nasty comments so it is no surprise that something small was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Anonymous said...

All of these articles are praising Obama right?

http://current.com/groups/haiti-earthquake/

NONE OF THE STORY HEADLINES HAVE "Obama" IN THEM.

unimatrix0 said...

Fuck Jammer,

He couldn't play by the rules, he was warned repeatedly, and he was tossed. Good riddance.

After reading this blog I find nothing but a petty little worm crying "poor me". He could still be posting his drivel here if he had half a brain and learned to play by the rules.

Perhaps he has a martyr complex; perhaps he is just an idiot; perhaps a little of both. In any case he dug his own grave.

Anonymous said...

cry me a river jammer.

J_Jammer said...

Pay attention to the following:

each of the comments above have a trashcan next to them. I could click any one of them and they'd no longer exist. Especially the stupid emotional ones, the ones that claim rules as proof of right, the ones that didn't read the article and the ones that use a borg avatar on Current. Borg is apt for that site, though.

I'm not going to do that because this isn't Current and I am not Current. And everything that was said was based on an opinion...one that is created via conjecture, but an opinion none-the-less. Nothing is wrong with that.

Now to some of the almost valid points that people have.

The voting system is flawed. It's flawed for many reasons and the main reason is that you (Anonymous person--though I know who you are) couldn't explain it simply within your own comment. It's flawed system and it makes the whole site trashy. Popularity matters there...and that is what shouldn't matter when it comes to news.

Having any hate in your article and then promote a humanitarian thing is not ok. It's stupid. If you care about the people that is who you focus on, not on how people didn't listen to you years earlier when you were talking about Haiti.

The Reid comment mattered when Rush mocked him. Shocker.

The Hemp articles were taken from the News front page. I have the whole screen shot with the rest of the news. Don't try to make me seem like I spin things as bad as Current allows. It won't work.

It doesn't matter if you don't see the sarcasm in writing. It matters that you jump to thinking it's racist. That speaks more about you than me.

I am not talking about groups.

And as for the name calling...if only Current gave a test on creativity...certain people wouldn't be allowed in based on their lack of.

You cannot use rules as proof of why someone has done wrong. Rules are guidelines just like laws are. Lawyers and judges go about dictating what is and isn't ok within those laws and rules. It's not a perfect safeguard against wrongdoing but it is far better than the self centered mod ideas that most sites have.

Do come back and make more comments. I like being able to trash them and not doing it...showing how much better I am than Current's mods.

T.Howard said...

hey Jammer I just read what you had to say and I have this to add. Ain't ain't no word. AHA HA HA just kidding I'm very unhappy that you got the boot but so glad you are a persystent person So as I have heard in the the past keep coming back. We really need you at current if for no other reason other than to stir the pot. you strange friend Bailey78.

Anonymous said...

wow... i have to say, great writing... but a lot of what you wrote is based on opinion as well.

You feel you were targeted because of your comments, but in reality it's because you don't know when to say "you're right, I'm wrong". You continue to argue, to make bogus claims and even when you're wrong and can't find any other bogus shit to say, you still find a way to change the subject and make it personal.

I've caught you many times lying about things you've said, you think you know and things you've posted as "fact". Let's be realistic Jammer, you're not that smart and when someone shows that you're wrong, you get personal and disappear.

I'll give one example and move on. But before i do, let me just say this. I was one of the first people to say, that i would not mind to see you back. You and I had an issue and I moved on, but you continued to drag it out and continue to think it was ok to follow me and find a way to correct me. well, I'm still there and guess what? I attack others and get personal just like you, BUT, the difference between you and I, is that I don't get personal when someone has pointed out that i'm wrong. I get personal, when someone gets personal with me. I don't call people names, when someone points out, I was wrong. I don't get personal and attack that person, when he/she shows, my stupidity. I often apologize..... see that word? learn it.... I often apologize, because I know i'm not perfect or all knowing... You think you are and that's the difference between the people that are still there and you.

Here's the example I was talking about...

Spanish, is the language that most Latino Americans speak. Is not our native language (when i say us, i mean South America), but it's a language that was forced on us, because of the Spaniards and their inability to learn. Yet, anyone that knows the Latino World, would know that every country has their own language and anywhere from 5 to 10 different languages in each country. Peru has about 12.

But you claimed and said that it was our native language. That the Latinos didn't have a language and because of the Spaniards, we learnt to speak... only because of them.. After I pointed out a source and how you were wrong, you continue to say it was, it took some time to register in your head... but after you were proved wrong and after you couldn't come up with some bogus comment... you decided to say and I quote... "That's not what I said, you misunderstood me" LOL.... that's your answer to everything... when someone points out your flaws and wrongs... you are never wrong... you are only misunderstood.... lol...

Like i said before and I will say it again.... MOVE ON!! Get a LIFE!! Learn to leave the petty shit behind and look for better things. I got here because of an email sent to me about this... I don't look for you or care... but you seem to care a lot about current and it's people...

and by the way, weren't you the one that said quoting dead people is stupid???
follow your advice!!

Anonymous said...

anyone here want to know what the final nail in jammer's current coffin was? let me quote him...

"they could have put a few gold teeth in his mouth and a gun in his hand, that would have been the black thing to do."

Anonymous said...

have you ever met Michelangelo?

Hollywood Dump on Facebook

In addition to the articles we post here, we also link to stories we think are interesting and post them to our Facebook page. If you're on FB, become a fan!