Political Threads

[N_Jay]

Let's go to the instant replay:

21 posts.
14 posts on topic.
2 off-topic sub-threads; one started by PT, other started by Samuel2003
Thread locked.

And it is all my fault!

[5Gs]

Originally posted by N_Jay
Let's go to the instant replay:

21 posts.
14 posts on topic.
2 off-topic sub-threads; one started by PT, other started by Samuel2003
Thread locked.

And it is all my fault!

isn't it always your fault?

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by 5Gs


isn't it always your fault?

Of course.

After all, I have a teenage daughter and all you have to do is ask her!

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay

Of course.

After all, I have a teenage daughter and all you have to do is ask her!

I've had enough of teenage daughters in political threads for a while!

Besides, I thought partisan political 'discussions' were no longer allowed here so why do we have to go to the instant replay?

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
I've had enough of teenage daughters in political threads for a while!

Besides, I thought partisan political 'discussions' were no longer allowed here so why do we have to go to the instant replay?

But this thread has nothing to do with politics.

It is all about how a couple of people can take a thread off topic and get it locked.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay


But this thread has nothing to do with politics.

It is all about how a couple of people can take a thread off topic and get it locked.

Was it locked because it was off topic or because it was political, partisan, and starting to dredge up old personal sniping?

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
Was it locked because it was off topic or because it was political, partisan, and starting to dredge up old personal sniping?

While it was;
1) political;
2) It was not too partisan (in any negative manner);
3) and only started into the sniping when driven
4) off-topic by the two individuals.

So which of the four was the cause?

And if it was #3 or #4, why were those INDIVIDUALS pointed out as being responsible.

If it was #1 or #2, why was it allowed at all?

[Samuel2003]

Originally posted by N_Jay
Let's go to the instant replay:

21 posts.
14 posts on topic.
2 off-topic sub-threads; one started by PT, other started by Samuel2003
Thread locked.

And it is all my fault!

IIRC it WAS you who began insulting another member. All I did was point out the hypocrisy of your statements - off-topic posts yes, "sub-thread"? hardly...

You (in general) know what baffles me? I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person. That being said, I have absolutely NO idea why I've put up with NJ's egotistical, condescending, trolling/pot-stirring, my poop don't stink attitude for so long.

::click::

ahhh much better now...

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay


While it was;
1) political;
2) It was not too partisan (in any negative manner);
3) and only started into the sniping when driven
4) off-topic by the two individuals.

So which of the four was the cause?

And if it was #3 or #4, why were those INDIVIDUALS pointed out as being responsible.

If it was #1 or #2, why was it allowed at all?

All of the above I imagine. Were individuals pointed out as responsible for the thread being locked? I missed that. Perhaps it was "allowed" initially because the title in no way identified it as being a political thread. Just a guess.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by Samuel2003


IIRC it WAS you who began insulting another member. All I did was point out the hypocrisy of your statements - off-topic posts yes, "sub-thread"? hardly...

You (in general) know what baffles me? I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person. That being said, I have absolutely NO idea why I've put up with NJ's egotistical, condescending, trolling/pot-stirring, my poop don't stink attitude for so long.

::click::

ahhh much better now...

But your only addition to the thread was following the side conversation (if you like that description better) started by PT.

If you read it from start to finish, it seems to have always returned to topic even against the distractions presented by you and PT.

As for your other comments (To follow the line of discussion YOU started),
egotistical; Yep, aren't we all, or maybe you are too modest to admit it?
condescending? Only when called for,
trolling/pot-stirring: Trolling, never, but stirring the pot all I can.
my poop don't stink; When did I ever say, or even infer that? My poop stinks real good! I promise!

Click? That's so cute, like changing the channel.
Sort of like you taking the time to jump over to a thread you had no other participation in just to comment on my retorts to TP's off-topic posts.

Yes, "Click" sums it up just right.

Sorry if I insulted you in your insurance rant thread.
Because you were not "egotistical, condescending, trolling/pot-stirring, my poop don't stink attitude" in that fine discussion.
(Click!)

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
All of the above I imagine. Were individuals pointed out as responsible for the thread being locked? I missed that. Perhaps it was "allowed" initially because the title in no way identified it as being a political thread. Just a guess.

OH well.
Too bad a good discussion was stopped when all we needed was to ban PT.

No PT, no retorts, no retorts, no reason for Sammy to jump in, all the rest of the posts were part of a good discussion.

[Preludetundra]

Originally posted by N_Jay


OH well.
Too bad a good discussion was stopped when all we needed was to ban PT.

No PT, no retorts, no retorts, no reason for Sammy to jump in, all the rest of the posts were part of a good discussion.

Neil baby, chill.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by Preludetundra


Neil baby, chill.

I'm Chilled, Just a little "cold" from having a good discussion stopped thanks to your off-topic posts.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by N_Jay


OH well.
Too bad a good discussion was stopped when all we needed was to ban PT.

No PT, no retorts, no retorts, no reason for Sammy to jump in, all the rest of the posts were part of a good discussion.

As I recall, all PT did was point out as had others that the thread was not allowed, should be closed, and made a joke about the three stooges. Hardly cause for banning him IMHO.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by robrecht
As I recall, all PT did was point out as had others that the thread was not allowed, should be closed, and made a joke about the three stooges. Hardly cause for banning him IMHO.

And all I did was provide a little humor in return.

Yet it was enough to invite Sammy's valuable additional post.

As for the reason to ban, I would say a 2 month spread where his ONLY contributions are several similar off-topic posts, most certainly is.