Either we can hijack a thead to comment on someone's posts or we can't

[BigT]

Let's start with the basics. kayaker posted this about me in an unrelated thread:

Originally Posted by kayaker

Hey, it was worth a shot. Worked for da big T.

This is in reference to a post I made in the Pit that people made fun of me for. It's pretty vile, so I'll not link it here.

Now, of course, when someone attacks you, your first impulse is to check and see if it's against the rules, as, if it is and you attack back, you can wind up getting in trouble. I reported the post, asking about this. Here's the response from twickster:

Originally Posted by twickster

It's a reference to something you said elsewhere on the Boards, which is not against the rules.

Okay, fine. Such posts are not against the rules. Doesn't surprise me too much, but you have to be sure.

So here's my response to said poster:

Originally Posted by BigT

Yes, because negotiating to become the host of a TV show in contradiction to the old host's wishes is somehow equivalent to beating up on a mentally ill man who is obviously confused about what's going on.

And, of course, making fun of me while obscuring my username is somehow vital to the topic of this thread. Posts like this are the reason I do what I do. They stop, I stop.

Note how I attacked the post, not the poster, and pointed out how ridiculous it was. But here's the in thread response from twicks:

Originally Posted by twickster

If you have a problem with another poster, take it to the Pit, don't hijack this thread.

So which is it? Is it against the rules to hijack a thread with a post about a previous post, rather than about the topic at hand? Or can we do it. Is it really the case that anyone can say whatever they want about you, but if you say anything back to them, you're the one starting the hijack and not them?

I have always responded to posts against me by doing the same thing back. If it's not against the rules for me to be snarked on, how can it be against the rules for me to snark back?

Please fix this hypocrisy. Because, as it is, it's hard for me to see this as anything but treating me differently than other posters.

[bucketybuck]

My life was shortened by five seconds reading that post.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

My life was shortened by five seconds reading that post.

I'm assuming you just skipped over it, and are counting your post in that 5 seconds.

[kayaker]

Ah, Christ. It was a very funny (I thought) comment that was apparently too meta/subtle for anyone to get. Until it was resurrected and complained about. Lighten up, Francis.

[don't ask]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

My life was shortened by five seconds reading that post.

Luckily I read your post first and thus skipped the OP. Thanks for the heads up.

[Cicero]

I have read the OP three times and still don't understand it.

[TubaDiva]

This is not about a point of clarification.

It's about the fact that you got your feelings hurt.

This is so not appropriate for this forum.

Maybe you need to turn the computer off and go outside sometime, get a little perspective. Because this is not what we're about.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I have read the OP three times and still don't understand it.

Here, BigT says that Quasi may die earlier than he was "supposed to" because of people on the Dope:

Originally Posted by BigT

Yes, seeing as keeping the brain working has been shown to fight of dementia. You'd know that if you weren't just try to rationalize your own bigotry. That's what the entire tough love bullshit all is--how can I justify to myself an action I know is immoral.

The person who the OP is so mad about was trying to make a guy who was obviously getting so fucking depressed that he was thinking of giving up some encouragement to try to make him feel better. That's what the OP is pitting: being a decent human being.

It was likewise clear from Quasi's first post that he wasn't quite understanding what was going on. Mhendo decided that he was mad enough to rationalize away beating up on someone who obviously was in trouble. Mhendo beat up on a defenseless old man--just like in real life, no one can get mad when the old man starts throwing punches.

But then Quasi felt so bad about it that he felt he had to quit. Because of mhendo, Quasi may die earlier than he was supposed to. At least the OP's pittee was trying to make him feel better.

I not only share Tripolar's beliefs on this matter, but I would add to it if I were sure it wouldn't get me a Warning. Because, as I said in the other thread, mhendo, and people like him, aren't worth it.

[Sierra Indigo]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I have read the OP three times and still don't understand it.

There is a butt, it got hurt. THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[Darth Panda]

Eh, twickster's modding is as horrible as usual and Tuba's reponse is pretty normal in that it doesn't address the modding at all and instead just insults the person who doesn't like the modding, but I can't see how this is worth getting upset about - you probably knew that neither comment was appropriate, even though twixter couldn't figure it out with regard to the first one.

[Acsenray]

I still don't get what happened in that thread or in this one.

And this sounds ominous, but it's so vague, it leaves me nonplussed:

Posts like this are the reason I do what I do. They stop, I stop.

[Baal Houtham]

Regarding the OP: If you're going to reference a relevant thread you've got to link to it. Just saying that it's "too vile" is not helpful.

And claiming that someone was "beating up on a mentally ill man" is not talking about a post, it is a talking about a poster. It is also a disputable contention, since it refers to an argument in the Pit rather than any sort of physical attack.

As to whether or not kayaker was insulting BigT or being jerkish, my humble opinion is yep, but it was a couple of passing remarks and oblique, unlike BigT's in-your-face response. In that thread Twickster did ask people to cut back on the personal remark and kayaker should have done so.

[twickster]

Someone made an off-hand comment referring to something you'd said elsewhere on the Boards. He or she didn't bash you for it, or go into detail -- he or she made a joke that referred to what has already become a board meme. It would be like someone making a Hal Briston sheep reference.

In the context of the thread where it appeared, Kayaker's aside was a joke, not an attempt to change the direction or content of the conversation.

Not against the rules.

You tried to start back up the same argument as the thread from which the meme came. That argument was off-topic in the new thread. Or, if you want to claim you're defending yourself against an attack -- there was no attack, there was a joke, and your defense was off-topic. Either way, a brief reference from Kayaker was not a hijack, but your efforts to make that reference a topic of the thread was.

Hope this helps clarify things.

twickster, Cafe Society moderator

[Garfield226]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Eh, twickster's modding is as horrible as usual and Tuba's reponse is pretty normal in that it doesn't address the modding at all and instead just insults the person who doesn't like the modding, but I can't see how this is worth getting upset about - you probably knew that neither comment was appropriate, even though twixter couldn't figure it out with regard to the first one.

Done in one.

[ugly ripe tomato]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I still don't get what happened in that thread or in this one.

And this sounds ominous, but it's so vague, it leaves me nonplussed:

The "doing what he does" bit means jumping in to threads to tell off everyone else for for picking on people with mental health issues.

As for the rest, I'll take a stab the Cliff's Notes version.

Quasimodem got really worked up in a pit thread about a lack of a D-Day Google Doodle.

A few days later Quasi announces he's taking a sabbatical from the board.

That leads to a pit thread wherein people argue whether Quasi should get special treatment due to his condition. That's the thread where BigT made the post Freudian Slit quoted.

kayaker makes a joke in a thread about Jay Leno:

If not for Jay Leno, Johnny Carson would be alive today.

and a few posts later makes the crack about "it worked for Big T."

Big T posts this thread.

???

Profit.

[TubaDiva]

Thank you for the explanation.

Okay, funny line.

I don't believe the rationale behind it is sound ... although I know that most people understand about Quasi and treat him with consideration and kindness. There but for the grace of god goes each and every one of us ... and might yet be so.

In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for all of us to treat one another with some of that same kindness.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for all of us to treat one another with some of that same kindness.

Oh, sure, and where would THAT lead us?

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for all of us to treat one another with some of that same kindness.

Be careful, after what happened to the last guy to ask why everyone can't just get along, I'd avoid going swimming 21 years from now.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by BigT

I have always responded to posts against me by doing the same thing back. If it's not against the rules for me to be snarked on, how can it be against the rules for me to snark back?

Three words: Location, location, location.

Plus, everyone is out to get you. .

Please fix this hypocrisy. Because, as it is, it's hard for me to see this as anything but treating me differently than other posters.

Huh--in the Pit thread, you point-blank said

Originally Posted by BigT

Treating all people the same is actually mistreating the people who do not respond well to what you do. No human being treats everyone the same, and they shouldn't.

(underline, mine)

...so...I'm seeing some evidence that consistent treatment isn't the issue, but making sure you always get exactly what you want is.



_{This post has take 44 hours off BigT's life}

[Mewl Dear]

Originally Posted by TubaDiva

Thank you for the explanation.

Okay, funny line.

I don't believe the rationale behind it is sound ... although I know that most people understand about Quasi and treat him with consideration and kindness. There but for the grace of god goes each and every one of us ... and might yet be so.

In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for all of us to treat one another with some of that same kindness.

You must have been awesome at dodgeball in school.

[Vinyl Turnip]

See? People do compliment the mods sometimes!

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I still don't get what happened in that thread or in this one.

Pretty much absolutely nothing happened, thus your confusion.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I still don't get what happened in that thread or in this one.

It's like one of those inkblot things - it means whatever you think it means, except for sometimes it means you're crazy.