# An OP which invites a off-topic diversion **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 20, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739 "2010-01-20T20:54:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/21 "2010-01-21T17:49:53Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > That’s true – but it could have been in the text, where the “atheist” bit could have been modified too, since the OP was brought up Catholic and is still nominally a Catholic. I disagree with this. There are more threads here than any of us can read, so a title has to spark the interest of people who might have something to contribute to the topic. We all want lots of responses to our threads. In other words, a thread title is “advertising” for the thread. An OP wants to catch the attention of his or her target audience. Putting “atheist” in the title meant that the OP would draw in people who might have some practical experience in the matter. He was looking for suggestions, and he had to catch the eyes of the people who were likely to have the kinds of suggestions and advice he was looking for. So a thread title just referring to Catholic readings for weddings would miss everyone who isn’t really interested in that in particular. I wouldn’t have opened that thread. I’m not Catholic and I don’t care much about weddings. I don’t think too many of us are that interested in wedding readings at all, regardless of religion. But adding in the atheist aspect made the thread more interesting to a lot of people. There are so many aspects to the issue. I personally don’t care about the theological stuff, but I’m always curious to see how the issue plays out in real life so the thread interested me. Atheism vs. religion is a big topic around here regardless and mentioning was a surefire way to get thread views. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/22 "2010-01-21T17:58:09Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > After **czarcasm** (IMO unnecessarily) came in and slapped all of us mean responders on the wrist and threatened sanctions against anyone who diverged from **czar’s** narrow interpretation of the OP, the OPer chose to engage in the discussion that several of us apparently considered the most interesting aspect of his OP. > > In my view, that seems like the OPer accepted the broadened scope of the thread he began. When I asked if that were the case - so as not to risk mod action against me - **czar** responded that he thinks the OP did a fine job of “clarifying” his OP, and that no additional discussion was appropriate - at least in IMHO. > > I consider this unfortunate in many respects. So, the OP is permitted to explain the reasons why he’s getting married in church, but nobody else is allowed to attack him for it. And you think that’s unfair, or bad moderation? :rolleyes: Geez,I agree that Czarcasm has shown questionable moderation sometimes, but right now he’s right and you’re wrong. The OP has described a particular situation. Some people have asked him why he’s doing it, and he has given an explanation. This clarification potentially helps people to provide useful advice re his question. It is therefore on topic and does not contradict Czarcasm’s moderation. It is totally different to the people who object to the situation, and who have chosen to attack the OP for it. Or, for that matter, those who have chosen to attack the Catholic church. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/23 "2010-01-21T18:17:07Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > So, the OP is permitted to explain the reasons why he’s getting married in church, but nobody else is allowed to attack him for it. And you think that’s unfair, or bad moderation? > > :rolleyes: Geez,I agree that Czarcasm has shown questionable moderation sometimes, but right now he’s right and you’re wrong. Cool. And whether you, or I, or anyone else thinks **czar** is right or wrong, he’s still the mod and gets to act pretty much however he wishes. I’m fine with that. (Doesn’t mean I’ll never choose to point out my disagreement, tho.) But I really take issue with your characterization of people “attacking” the OP. Look at posts 5-12, and show me anything that was not an polite and respectful questioning of matters running directly from the OP. It isn’t until #12 that someone says, _“Wow! I’ll bet you sure weren’t expecting all this, were you?”_ It was only after the polite inquiries were characterized as inappropriate “attacks” that some subsequent posters became somewhat less polite. Well, if the OP wasn’t expecting anything like posts 5-12, then he’s a fucking idiot, and has no clear idea of what all is involved with his “play acting” a Catholic wedding. I just think it a pretty damned sad commentary on the level of discussion on these boards for the questions that were asked in the manner that they were asked to be considered impermissable “attacks” warranting a mod warning. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/24 "2010-01-21T18:26:18Z")
Too late to edit: Heck, the first comment I see that is anywhere near objectionable is post #19 where someone said they would _“join in on the pile on.”_ Then, nothing more objectionable until the OP comes back and says _“I didn’t expect a pile on”_ - and then proceeds to discuss the “diversion.” It is only after that that the discussion bcame more “heated” - tho I personally did not think it “extreme” or offensive beyond the scope of IMHO. (BTW - what exactly IS the scope of IMHO? Whatever **czar** says, apparently.) Characterizing reasonable questions or comments as inappropriate “attacks” is reminiscent of Palin’s campaign style. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/25 "2010-01-21T19:02:31Z")
I apologize for my use of the term “fucking idiot” - and my other uses of off-color language in this thread/forum. Although I obviously do not understand exactly what passes for acceptable conduct in the various forums, I should have known better than to use such language here. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/26 "2010-01-21T19:44:05Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > But I really take issue with your characterization of people “attacking” the OP. Look at posts 5-12, and show me anything that was not an polite and respectful questioning of matters running directly from the OP. When did I object to them? As I said in my previous post, I think it perfectly acceptable to ask him why he is doing it. Thus your own question in post#6 is a fair one, the answer to which could help picking out suitable readings. Posts #10 & 12 offered suggestions to readings. But post#5 was critical of him, adding nothing very helpful. That one could have been ignored, but there were other much more hostile posts that definitely required moderator action. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/27 "2010-01-21T19:44:07Z")
I’ll just say that Czarcasm’s “Infraction!” post took me by complete surprise because: 1. I never criticized the OPer for choosing to get married in the church, nor would I. The OPer’s relationship with God, or his wife, or her family, is none of my business and I’d not offer up my opinion unless or until he invited it. It was that tangential discussion, completely unrelated to the OP’s question, which I believe prompted the warning. 2. The “Dude” part was addressing a comment that the OPer brought up AFTER the warning to stay on topic. I was simply trying to explain, in a humorous way, that he’d be hard pressed to find scriptures that spoke of hellfire and treacle. If the OPer himself chooses to broaden the scope of the discussion, then what follows should be fair game. ESPECIALLY when the comments are not even remotely offensive or disrespectful. 3. Finally, and most importantly, I WAS addressing the OP, and my advice would have been the same regardless of whether he was an atheist, a Jew or a Catholic. I’m not a fan of John Steinbeck, but I’m sure there’s a passage in one of his books that I could quote were I to attend an event that required me to pick one, especially an event centered around ME. Just because he doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean that he won’t be able to find something in the Bible (it’s a pretty big book) that speaks to him. And his choice of reading SHOULD reflect him, as it’s the only part of the very scripted ceremony where he has any say. If my comments made me a rabblerouser, so be it. But I will say that Czarcasm’s warning has been my only “OFFICIAL WARNING” in over ten years of posting. So I’ll chalk it up to a slight overreaction on his part and forgive him for what he has done, for he does not not know what he does. That was Bible humor for the undoctrinated. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/28 "2010-01-21T20:22:33Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > When did I object to them? As I said in my previous post, … I’m seriously confused. Why are you now raising whether or not you “objected” to anything? I have not said as much in my prior posts. Instead, I disagreed with your (repeated) description of posts as “attacks.” _…nobody else is allowed to attack him for it. … It is totally different to the people who object to the situation, and who have chosen to attack the OP for it. Or, for that matter, those who have chosen to attack the Catholic church._ > [@](#): > > But post#5 was critical of him, adding nothing very helpful. This is post #5 in its entirety: \*If you (or you and she) do not intend to do justice to the undertaking that you are going to be required formalistically to commit to – that you will raise any children in the Catholic faith – then I think you are doing both yourselves and the Church an (unnecessary) injustice. Your OP doesn’t touch on that, but if you have such systemic problems with the (accepted) Scriptures – it seems you might have (very-principled) reasons for being unable to make that commitment. I trust your local diocese at least asked if you could make the commitment. If scripture readings at a fancy dress Sacrament pose an issue – how much more would it pose a problem when the time comes to send your kids to CCD for First Confession? If you don’t intend that you will raise “real” Catholic kids (either of you) – don’t insult yourselves and the Church by an elaborate ceremony based on the idea that you will. That’s okay – we’ll still respect your commitment-love.\* You consider that (inappropriately?) critical and not helpful? When I first read the OP, my first response was that the OPer seemed immature and/or ignorant. I tought post #5 did a hell of a good job pointing out several very important aspects of the OPer’s chosen course a hell of a lot more politely and respectfully than I could have. As I said, after that, there was NOTHING ELSE even remotely resembling attacks on the OPer or the church until AFTER the OPer cameback and characterized them as attacks. Hell, I think many of the people questioning his choice are showing more respect for the damn church than the OPer is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/29 "2010-01-21T20:25:08Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > And the latest in the thread: > > > [@PunditLisa](#): > > > > Brimstone and hellfire? Dude, what Catholic church were you raised in? > > > > Personally, if you’re serious about this, you should pick up a Bible and read it. Something should grab you as being appropriate. And, honestly, it’s the least you can do given it’s one of the few things in the entire ceremony that you will have control over. > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > [Official Moderator Warning]I gave the last word on this hijack. Infraction.[/Official Moderator Warning] > > Seriously, **Czarcasm** , that post by **PunditLisa** was on topic: it’s all about the choice of text, and not about an atheist marrying in a Catholic church. The bit about “brimstone and hellfire” was saying that a Catholic wedding isn’t going to have bits about b&h included, and she’s surprised that anyone would think they were. > > I think you’ve become a tad overzealous in trying to prevent the thread-jacking here. QFFT - there is nothing even remotely approaching a hijack in **PunditLisa** ’s post. It is directly on-point. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/30 "2010-01-21T20:30:02Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > I’m seriously confused. I’ll try and keep it simple. ACCEPTABLE = “Why are you doing this?” UNACCEPTABLE= “You should not be doing this, you hypocrite” See the difference between them? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/31 "2010-01-21T20:34:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > QFFT - there is nothing even remotely approaching a hijack in **PunditLisa** ’s post. It is directly on-point. The first part of it was an off-topic rtemark about the Catholic church. It had nothing to do with the OP’s question, and was thus a hijack. The rest of it was an instruction to “pick up a Bible and read it,” on topic, but unhelpful. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/32 "2010-01-21T20:41:04Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I’ll try and keep it simple. > > ACCEPTABLE = “Why are you doing this?” > UNACCEPTABLE= “You should not be doing this, you hypocrite” > See the difference between them? I do not mean disrespect, but I fear you and I are not going to be able to discuss this intelligently. (And, I perceive at least something akin to disrespect in your effort to “try and keep it simple.”) In my first response to you I questioned why responses in the original thread were considered “attacks” - the word you used repeatedly in the post I was responding to. Thereafter you responded by asking when you had “objected” to them, and saying what you consdered “acceptable.” I did not understand why we were now to talk about your personal “objections” - something I consider at least slightly different from whether or not the original replies should have been considered “attacks.” In your most recent post, you do not explain or define either “attacks” or your “objection”, but instead move the discussion yet again to offer a distinction between “acceptable and unacceptable.” I apologize that I am unable to clearly comprehend what you are trying to say or discuss. But it seems to me that you keep abandoning your previous terms, and shifting to slightly different language with neither explanation nor acknowledgment. I just wanted to let you know that I’m not going to pursue this particular area anymore as I’m not clearly perceiving what you apparently intend to communicate. Didn’t want you tho think I was ignoring you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/33 "2010-01-21T21:32:52Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The first part of it was an off-topic rtemark about the Catholic church. It had nothing to do with the OP’s question, and was thus a hijack. **Giles** covered that - > [@](#): > > The bit about “brimstone and hellfire” was saying that a Catholic wedding isn’t going to have bits about b&h included, and she’s surprised that anyone would think they were. **PunditLisa** was reassuring the OP that the deacon performing the ceremony was not going to force anyone to pick out Bible verses including fire and brimstone. Here is the post she was resonding to > [@](#): > > But there are some good suggestions for readings in this thread. Do you have a Bible? If not, here’s a good online source for research. > > And you can ask the Deacon. Really, nobody wants “hellfire & brimstone” at the wedding. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/34 "2010-01-21T22:06:02Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > The first part of it was an off-topic remark about the Catholic church. It had nothing to do with the OP’s question, and was thus a hijack. > > The rest of it was an instruction to “pick up a Bible and read it,” on topic, but unhelpful. The first part was not off topic, per the OP himself who brought it up. The second remark was meant to be helpful. If you didn’t think so, I really don’t care. I stand by my words. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/35 "2010-01-21T23:08:09Z")
**Giles** said: > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s a problem, but really the OP itself caused the problem: the title of the OP started with “Atheist getting married in Catholic church”. If people don’t want side issues discussed, they really should not make them the most prominent part of the thread. A better title would have been “Need help with readings for marriage in Catholic church”. (But of course, it’s too late for that now). I disagree completely. The OP is concerned about overly religious, especially negative religious, scriptures. He would like assistance finding scriptures appropriate for _his_ wedding, not just any Catholic wedding. That title clearly states the conditions that make his wedding different. It also serves to get the attention of the people most likely to help him - atheists who might know something about scripture and weddings. Without mentioning that point, he might not get their attention. Most atheists aren’t going to be interested in scripture readings for a devout Catholic wedding. > [@](#): > > That’s true – but it could have been in the text, where the “atheist” bit could have been modified too, since the OP was brought up Catholic and is still nominally a Catholic. Why should he mod that? The whole point is he is trying to characterize what he wants to avoid in scripture readings. It’s fair to help people find the material he wants. He’s not posting “I’m an atheist, _and you should be too!_” He’s stating criteria about finding the material he wants. **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > I thought the modding a little premature and heavy handed. Given the way the OP chose to phrase his post, he should have expected the type of responses/questions he received. And IMO the questions/comments were pretty mild and entirely appropriate for IMHO. It’s arguable whether a diversion to discuss why he made the decision he made is relevant to the question he asked, which was finding readings to fit that situation. But then the comments shifted to judging him for the decision he made, and then judging the Catholic church for any of its own sins, and then exchanges between people about that topic that don’t have anything to do with the poster, nevermind addressing his question. And here is the sticking point: > [@](#): > > Great Debates > For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for **religious debates** and (if you feel you must) witnessing. Bolding added for emphasis. The whole “should you be doing this?” discussion is a religious one, and belongs in Great Debates. This is not just a thread hijack, but a forum violation. **Czarcasm** was absolutely correct to call a halt to that topic in that thread. That discussion belongs elsewhere. **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > But the OPer did neither of those. Instead, he chose to engage the discussion within the context of his original thread, volunteering more information directly relevant to portions of his OP. In response to which czar decides to end discussion, preventing anyone from responding in the original thread - no matter how respectfully they wished to express their opinion? But he stated that he posted before seeing the mod action. Are you saying the OP is immune from being able to violate forum restrictions? Or that he should be punished anyway for furthering the discussion in violation of the warning? I just don’t see how relevant it is that the OP was willing to continue the discussion. The violation was not that there was a change of topic, but that the change of topic was not appropriate for IMHO, and belonged in Great Debates. > [@](#): > > For crying out fucking loud, what delicate little flowers are we that we need to be sheltered in this manner? Am I to expect similar mod action every time I post something specific about my family and someone choses to jump in and observe what crappy parents my wife and I are? The mod action wasn’t for criticizing the OP, the mod action was for posting a religious debate in IMHO. Religious debates belong in GD, like the main forum page says. > [@](#): > > Or any time a thread is taken in a slightly different direction than the OPer may have expected or desired? And whether or not the OPer expresses a wish that discussion be so restricted? OPs aren’t the arbitrators of the rules - moderators are. OPs are just as likely to be mistaken as any other poster. **Silverstreak Wonder** said: > [@](#): > > The idea has to be to kill the discussion, period. Nope, you’re still projecting. **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > I acknowledge my ignorance, but exactly what IMHO “protocols” were not followed? It certainly would help to have a sticky that explains things. It also would help for moderators to explicitly state the rules infractions when making actions. Vaguely waving “violating the rules” or “not following IMHO protocols” doesn’t help posters keep from repeating those instances because they don’t know what specifically was the infraction. But that’s just my opinion, so I should probably post that in IMHO. 😉 **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > I didn’t see much - if any - righteous indignation, merely understandable questioning WRT a necessary element of the OP. **Huerta88** said: > [@](#): > > I think you are doing both yourselves and the Church an (unnecessary) injustice… > > If you don’t intend that you will raise “real” Catholic kids (either of you) – **don’t insult yourselves and the Church** by an elaborate ceremony based on the idea that you will. That’s okay – we’ll still respect your commitment-love. (bolding added) Could be considered a bit righteous and somewhat indignant. **legalsnugs** said: > [@](#): > > Or you could be adults about it and get married where it actually means something to you. A bit judgmental, don’t you think? **kunilou** said: > [@](#): > > As someone who left the Catholic faith rather than be a hypocrite, … then I suggest you just shut up and use a generic reading. The service will be over in 15 minutes. Righteous indignation right there. **smiling bandit** said: > [@](#): > > UH-huh… you do knot, that, apart from your directly lying to his face, you’re pretty much utterly disrespecting her whole family with the pretense. I don’t particularly like you dropping your faith, but this is a gross disrespect to the entire Church, which I take grave exception to. You two have absolutely no business getting married in a Church with a solemn religious ceremony you apparently have no intention of honoring. This post is just about 100% righteous indignation. Plus, a criticism for the OP “dropping your faith”. Is that enough righteous indignation, or should I keep going? **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > So we are only free to set out HO’s on topics ranging from chocolate cake to puppy dogs? Interesting question, what _is_ the scope of IMHO? But whatever it is, religious debate specifically belongs in GD. It says so in the forum description for GD that I quoted above. But I do agree that **Czarcasm** was off base on the warning against **PunditLisa** , and have requested moderator review of that action. **Dinsdale** said: > [@](#): > > I just think it a pretty damned sad commentary on the level of discussion on these boards for the questions that were asked in the manner that they were asked to be considered impermissable “attacks” warranting a mod warning. The moderator action did not come until page 2, well after the tone of comments became very judgmental (as cited above), and was not for people attacking the OP, but rather for creating a religious debate outside of GD. Learn the rules and obey them. ---
**Author:** ![Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silverstreak_Wonder)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/36 "2010-01-21T23:18:10Z")
Well then why didn’t he just move the darn thread to GD if it is so awful to be where it was, and quit insulting posters who want to discuss issues? Problem solved, just move it. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/37 "2010-01-21T23:36:12Z")
He didn’t move it to GD because it was started by someone seeking advice. Much better to leave the thread where it was, and tell the debaters to move. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739/38 "2010-01-22T18:55:06Z")
**Silverstreak Wonder** said: > [@](#): > > Well then why didn’t he just move the darn thread to GD if it is so awful to be where it was, and quit insulting posters who want to discuss issues? Please cite where a moderator insulted posters. The reason he didn’t move the thread was because the thread had an original topic and was posted in the correct place for that topic, assistance on picking out scripture for his wedding. The off-topic discussion about judging his decisions belonged somewhere else, first not in that thread, and second in a different forum. So the mod enforced that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-op-which-invites-a-off-topic-diversion/525739.md?page=1)