Yeah, actually it was the point I was going back to make when I found my thread closed. That is where this discussion should have taken place, and it was not a rant, and it was not going in that direction. 
I don’t know that it was a rant either, but this passive-aggressive dig wasn’t exactly inviting civil discussion:
okay.
Let’s try to narrow it down from among forums that aren’t obviously disqualified, like the Game Room:
General Questions: Your post did not have a question in it.
Great Debates: Your post did not frame any kind of debate.
Cafe Society: Your thread isn’t actually about celebrities or even the larger entertainment industry; it’s about rich people in general.
IMHO: You did not state an opinion except obliquely.
MPSIMS: Maybe. You might have gotten away with it in this forum, especially if you’d prefaced it with saying that you didn’t care enough to put it in the pit. Which you didn’t.
The Pit: We end up here by process of elimination.
Your post was three sentences:
- A direct quote from the article.
- A summary of one data point from the article.
- An insult.
You seem to have a weird idea about what makes a thread appropriate for the Pit. It doesn’t have to be “offensive” or “weird” or even have “pit worthy language.” But it is the appropriate place for complaints which are free of substance.
That’s what your post was. It was a weak, substance-free complaint about something that irritated you. There’s nothing wrong with that, mind you, it’s just that this would have been the perfect place for it.
If you’d stated your opinion, or framed a question, or discussed your own efforts to effect positive environment change, it would have belonged somewhere else. But you did none of those things, so it should’ve been in the pit.
No, it is specifically about celebrities and the larger entertainment industry. 100% celebrities.
Rich people don’t have the same level of self importance in general IMO.
My last sentence is an opinion, although sarcastic. I was looking for the same back - about specific celebrities. I had more to say.
I will admit to not knowing much about the pit.
Here’s the thing, some of the things that were left unsaid, was because the thread was closed before I could say them. First the outage, then the closure.
And, if the only place for that “Liberal Rant” (which it is was in only in one person’s mind) is the Pit, then move it there. But re-open it.
missed the edit window - which it is only in one person’s mind.
Apparently it is now. Everybody be sure to not mention any celebrities in the Elections forum, from tnis point forward.:rolleyes:
Closing the thread was not the right thing to do.
Seems like it would be a pretty reasonable discussion about when personal habits are in contradiction to stated external position.
Life is too complex not to do this to some degree, so it would be interesting to analyze when we think it tilts beyond reasonable. And, is that balance mitigated by positive outcomes related to the apparent contradictory behavior or not.
Few would consider that there was anything about the OP that was either “fun” or “funny”. It was just stupid. And so was the Rupert Murdoch rag that it was sourced from, which has a history of editorial crusades that ridicule and deny climate change.
I’m not generally in favor of closing threads, but it’s hard to imagine that one going in any sort of informative or entertaining or otherwise productive direction. If having “more to say” was about videoconferencing as you earlier intimated, that would have been equally as stupid as the OP. While neither CS nor ATMB is the forum for that debate, one might note that the utility of videoconferencing is for a small group to discuss some limited specific issues, not for hundreds of people to brainstorm complex issues over the course of many days. Scientists in all disciplines continue to meet at conferences and they arrive there in airplanes, and so do politicians and policy advocates of all kinds. That fact is well known and of no interest to anyone.
And incidentally, if the thread had been moved to the Pit, I suspect you would not have been happy with the outcome.
Dang it. No more major professional sports in the Game Room, those guys are celebrities. 
Wolfpup
In what way are celebrities worth the cost of bringing together to brainstorm complex issues rather than the scientists who are qualified?
"That fact is well known and of no interest to anyone"
I’m interested.
So start that thread.
Google seems to think it has value. Maybe because on environmental issues, public outreach and education is very important to supporting policy changes. Celebrities tend to do that much better than scientists. In fact research has shown that one of the best ways of reaching the general public on contentious issues is through a mutually trusted spokesperson.
So are all the Murdoch-inspired science-denying acolytes who read that drivel. No one is stopping you from starting a genuine debate or discussion in the appropriate forum, but be aware that we’ve had many dozens of climate change debates over recent years – many of them exceptionally stupid – and it’s getting tiring. A debate about celebrities flying on airplanes seems even more stupid than most of the others.
I see no reason this thread should have been shut down. It was/is not an offensive post or subject and the OP does not seem to be trying to provoke anything other than a reasonable conversation about a “conference” that seems to be a bit extravagant given the subject of the conference.
That being said I understand why the OP posted in the Cafe but IMHO, IMHO was a better place.
IMHO moderators are here to keep order and civility. NOT to judge and censor threads or topics. There was nothing astray in the thread, it was not jumping the tracks, again, simply my opinion.
I missed the censorship. Perhaps a link?
I’m pretty sure you could still read it if you wanted to.
Whatever…it was shut down for no particular “good reason”.
Is there a reason YOU think the OP should have been closed?
Yeah, there is, but I probably shouldn’t say it anywhere but the Pit, and the OP says he doesn’t read there.
We are discussing the rationality of the closing of a thread, are you, bobot, not rational enough to discuss this? or was you prime directive to just “stir the pot”?
I agree with the original poster, the closing was harsh and unnecessary.
If you have something of value to add, please add it.