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

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

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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

Done in one.

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 threadwherein 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:

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

Big T posts this thread.



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.

Oh, sure, and where would THAT lead us?

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.

Three words: Location, location, location.

Plus, everyone is out to get you. :eek:.

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

(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.

[sub]This post has take 44 hours off BigT’s life[/sub]

You must have been awesome at dodgeball in school.