Well, I’ll have to take your word for it that it was asked and answered.
Although if there was NO doubt, then you wouldn’t even have to add this part because the possibility wouldn’t exist.
I realize that I’m dancing on the head of a pin as regards this particular question being asked and answered but I think it’s the principle of the thing that Sapo is questioning and not this particular question.
Isn’t this Sapo’s point? If QED hadn’t posted in that thread, there might have been more fruitful discussion in it. Since the closing was due to QED’s behavior, the OP may have missed more discussion, not because the OP did anything wrong but simply because QED decided to post as he did in the thread.
I, who have studied herbal medicine for neigh on 9 years, have no doubt. I can’t speak for the OP. I added that part because some people are idiots and will argue anything.
ETA: Okay, wait…that was harsh. Let’s just say I’ve learned to never say never and absolutely avoid absolutes on this board.
No, more like anyone who would come back and say, “No, actually what I was looking for was Nutmeg,” would be an idiot.
It’d be like a question asking what was that movie based on that historical boat that sank around the turn of the century and Leonard DiCapria was in it, and then coming back to say that no, of course it wasn’t Titanic, they’re talking about Shrek! duh. Mind bogglingly stupid, but very vaguely possible.
Exactly. Calling asked and answered and locking a thread because one respondent is misbehaving is just lazy (in the best of cases). I don’t think this is SOP for GQ.
Well, next time I’ll defer to you wishes, suggest to you that your usual combative responses are less than helpful in keeping a thread in GQ on track, advise you to take your drive by brilliance to another forum, note that I’m not warning anyone, and preface it with a moderator caution.
Ok. I am not telling you what you normally do, or the others, for that matter. I just don’t remember ever seeing it done before, although my lack of memory of something means next to nothing.
I just found it unfair towards the OP that a thread 3 hours and 10 posts long would be considered to have run its course. All because one poster couldn’t keep his crusade out of it.
I think there’s no need for such histrionics. While there may be very isolated instances that I don’t recall, I have no significant history of persisting in a train of dialog when asked to stop by a moderator. A simple and clear “cut it out” is more than sufficient in my case, don’t you think?
And since you’re here, I also take issue with your apparent characterization of my posts as always unhelpful. Hyperbole, you’ll no doubt call it, but I found it unnecessarily petty and wholly unwarranted.
He wasn’t saying anything about all of your posts, just the combative ones. And he didn’t even say that the combative ones weren’t helpful, just that they weren’t helpful in keeping a thread in GQ on track.
Are you getting your interpretation from somewhere else?
This much I agree with. I don’t remember you not following a moderator’s instructions. And your posts are usually quite helpful. I guess it’s all about what I termed as your combativeness.
.
Well, I was pissed at how you handled your posts in that thread. And, you’ve done it before.
I’ve got a similar problem in my life. I quite often respond to people in real life with what they perceive as a condescending attitude. In my mind, I don’t realize/think I am, but that’s how they perceive it. And, unfortunately, that’s what counts.
