I’m sure there are many new members who have joined in the last couple of months who might also have an opinion on this topic, so as for your assesment of my topic, and, hell, ok I’ll say it, for the lock, I say…“Harumph to you.”
Of course that’s just My Humble Opinion!
One more thing, I was led to believe by Lynn and Manny that, for bandwidth’s sake, generally it’s better to start a new topic than bump an old, long one.
Now having just found out from About This Message Board that it’s possible, given the above examples and comments combined with the fact that I complied with the rules of this particular board and the wishes of an admin and fellow mod, I respectfully request that you consider unlocking this thread.
It’s not so much that I care so deeply about the topic (though I genuinely would like to hear new member comments), it’s more the principal at stake.
I’m a longtime and considerate poster and I feel I should be given the same oppertunities to post “less than cosmic [and ‘taste’ questionable] topics” as other recent posters, including Sycorax, the the poster who opened the original thread on VPL’s (which was apparently not too “tacky” then), IMHO.
No harm, no foul, huh?
Thank you for time and consideration.
I don’t really care one way or the other, but could you (warm), in the future, include some idea of what the linked threads are about so that those of the more curious of us who happen to have slow connections this afternoon, can decide whether or not to give one of the cites a pass?
I’m confused…most of those cites don’t have anything to do with Czarcasm. However, they were good reading since I missed a bunch of them. Thanks!
I wouldn’t usually post to a thread after someone posted a link to the same thing, mainly because I’d probably just end up repeating someone in the original thread. As a newbie, I wouldn’t want to step on any toes.
shannybonanny, that those site didn’t have anything to do with Czarcasm is the point. He didn’t lock other “tacky” threads.
Also, the fact that a lot of people miss threads is a good enough reason to re-hash them. Or if not, they just drop off of the radar quick enough. I’m sure there will be people who enjoy the VPL thread who would not have otherwise seen it.
I have seen scores of threads that were posted only to have the second or third reply reference an earlier thread of the same topic, and yet the discussion goes on happily, regardless.
Now if this was a thread about, say, quantum physics and had been thouroughly discussed by Chronos, et al, THEN I could understand your trepidation. But are you really worried about stepping on soneone’s toes with your views on VPLs?
Actually it seemed to me that while he mentioned “tacky” as a reason (he also put in “sorry, couldn’t resist” which usually conotes a joking tone), he noted that the subject of your thread was in another current thread (ie not bumping an old one).
s??¶´i]Originally posted by wring *
**Actually it seemed to me that while he mentioned “tacky” as a reason (he also put in “sorry, couldn’t resist” which usually conotes a joking tone), he noted that the subject of your thread was in another current thread (ie not bumping an old one). **
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, usually. But I couldn’t tell (or didn’t get it) and apparently neither could you.
And VPL’s is not the subject of another current thread. If it was, I would have copped to my mistake (example). It is the topic of an older thread. This kind of thing happens all the time without the thread being locked. The only dual-post locked threads recently (that I know of) were locked because the threads were running concurrently. And in most of those cases the threads were moved, not locked.
I realize that taking issue with a mod will cause everybody to jump on their side. But, look, I’m not angry with Czarcasm at all. I know that the mods do a great job in keeping these boards running smooth. I respect the job they do and the flack they sometimes take for it. This is not one of those ‘flack giving’ cases.
Threads have been un-locked in the past. I didn’t feel there was reason enough for locking the thread. So I politely asked for it to be re-viewed. Jeez, is that such a crime?
A month in IMHO is a long while. I should have found it on the search but didn’t - honest mistake.
I still contend:
Locking a thread that was a repeat of an earlier thread in IMHO was not the norm (and mildly drastic), GQ maybe, not IMHO. Even though I missed it maybe I would like to see a re-poll.
Bumping an old, long thread uses more bandwidth than starting a new one.
It was a popular topic, running more than one page so I don’t see the big deal in letting it ride. Other than pride. I’ll consider the subject dropped, but I go on record as stating that I believe you jumped the gun and locked capriciously. And I’m still not mad or flaming you.
And Eutychus55 I resent the implication that I was flaming. I have never flamed anyone (except one time, jokingly, to a friend of mine that had just joined the SDMB). I’ve seen more heated debates in GQ that didn’t get moved. Read everyone of my post in that thread. I specifically said I was not upset and qualified my statements as being IMHO. I believe my use of the use of the word “harumph” in the title should have coveyed the light-hearted nature of my thread. It was IMHO.
He italicized the second part of that quote from the forum descriptions, the part about the Pit being the designated place for discussions of the administration of this board.
Are you using an old or non-standard browser or an unusually small font? Sometimes the italics get picked up as something else in those cases.
What Czar said.
Except for that “THE” boss thing.
See, we compete for the Baddest Irrationally Repressive Asshole Award.
Picture an unholy combination of poetry slam, luge and berserker paintball competition.
With farm animals.
And faux black leather.
It’s all a judgement call. Which you asked, warmgun–and fair 'nuff–but it ain’t a perfect world. The SDMB is a burgeoning, evolving, messy, busy volunteer-run corner of it. Frankly, we keep our eye on the ideal, punt and run. Not that quoting/parsing case law isn’t useful but it just ain’t always real-life applicable.
Just for the heck of it, I went the ‘People of the Straight Dope’ to check you out. This isn’t really ewe…er, I mean, you is it???
And I thought you were just kidding!
Peace,
Steve
