Hijacking

[Measure_for_Measure]

Best practice.

[hijack] I’m prone to make tangential comments at times. As a matter of politeness I try to delay such remarks until at least some of the main issues are presented. I also use hijack tags as a nod to the OP’s main concerns. [/hijack]

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Now at the risk of “hijacking” this thread, and I hope I’ll be permitted this slight digression as D’Anconia has directly accused me of a few things upthread: D’Anconia, you accused me of being “uninformed,” “misunderstanding something,” making a claim that I never did, and either being “unwilling or unable to back [my claim] up.” I would love for you to come back and explain *how *I was uninformed, *what *I misunderstood, *where *I said that my insurance company DIDN’T cover flu shots, explain *how *I am unwilling or unable to back up what I said, or explain to me how specifically you would have me “back up” what my insurance policy covers. For shits and giggles, maybe explain how any of that is pertinent to a discussion of the Amazon/Berkshire-Hawthorne/Chase healthcare announcement.

Hey D’Anconia, I notice you haven’t come back to address this, I’m not sure if you’re unable to do so, maybe just unwilling, I don’t know…perhaps you realize you misunderstood something or you realized you were uninformed about what you were saying. Or hey, maybe you just don’t like answering questions that are totally off-topic in a thread that you started and don’t have anything to do with your OP. Now that I can completely understand.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

One issue that comes up a lot re hijacking is who is the hijacker, and at what point is something a hijack.

It’s common for people to include many facts or assertions in the course a larger post generally directed at one issue. These various facts or assertions are generally (though not always) intended to support the larger position to one extent or another. Suppose someone comes along and disagrees with one specific point. So they quote that one point and challenge it, and are silent about the rest. Have they hijacked the thread at that point? I would think not. But then the quotee and/or others respond to that specific point, and then the challenger and/or others respond further and so on. After a while the entire discussion can thus shift focus to a discussion of the one specific point. Has there been a hijack at that point? And if so, who is at fault? The guy who made the original assertion? The guy who responded to it?

Because ISTM that sometimes in situations like the above there are people who view the thread as having been hijacked, because they personally were interested in the broader position and resent having the discussion change to a debate over one specific point. But it’s hard to see who should have done anything differently and why.

@wolfpup

About half a dozen posters, including me, took that thread about the Amazon health care consortium into a more general discussion about UHC and the failures of the current private-insurance model. Whether that could be considered a “hijack” or a natural and legitimate evolution of the discussion is a matter of opinion.

IMO it was the former. Not so much because I object to having the conversation shift direction but because your basis for shifting the debate was a misinterpretation of something someone else (i.e. me :)) said, the statement itself being on-topic and your reaction being off-topic.

[DrDeth]

@wolfpup

About half a dozen posters, including me, took that thread about the Amazon health care consortium into a more general discussion about UHC and the failures of the current private-insurance model. Whether that could be considered a “hijack” or a natural and legitimate evolution of the discussion is a matter of opinion. g.

Well, to be honest, hasnt that been debated quite a bit on this board? Was it nessesary to go there again?