I don’t understand this note/warning from tomndebb

In the [del]Should Gay People be Allowed to Span?[/del] thread,** tomndebb** directed the following to Hamlet and me:

I cut the initial bit, having no interest in questioning whether or not it was a hijack. My apologies if it was relevant.
Where were either of us “badgering another poster,” or “demanding that that poster express a personal belief when they have not chosen to offer one”? How does that rise to the level of harassment?
Mod: Fixed link here:

That link doesn’t work.

Apparently even the Internet thinks that Gay People should not be allowed to Span, since the link goes nowhere.

My personal thoughts on gay people spanning are yet unclear. Perhaps we could have a debate on it.

The series of tubes is a bridge to nowhere?

Yeep. Should incompetent people be allowed to post? Sorry. Here’s a better link:
Should Gay People be Allowed to Span?

This has been debated for hundreds of years. Remember the old English rhyme, “When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?” Note that there is no reference to Steve.

**Hamlet **said in post 29

I don’t get how it’s worthy of mod action tho… but that appears to be the source of ignition.

Here’s the linkyto the thread.

Hamlet said:

Those are clearly badgering him for an opinion he has repeatedly refused to state. That’s the complaint - that he won’t state his opinion. Badgering by definition.

It’s a little less clear where you are actively badgering, vs responding to the contents of his posts. The closest I see is post 43, where you lay out an agenda against Bricker.

He was probably busy spawning.

Wait… it’s now harassment to request that someone answer a question that they’ve been dodging? Might as well just ban half the damned board, then.

Reported for harassment.

Reported for harassment.

Well, I think it’s certainly fair to not be required to state an opinion in a Great Debates thread. It’s not like Bricker was making declarations and unwilling to support his position. Certain posters were pursuing an agenda against Bricker and hijacking the thread topic. I mean, “discuss how you would interpret US law from 1864 just after the 14th Amendment was signed based only on then current case law, but with the latest scientific evidence released last week on the nature of homosexuality.” That’s a pretty far stretch from discussing thoughts on the current situation of whether homosexuals should be “allowed to spawn”, whatever that means. Especially after Bricker already addressed that question by stating the question is to vague to have legal meaning.

Hamlet: “Bricker, is it unConstitutional?”

Bricker: “Case law says it is.”

Hamlet: “I don’t want to know what case law and precedents say, I want to know your opinion.”

How is that GD material? How does that fit the OP?

Not intended to suggest actual quotes. Paraphrased for expediency.

Well, it’s not like “unconstitutional” is some kind of binary state of existence, determined by a well-defined scientific testing process. Something is unconstitutional if a judge says it is (and that judge is not overruled by a higher-ranked judge). At best, Bricker can say how he would decide, were he a judge, and doesn’t he offer to do that at one point’?

Rhythmdvl, I apologize for including you in the general comment. Your post #43, first quoting Hamlet and then including a personal observation aout Bricker’s perspective, caused me to lump your actions with those of Hamlet, which, on re-reading, was not a valid conclusion.

There has been a recent increase, in Great Debates, in the number of posts insisting that a specific poster respond in a particular way, generally accompanied by personal accusations (or strong implications) that the poster lacks integrity. (The tactic is not new, here, going back even to the AOL board, but I am looking to reduce its recent increase.) I am afraid you got caught in ther crossfire, here.

Moderator, please. I asked a question, Bricker didn’t answer it, and I called him on it. If that’s violating the rules, I can spend all day here reporting posts for you to wade through. Fortunately, Bricker and I were able to finally work it out and have a debate. Unfortuantely, the thread seems to have died from overmoderation. Shame really.

As a fellow mod, I’m forced to bring this up at our next meeting. Your apologizing has been noted and will be brought before the Supreme Council. Your spine may need strengthing. We don’t apologize. That is all.

Gays can span, but there subspaces might not be fully dimensional - are gays mutually orthogonal?


Your actual comments have already been posted in this thread.
Bricker legitimately answered every question that arose from his actual posts. You are not owed an answer to your demands for personal opinion and continuing to make that demand is harrassment. No poster has an obligation to post personal opinion and badgering another poster for that view will not be tolerated.

Not all of them, in order. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Baloney. I asked him for HIS view of the Constitution, and he didn’t offer it. It wasn’t until much later when we got to a tortured hypothetical that we got the answer to my question. And then we got into a debate. But my question wasn’t answered until that point. I can’t help it that you didn’t seem to notice that, though.

He didn’t have an obligation to answer. But it is complete and utter “piffle” for you to stomp in, well after the fact, and admonish me for not letting him get away with not answering it. If refusing to take a non answer to a question, and asking the question again is “harassment” to you, I would think you’ll have your hands full moderating this board in the future.

But we both know that it won’t happen to anyone else. Given our history, I can’t say I’m all that surprised by you either.

What makes me really laugh is that the entire thing was resolved by the time you came trotting in on your high horse. We got to a hypothetical, I got an answer, we discussed it, and even debated a bit. And then, after that, you make your grand appearance.