# I don’t understand this note/warning from tomndebb **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738 "2010-08-19T14:10:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/41 "2010-08-22T01:35:58Z")
You have not been Warned. Bricker answered your question–you just did not like his answer. Your question was not relevant to the discussion; it was a demand for a personal opinion, regardless of the actual point under discussion. You also insisted that he was “hiding” something, so that you could badger him to give you a different answer. You are free to challenge any answer he provides in a thread. You are not free to change the subject from the actual discussion to some sort of witch hunt regarding what you want to believe he might cherish in his heart of hearts. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/42 "2010-08-22T01:47:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Bricker answered your question–you just did not like his answer. He did not answer the question I asked. Which is why I had to ask it again, and again, and create a hypothetical he was comfortable with, before I got an answer. You’re attempt at rewriting history doesn’t work. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Your question was not relevant to the discussion; it was a demand for a personal opinion, regardless of the actual point under discussion. Would you, at the very least, make up your fucking mind? A few posts ago, it was fine if I asked him the question, now the quesiton is irrelevant, and I can’t ask it again or question Bricker about not actually answering it. You know what? Screw it. I’ve wasted enough time on this non issue. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/43 "2010-08-22T02:22:04Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > Bricker answered your question–you just did not like his answer. > > He did not answer the question I asked. Which is why I had to ask it again, and again, and create a hypothetical he was comfortable with, before I got an answer. You’re attempt at rewriting history doesn’t work. I am re-writing nothing. Posters ask off-topic questions all the time. That was not a problem. Bricker indicated that he had provided as much answer as he felt the thread warranted and you insisted on demanding an answer to your off-topic question while implying that he was being deceitful. > [@Hamlet](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > Your question was not relevant to the discussion; it was a demand for a personal opinion, regardless of the actual point under discussion. > > Would you, at the very least, make up your fucking mind? A few posts ago, it was fine if I asked him the question, now the quesiton is irrelevant, and I can’t ask it again or question Bricker about not actually answering it. The question was always irrelevant, but side issues do occur in threads. The problem was never the fact that you wanted to introduce a side topic, but that you acted as though he owed you an answer to your off-topic question and did so, repeatedly, in an insulting manner. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/44 "2010-08-22T02:56:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Bricker indicated that he had provided as much answer as he felt the thread warranted and you insisted on demanding an answer to your off-topic question while implying that he was being deceitful. I asked a question. Bricker didn’t answer the question I asked. I called him on it. You didn’t like it. And here we are. > [@Hamlet](#): > > The question was always irrelevant, but side issues do occur in threads. The problem was never the fact that you wanted to introduce a side topic, but that you acted as though he owed you an answer to your off-topic question and did so, repeatedly, in an insulting manner. I asked a question. Bricker didn’t answer the question I asked. I called him on it. You didn’t like it. And here we are. Are we done with the “stalking” and “personal grudge” crap now? Or must I treat Bricker with kid gloves from here on out lest you come marching in? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/45 "2010-08-22T03:42:11Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Are we done with the “stalking” and “personal grudge” crap now? Or must I treat Bricker with kid gloves from here on out lest you come marching in? Refraining from insults is not “treating with kid gloves.” If you cannot avoid the insults, then you will just have to take the consequences. (I note that you have carefully avoided the whole issue of your slurs, even though they figure prominently in my decision.) And you continue to pretend that Bricker has some obligation to answer you when you get off track, just because you have some weird desire to expose what you pretend he is “hiding.” Ignoring that aspect of your posts does not change what happened, so I found your claims of re-writing history to be rather ironic. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/46 "2010-08-23T16:34:15Z")
Here’s my problem, **tomndebb** : 1.) \*\*Hamlet \*\*clearly wasn’t satisfied with the answer he got to his first, so he kept asking Bricker variations on it (not just the same thing every time), until they arrived at a question that was _mutually agreeable_. This is what we call “discussion.” 2.) \*At no point \*did \*\*Bricker \*\*ask \*\*Hamlet \*\*to drop the issue. 3.) There is \*no indication \*that \*\*Bricker \*\*felt harassed by the repeated questioning. So, I ask you again: Why, when \*neither of the participants \*had a problem with what was happening, did you feel the need to step in? Why was this classified as harassment if no one was feeling harassed? Isn’t \*\*Bricker \*\*a big boy who can ask another poster to stop badgering him if he well and truly is refusing to answer a question, versus engaging in \*discussion and debate \*in order to clarify questions and positions? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/47 "2010-08-25T13:03:33Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Here’s my problem, **tomndebb** : > > 1.) \*\*Hamlet \*\*clearly wasn’t satisfied with the answer he got to his first, so he kept asking Bricker variations on it (not just the same thing every time), until they arrived at a question that was _mutually agreeable_. This is what we call “discussion.” > > 2.) \*At no point \*did \*\*Bricker \*\*ask \*\*Hamlet \*\*to drop the issue. > > 3.) There is \*no indication \*that \*\*Bricker \*\*felt harassed by the repeated questioning. > > So, I ask you again: > > Why, when \*neither of the participants \*had a problem with what was happening, did you feel the need to step in? Why was this classified as harassment if no one was feeling harassed? Isn’t \*\*Bricker \*\*a big boy who can ask another poster to stop badgering him if he well and truly is refusing to answer a question, versus engaging in \*discussion and debate \*in order to clarify questions and positions? Hamlet did not get around to asking “variations” of his post until well into the thread while repeatedly whining that Bricker had not answered his private question, despite the fact that Bricker noted, twice, that he felt he had answered the question as it related to the OP and that his opinion was based on the actual facts of the case law. If Bricker is too polite to complain about harrassing posts, that is no reason for me to permit them in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/48 "2010-08-25T17:43:54Z")
But _there was no harassment_, other than as you, personally and apparently idiosyncratically, saw it. Can you find \*anybody else \*who thinks that \*\*Bricker \*\*was being harassed, including \*\*Bricker \*\*himself? Do you think that \*nothing useful \*came out of the way the questions were restated and then rephrased? Do you not understand how discussion _works_? If it would have been the same question every time, with the same answer or refusal to answer, you might have a point. But it wasn’t. There was development. The two participants arrived at a mutually agreeable conclusion. How can that \*not \*be something that you want to encourage on a _fucking discussion_ board, for chri? The forum is _Great Debates_, not _People Make Comments That No One Else Is Allowed to Respond To or Discuss_. Moreover, when has this pursuit of a satisfactory answer to a question, barring any explicit request to stop from the person being asked, \*ever \*been against the rules here? “you are avoiding the question”: [25 returns](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22you+are+avoiding+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) “you’re avoiding the question”: [57 results](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22you%27re+avoiding+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) “you’re dodging the question”: [40 results](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22you%27re+dodging+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) “you are dodging the question”: [7 results](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22you+are+dodging+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) "quit dodging the question: [3 results](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22quit+dodging+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) “stop avoiding the question”: [1 result](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22stop+avoiding+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) “stop dodging the question”: [2 results](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22stop+dodging+the+question%22+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=) And those are merely \*exact text string \*results for some common ways of \*explicitly \*doing what \*\*Hamlet \*\*did, which is to chase down an answer when they don’t feel their question has been adequately addressed. Are you going to chase down all those people and shake your finger at them, too? Hell, I’ve probably been asking you the same things repeatedly \*in this thread \*because I find your answers inadequate. Gonna warn _me_, too? Am I \*harassing \*you by asking you to properly explain why you made the call you did? Or how about [this other ATMB thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572276)–I asked the same questions and made the same points until I got a satisfactory answer. But none of the mods or admins there accused me of harassment, nor even hinted that I was treading anywhere close to a note, let alone a warning. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/49 "2010-08-25T18:39:59Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Hell, I’ve probably been asking you the same things repeatedly \*in this thread \*because I find your answers inadequate. Gonna warn _me_, too? Am I \*harassing \*you by asking you to properly explain why you made the call you did? Or how about [this other ATMB thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=572276)–I asked the same questions and made the same points until I got a satisfactory answer. But none of the mods or admins there accused me of harassment, nor even hinted that I was treading anywhere close to a note, let alone a warning. You keep focussing on the number of times a question is asked while ignoring the relevance of the question to the OP and further ignoring that the questions in the other thread were posed in an insulting fashion. You also keep claiming that the question was asked in multiple fashions when that did not occur until after multiple reiterations. When you ignore the majority of the reasons provided for my actions, already posted, harping only on the satisfaction of one element does not give me confdence that you will understand any further explanation. Your questions, here, are relevant to the OP and are not (yet) insulting, (and this is not my forum), so I will not be issuing you any Warnings. As to whether I (or Bricker) felt harrassed: the matter is irrelevant. I was acting to prevent further similar actions toward all posters, (and I have made similar judgments in the past), and the toughness of any individual poster’s skin is not a factor in that decision. (No, if it matters to you; I do not feel harrassed.) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/50 "2010-08-25T19:01:19Z")
**Shot From Guns** said: > [@](#): > > But _there was no harassment_, other than as you, personally and apparently idiosyncratically, saw it. Can you find _anybody else_ who thinks that **Bricker** was being harassed, including **Bricker** himself? I certainly felt that **Hamlet** was pursuing an agenda against **Bricker** rather than sincerely discussing the thread topic. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/51 "2010-08-25T19:20:41Z")
Pursuing an agenda, sure, I’ll heartily agree with that. But do you think that it constituted _harassment_? I don’t. Especially not since it took the form of a \*dialogue between both people \*that ended in a manner _satisfactory to both of them_. And **tomndebb** , I fail to see how asking an opinion on the Constitutionality of disallowing gay people to have children is \*not \*on-topic for a thread titled “Should Gay People be Allowed to Spawn?” Somewhat tangential? Maybe. But well within the subject. Especially when the person whose opinion is being requested pretty much prides himself on and builds his board reputation on being a legal expert and getting pedantically nitpicky about what does and does not constitute Constitutionality. ETA: I also note that you failed to address the cites I provided for other people chasing down an answer in just as explicit and “harassing” a way as \*\*Hamlet \*\*did. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/52 "2010-08-25T19:41:18Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **Shot From Guns** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > But _there was no harassment_, other than as you, personally and apparently idiosyncratically, saw it. Can you find _anybody else_ who thinks that **Bricker** was being harassed, including **Bricker** himself? > > I certainly felt that **Hamlet** was pursuing an agenda against **Bricker** rather than sincerely discussing the thread topic. I agree with Irishman. Also I found it annoying and close to hi-jacking. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/53 "2010-08-26T06:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > **Tomndebb** : If Bricker is too polite to complain about harrassing posts, that is no reason for me to permit them in Great Debates. Cough. Cough. He’s also made of tougher stuff than to see every confrontation or contradiction as harrassment. So far I’ve seen no evidence that he held back out of politeness. And I’ve seen no stalking. I can understand a rule that says that no doper HAS to give a personal opinion. But you have to argue on and on about it like a peeved newbie. Participants in a debate are responsible for explaining any challenges to _contradictory_ statements that they have made. If they don’t, they lose ground and it is expected for their opposition to point this lapse out more than once. But that is different from the question put to **Bricker**. That is clear. But it is a far cry from “No doper has to give a personal opinion” to the suggestion that repeating a demand for an answer to a personal opinion is stalking behavior. If you really want to take the heat out of some discussions, cool your own rhetoric. Just a suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/54 "2010-08-26T14:12:48Z")
[QUOTE=Irishman] I certainly felt that **Hamlet** was pursuing an agenda against **Bricker** rather than sincerely discussing the thread topic. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tahssa] I agree with Irishman. Also I found it annoying and close to hi-jacking. [/QUOTE] Right, but _was it harassment_, i.e., something that’s against the board rules and deserves a note and/or warning? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/55 "2010-08-26T14:26:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Hamlet did not get around to asking “variations” of his post until well into the thread while repeatedly whining that Bricker had not answered his private question, You stay classy, tom! With comments like that, as well as our history, I’m starting to feel a bit harassed. Now if only someone would step in … > [@tomndebb](#): > > despite the fact that Bricker noted, twice, that he felt he had answered the question as it related to the OP and that his opinion was based on the actual facts of the case law. More bullshit. He didn’t answer the question I asked, which was about the topic of the OP, whether or not it would be legal to stop homosexuals from being parents. I thought this thread had died, but lo and behold, you’re still here peddling the same crap. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/56 "2010-08-26T14:39:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > And **tomndebb** , I fail to see how asking an opinion on the Constitutionality of disallowing gay people to have children is \*not \*on-topic for a thread titled “Should Gay People be Allowed to Spawn?” Somewhat tangential? Maybe. I’d be fascinated to find an example where tom admonishes Bricker for introducing the legal/constitutional issue into a thread that didn’t have it in the OP. Or even just a potshot about it being a “hijack” or “unrelated”. I’m sure there must be dozens of examples like that out there. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/57 "2010-08-26T17:09:46Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > [QUOTE=Tahssa] > I agree with Irishman. > > Also I found it annoying and close to hi-jacking. Right, but _was it harassment_, i.e., something that’s against the board rules and deserves a note and/or warning? [/QUOTE] More like,“being a jerk.” Not everyone sees it that way of course, but that’s my take. Borderline harassment + borderline stalking + borderline hijacking = being a jerk. Here’s another Can O’ Worms: What if a poster is on the receiving end of borderline harassment/stalking and drops a note to a mod (which is supposedly the preferred way to handle problems)? Suppose the mod agrees that there is borderline harassment/jerkishness/hijacking? Should the mod say, “we received a complaint”? That would lead to speculation about who made the complaint and more board drama. Or should the mod just say, dial it back, and not mention the complaint? strongly doubt that Bricker made a complaint. But **if** he had it would have been justified, and I’d say it would be best if the mods not didn’t mention receiving a complaint. This is no big deal. There was mild jerkiness involved, and a mod moved to stop it. Now we get to read the demands that there be exacting definitions of all possible violations of SDMB rules. Such fun. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738/58 "2010-08-26T17:17:50Z")
Why is it an issue if the complaint is public? I think it’s perfectly fair for accusations of harassment to be public. If the poster uses that accusation as an excuse for further harassment, well, then they just get banned all the faster. And I don’t think the mod moved to stop jerkishness. I think the mod moved to, after the fact, stop discussion. I.e., if \*\*tom \*\*had come into the thread earlier, a whole chunk of the conversation would have never taken place. Keep that up, and suddenly we don’t have a board. If \*\*tom \*\*would have said, “Next time, try not to be such a jerk when you’re asking for clarification,” I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But that’s not what he did–instead, he \*accused someone of harassment \*for engaging in a behavior that’s not uncommon on this board. And there are \*still \*no responses to my string of cites, I see. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-don-t-understand-this-note-warning-from-tomndebb/550738.md?page=2)