I don’t understand this note/warning from tomndebb

[tomndebb]

@Hamlet

@tomndebb

Posting your error in all caps does not correct your error.

Misunderstanding what I said does not correct yours. He didn’t answer MY question. That was kinda the entire damn point, tom.

I do not recall anywhere in the Regs that says that a poster has a right to demand answers to off-topic questions. Bricker did not offer a personal view of the issue, so he was under no obligation to respond to a question about his personal views. You were perfectly fine asking him what his personal view might have been, but his response in Post #19 indicated that he considered his post #18 to be sufficient answer.

@Hamlet

Finally, I think I understand your point, assuming there is one in there somewhere. Once a person gives an answer to the OP, no one may ask any follow up questions, call them on it when they don’t give an answer to that question, or ask the question again.

Well, not in the manner that you chose to pursue.

You did not simply ask a “follow-up” question, one that would have examined what Bricker posted and then asked for how a different court ruling might have changed the the answer provided or cited a different case that might have provided a different logic. Instead, you changed the topic from what was constitutiuonal to what did Bricker think ought to be the law. You also framed that question as a personal accusation that Bricker lacked integrity:

@Hamlet

I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw. I have a sneaking suspicion that you tend to hide YOUR view on the Constitution with posts like yours above, and I want to have that suspicion alleviated.

Bricker then went ahead and answered your question, anyway:

@Bricker

So if I were a judge today, sitting in federal district court, what would I do?

I would strike down a law that purported to forbid homosexuals from reproducing as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, and cite Skinner as the precedent I was relying upon.

although not to the satisfaction of your personal grudge

@Hamlet

No. As I already said: “I asked about YOUR view of the Constitution, not prior caselaw.” Ignore prior caselaw and tell me YOUR view.

At that point, you were clearly out of order.
Later, you dug yourself deeper:

@Hamlet

@Bricker

Apparently I’m not allowed to mention things like caselaw, so I’m not sure how I can expound.

These questions really aren’t that difficult, Bricker. Although I do understand why you want to fight the hypothetical, and why you seem to have so much trouble answering the questions.

@Bricker

My conclusion is required by case law. If this question were being presented tabula rasa, in 1869, let’s say, then my answer would be different.

And your answer would be?

I know you see where I’m going. You saw it with the first question I asked, and have been fighting tooth and nail to avoid actually admitting it.

You were not “following up” on anything in the thread, merely demanding that another poster provide you with a personal opinion which the debate does not call for. Since Bricker had not offered or introduced any personal views, you were out of line to question the views not offered. As a one-off post, I would not pay any attention to it. As a pattern of behavior that included multiple posts of snide remarks, you were guilty of harrassment.

@Hamlet

I’ll be fascinated to see how you make this rule work in practice.

Posters who stalk other posters are already told to stop and if they choose to continue, they are Warned. If one badgers another poster for irrelevant information, making snide remarks and insulting implications, one will be told to stop and if that poster chooses to continue, he or she will be Warned.