I would agree with this, but I’m pretty tolerant of errors of fact as long as there is good faith among the participants. It should be noted, however, the policy Bricker was advocating in the linked thread had no such exemption. “Wrong info = loss of finger”, later amended to “insufficient due dilligence to prevent errors of fact = loss of finger” was the proposed policy. I found it creepy at the time, and disproportionate to the “crime”, but since it was almost certainly tongue-in-cheek I didn’t say anything about it. Over the years since then I have seen Bricker hold to his extremely rigorous standards for message board communication on factual matters, and I figured sooner or later Karma was going to come back to bite him.
When this incident passes into history as a folk tale it may be called “Bricker of the Nine Ringers and the Strict Standards of Message Board Communication of Doom.”
The funny thing is that if they close the thread, it will be to stop this idle chatter more than for whatever reasons the OP had to ask for the closing.
I was under the impression that the OP could ask for thread closure, in particular when the relevant issue had been resolved, and the mods would generally grant it –unless the OP was just trying to sneak out of a dogpile or something boring like that.
This is true, although even when everything appears to be wrapped up I often like to give it a little extra time after the closure request just in case someone else still has something to say. Clearly, in this case, no one does.