# Mild Objection to a Mod's Note
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772
**Category:** About This Message Board
**Created:** [December 19, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772 "2013-12-19T23:28:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772/1 "2013-12-19T23:28:30Z")
In the thread over Truthers and Conspiracy Fantasies, **Tomndebb** mentioned me by name as arguing over the physics of the WTC collapse. I (somewhat) object to that, as, instead, I was observing that studies of the matter had been performed, which had been denied.
I accept that this was straying too close to forbidden territory, but I think it was also close to acceptable territory, as it is directly relevant to the mind-set of conspiracy believers.
When a conspiracy believer says, “This has never been studied,” I don’t think it falls into arguing the particulars to say, “Yes, it has been studied.”
**Tomndebb** is a very, very good moderator. I just think I got smeared a bit unfairly by his note. Merely saying “Everyone else” would have been fine, but “Everyone else, **Trinopus** ” seems a tad unfairly focused.
ETA: a couple of posts violating the note appeared in the thread, a couple hours after the note was posted. Hmph.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772/2 "2013-12-20T00:36:11Z")
Linky, please. Or, at least, tell us which in forum should we search. We’re busy people.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2013, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772/3 "2013-12-20T00:44:42Z")
Oops, sorry. It’s Great Debates, “Truthers and Conspiracy Theorists.”
[My post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16942180&postcount=303)
[**Tomndebb** ’s Mod Note.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16942846&postcount=304)
I don’t really have much to whine about; I did skate on very thin ice, after warnings had been issued. I just feel I should have gotten by as “Everyone else” without being named. Shrug. If that’s the worst that happens to me today, it’s a really good day!
Also, in case anybody asks, “So what do you want them to do about it,” nothin’. I’ve said my say. Thank you to the SDMB for allowing comments on the moderators’ activities.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772/4 "2013-12-20T00:51:10Z")
What prompted the inclusion of **Trinopus** , by name, was the following:
> [@Truthers and conspiracy theorists](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists/633174/303):
>
> (You also seem to have some odd idea that no physical analysis of the WTC collapse was ever performed, which is flat-out wrong. A great number of studies have been done. If only a full-scale reproduction of the towers – including the furnishings, workstations, the water in the toilets, and the human beings at their desks? – would satisfy you, you might best be prepared for disappointment.)
which, as **Trinopus** has noted, was skating close to the edge. I just wanted everyone to back away from the hijack and this paragraph, while not a specific violation of my instructions, was one more reference to **psikeyhacker** ’s perseverating fixation on arguing the details of his CT rather than addressing the topic of the thread.
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [December 20, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mild-objection-to-a-mods-note/676772/5 "2013-12-20T16:50:47Z")
He had already instructed **everyone** _twice_ that arguing the merits of the World Trade Center collapse in that thread was off topic and would result in Warnings. I’m surprised he didn’t drop a Warning on the three of you in that Note.
The comment about people having a single idee fixe was relevant. Your rebuttal about WTC analyses was not, and was a direct violation of the moderator instructions.