What’s the problem? I certainly don’t understand why this was closed.
Politics in GQ.
Well, the question was factually answered (what more was there to factually say about it?) and being a political hot-potatoe the chance of someone saying something that didn’t belong in GQ was high.
Doesn’t seem like a bad decision to me at all–GQ questions are often closed because they’ve been answered.
Someone was bound to introduce politics into it. Pretty much a no-no for GQ.
Given the degree of political polarity on this board, that question could have caused a major argument in GQ. As I saw it, Sam complimented the OP and the responder for asking a factual question and giving a factual answer, then locked the thread before someone decided to do an anti-Hillary or anti-Bush post in it. Though I hate to injure Sam’s reputation as a Jackbooted Nazi Mod. ™, I feel that this was among the most reasonable Mod. actions I’ve seen.
Not saying too much recently…
They’re blaming it on the heat, you know.
Is that you, Mr. Quayle?
I didn’t realise “this is a political topic in the USA” was a normal reason for a thread being closed.
I had fuck-all idea what the thread was about - my response was a veiled ‘just google it’, given that this was what I did to provide that reply.
Topics that involve politics are permitted in GQ. Topics that result in poltical discussions are taboo.
GQ: What is Communism/Terrorism/Neo-Conservatism/ignorance?
Not GQ: What should we do about Communism/Terrorism/Neo-Conservatism/ignorance?
The first question will be left open only as long as the answers are purely factual–and the thread will probably be closed as soon as a truly factual answer has been posted in order to avoid Politics in GQ (as noted by manhattan in the last sticky on the GQ page).
It is a pretty old policy. I don’t recall whether an older sticky has been lost or if it was simply posted by so many Moderators over the years that it simply appears like phosphor burn at the top of the monitor whenever I open GQ.
Even Cecil’s faux-pas have felicitous effects.
Your check’s in the mail.
If you have additional factual information to contibute to that thread, I’ll re-open it.
Well for the sake of balance (because I complained about mods in another thread) I want to congratulate samclem on a timely and thoroughly appropriate decision. The thread started off as a nigh-pit and closing it the very second it was answered was exactly right.
It’s hate speech.
The OP from that thread could have been a veiled way of saying “Hey, get a load of what Hillary called Bush!” (in hopes of heaping scorn on one or the other), which is something that is very much out of place in GQ. Or it could have been exactly what it said it was. Even so, if the thread hadn’t been closed it was only a matter of time before someone would have used it to post comments derogatory of GWB and/or Hillary.
Good call, samclem.
What, comparing Bush to one of the greatest film composers of all time is hate speech?
Get off it, ya fuckin’ Tiomkin.
Are you serious, or am I in the whooshed state?
I thought of it as a chreia.
You mean a “chreia” as in “a brief reminiscence referring to some person in a pithy form for the purpose of edification”? How is that hate speech, exactly?
No, the chreia was my post. (The definition you found is a bit muddled. A chreia is any generally pithy anecdote.)