I totally get that OP’s can request that their thread be closed, and am not in disagreement with that.
But this poster, after a contentious thread, with many participants, basically, returned, responded to 9 posters, told 7 of the them they ‘misunderstood’ and then had the thread closed.
What the Hell?
How is that okay? I would not have a problem with it being closed before Big T’s latest post. If he wanted. But to come in and respond to all those posters, basically telling them they just don’t get it, and then, before they can respond, thread closed.
(Just to be clear to the sensitive Big T, this is not about anything you said or your thread specifically. It’s about thread closure protocol, in general, and your thread is just the example being used. Just so you understand.)
If I’m reading the OP correctly, her question is about about how something was handled by the Mods, i.e. thread closure protocol, which cannot go in the Pit, not the OP him/itself.
I just am wondering why they would close a thread where the OP directly addresses the responses of 7 different participants, and then gets the thread closed before any of them get to respond to him. That doesn’t seem right to me.
I don’t think I’ve seen such a thing before and just want to understand the thinking. I could care about the Big T thread. He wasn’t really listening to anything anyone was trying to tell him anyway, that’s clear. No different outcome would happen if it hadn’t been closed, I’m sure. But it’s not about that thread, it’s about denying interested posters to opportunity to respond to the points raised in the OP’s last post.
Jack Betty, I appreciate your religious stance but it’s spelled “atheist.” I’m not trying to be a smart ass, but it’s better you catch it now and not in the middle of a famous SDMB religious debate.
The original questions were resolved, perhaps not to BigT’s satisfaction, but at least in terms of whether the warning would stand. I see no reason to continue the thread, so the lockdown seems appropriate to me.
Did you just not feel like addressing the valid concerns I raised? Or is just that you feel enough had been said, and who cares if the posters he responded to had something else to add? Especially since he was basically telling them they didn’t understand.
Something new might have been added if you hadn’t closed it. I think that people, especially when there are 7 of them, should have the opportunity to rebut whether they ‘understand’ or not.
How about it? Care to actually address any of the points raised? Or are you now prescient and ‘just know’ no one was going to add anything further of value?
The first “They are above the law!” was a sarcastic response to the suggestion that the moderators shouldn’t have closed the thread. The second “I am above the law!” was at the realization that I’d misspelled Jack’s name. Apologies for distracting from the discussion in the thread.
