# Really, Twickster? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 14, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183 "2013-08-14T02:54:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/61 "2013-08-14T21:23:47Z")
Thanks for clearing that up TubaDiva. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/62 "2013-08-14T21:28:26Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > My comment was clearly about what her father’s opinion should be, which is within the topic of the OP. This is a pretty entertaining comment. Maybe he should have called you first to see what his opinion “should” have been? I think you may have forgotten what the word “opinion” means. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/63 "2013-08-14T21:47:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Oakminster’s post was hostile because his opinion is hostile. No.It’s possible to dislike her and express the opinion civilly. I refer yo to Baker’s post, #36 in this thread: _Oakminster, I agree with your opinion about Jane Fonda. AI can barely stand to see a movie with her in it, my dislike is so strong._ See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/64 "2013-08-15T01:42:09Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > **DMark** added some value on-topic to the post. **Oak** added nothing at all on topic to the post. I actually don’t think DM should have been modded, given that he did address the OP (as well as \*adding \*some personal opinion). Is it an agreed-upon rule that no similar personal opinions can be added to on-point responses? > [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Would **Oakminsters’** or **DMarks’** posts been ok if the thread had been started in IMHO since they were their opinions? > [@Loach](#): > > We are not allowed to give opinions in Cafe Society now? I’ve been mostly away for a few weeks but I was unaware of the rule change. IANAM (of course), but I think you guys are focusing on the wrong issue. It seems obvious to me that it’s a lot less about just stating opinions when the OP was a factual question, then it is about stating _political_ opinions when the OP and previous responses had not asked for, or given political opinions at all. If you think it through realistically, it’s exactly those sort of politically opinionated posts that derail/hijack a thread with the quickness around here. Moderation to try to prevent this is especially enforced in GQ, but it is still necessary to some extent in non-political threads in the non-GD/Elections/Pit forums. Dropping political jabs into non-political threads is the #1 cause of hijacked threads, and it’s pretty much de facto threadshitting, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/65 "2013-08-15T12:22:48Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Depends what it’s an opinion about. If it’s the arts – books, movies, music, etc., – sure, that’s what the forum is there for. > > Your political opinion in a thread where someone had asked a factual question about how someone reacted to something? Off-topic, and worthy of a mod note to prevent a hijack. Factual questions about works or artists are asked and answered all the time in CS. Which leads inevitably to opinions about the work or artist. In fact if a factual question about a work or artist is made in GQ it will be moved to CS were it can be discussed more freely. It still seems like you are arbitrarily applying GQ rules in CS for just this one incident. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/66 "2013-08-15T16:57:28Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This is a pretty entertaining comment. > > Maybe he should have called you first to see what his opinion “should” have been? > > I think you may have forgotten what the word “opinion” means. To be slightly snarky, it was an opinion. It was just an opinion about an opinion. (That wouldn’t make it on-topic. Otherwise, I could spouting my 2 cents worth about the Boston Red Sox in exactly the same thread.) ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/67 "2013-08-15T17:19:14Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > Sorry. IMHO IS all about opinions. Of course it would be all right, that’s what In My Humble Opinion is for. > > BUT … that’s not where the thread was. I think this falls under the _no blood, no foul_ exception to Rule 14 (A) subsection VIII, line 9. But my rule book is 2 months old and probably out of date so please disregard. 🙂 Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/68 "2013-08-15T18:38:51Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Firstly, there is a hostile tone in **Oakminster** ’s post, that is absent in **DMark** ’s. Well, duh. One of them likes Hanoi Jane, the other doesn’t. Of course one is more hostile when discussing her. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/69 "2013-08-15T20:03:54Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > Well, duh. One of them likes Hanoi Jane, the other doesn’t. Of course one is more hostile when discussing her. Already answered. See post #63 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183/70 "2013-08-15T21:15:20Z")
Here’s what Oakminster wrote: > [@](#): > > He should have disowned her. Still should. Hanoi Jane can never be forgiven. That’s not really all that hostile. He wasn’t saying he wants to see Jane Fonda tortured or killed or that he hates her with the heat of a thousand blazing suns. The post wasn’t modded because it was overly hostile. It was modded because it was a personal opinion (which it is) and it was off-topic (which is a judgement call but not an unreasonable one). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/really-twickster/666183.md?page=3)