Could a mod clarify if discussing the broader subject given by the topic title , rather than the OP’s specific proposal, is on-topic? In light of the 2020 rules on hyperspecific thread scope. If not on-topic we can make a spin-off.
(i.e. how best to incorporate more African American focused lessons into existing U.S History and Literature classes, whereas OP has been clear she wanted to debate adding a mandatory Black Studies course in its own right)
Broader without getting too broad is fine. Especially as the main topic has been pretty well discussed and the OP was not written in a way where GD Mods were going to enforce a laser focused topic requirement.
Again, I never intended to dictate the boundaries of the debate for others. I said my intent was to maintain a “laser focus” on Black studies, meaning that’s how I’m going to write my posts. And I did. I stuck to my guns and argued the point on which I (not necessarily anybody else) was laser focused. It got argued down. I lost. OK then.
But I’m just a soul whose intentions are good Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood
I have a thread I started that I asked for opinions on two options. Others decided to hijack it to talk about a third option. I even tried to get it back on track by saying I tried that third option and can we get back to the original two options and the other posters blew that off. Have fun with your new thread I guess, but as for me as the OP that thread is useless to me.
When somebody tries a blatantly major hijack, like some weirdo tried to tell me the Civil War was about “states’ rights,” the moderator was right to step in and shut that shit down right quick. It means no matter how lax or stringent the OP was about it, there eventually is a hard limit to how far a poster can veer away from the stated topic. (and that is the moderator’s call)
You should have flagged that. I’m pretty sure any Café Mod (which includes myself) would have halted that. At this point it seems hopeless. though at a quick glance.
Don’t assume that your thread is being looked at by a mod. If things are going off, flag us.
LOL, I’ll jump in and see if I can get it back on course. Might be a lack of people expert about your two choices though.
Doper, please. I have the right to state what I intended and to speak up about it when anyone misunderstands. Once I’ve explained that, your continued insistence on how badly I may have written it the first time becomes irrelevant and even unhelpful.
This… If you write something that implies something you didn’t intend, don’t be surprised when people react to your implication.
If you say, “My intent for this thread is to keep a laser focus on Black studies,” in a thread you created, it sounds like you’re dictating how people must post in the thread. If instead you said, “In this thread I am trying to keep my posts focused on Black studies,” I think there would have been no question that you’re only referencing yourself.
But if they continue to harass you about it after you’ve explained, huffiness becomes justified, IMO.
Both you and Riemann need to just let it go at this point.
You made your original point, Johanna made theirs.
You continuing after that starts to look personal. And yes, unhelpful.
That’s a complete misrepresentation. Read the thread. I’m not the one who can’t “let it go”. Look at the sequence of posts to see who came back on Jan 29 to repeat their indignation.
What I’m seeing is the OP stubbornly refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for the GD mess. Nor any acknowledgement that their accusations of personal animus on the part of a mod were completely unjustified. Nor any acknowledgement that their attacks on other posters in this thread were unjustified because they are clueless about the purpose of ATMB.
Apparently no ignorance was fought here. Instead we get a little poem about how misunderstood and butthurt OP is.
I’m talking specifically about the last round of posts here. And this one you just made, too. You think “butthurt” is helpful? Man, somewhere the ghost of Colibri is fuming…