The free association thread was closed with this comment:
Hijack this thread! was closed with this comment:
The anti-thread was closed with this comment:
I don’t see a connection between the reason “Hijack this thread” was closed (it went on for too long) and the reason the anti-thread was closed (it hadn’t even reached a full page!). Now, maybe the link to “Hijack this thread” in Cajun Man’s quote was irrelevant and what he really meant was “consistency with my own rulings”. I note my objection to the free association ruling in that the thread wasn’t intended to be a post-padding event. However, I seem to recall that the free association thread that was raging when I joined the board was closed as a “post-padding” thread, and well, it did go on for five pages. OK, well, that’s consistent. I’m cool with that.
But the anti-thread wasn’t post-padding at all IMO. It was intended (and generally used) for posts that were of normal size, but didn’t fit into any thread that’d been started and that posters felt were not quite grandiose enough to start threads about. I could see where the free association thread was considered post-padding–most posts were 1-5 words in length–and I can see how “hijack this thread” was considered post-padding–most posts were about a sentence or two in length–but the way I saw it the anti-thread wasn’t that kind of thread.
Please comment.
