Titled: "Liberal, you dickwad hypocrite "
The OP was, as many suspected, a sock. We banned the account. No, **Marley **didn’t do it.
We disappeared the thread because the OP was a sock. We don’t have a problem with the topic. A non-sock may start a new thread on the topic.
Gfactor
Moderator
Now Bricker will never see where I insinuated I slept with his wife.
Yeah, but there was a pretty important, nay, precedent setting ruling in that thread that should have been stickied. It involved, uh, crowing thunts.
just when it was starting to get interesting! darn you, Gfactor! 
I see what you did there, sort of. 
Couldn’t you just delete the post made by the sock (1) and leave the rest of it?
Oh, come on, it’s not like there was much of anything happening that hasn’t happened in dozens of Lib pittings in the past, and won’t happen in dozens of Lib pittings in the future.
It’s not in the way of things. 
(name the source of that quote, if you can).
Besides, we’ve got a new spiffier one, right here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11108748
Maybe the world ends after a set number of Lib pittings and this is setting us back.
or your genuine urge?, is it instead just something you do with no rational reason whatsoever?
Yes, the Mayan thread counter of Lib pittings stops at 5,126! Be afraid, be very afraid.
In this case, it’s not something that *I *did. Somebody else did it. I just posted this thread to explain what had happened. But it is consistent with the way we have customarily handled these matters.
The quote, by the way, is from the movie Circle of Iron. In an early scene, the hero is challenged by a monkey-man, who taunts him mercilessly. The hero asks, as we’ve all wondered during scenes like this, “What if I just go around you?” And the monkey guy responds, “It’s not in the way of things.” The monkey guy had a better answer up his sleeve, though, because the hero didn’t know where the next destination on his quest was until he’d beaten the monkey guy, but that’d be a less mysterious answer.
We must already be dead then! This must be the Mayan afterlife! [looks around]
Oh, this is all Google got me:
Hmm… Why does linkie no workie? (It does if you cut and paste it)
You have parse links turned off.
Can we know who was the banned sock wearer?
Can I suggest that this policy be revisited?
I hate the idea that posts by legit users get thrown out because a sock posted. It seems like you’re punishing legit posters for falling for a troll’s scam. Granted, this case doesn’t seem to be a big deal, but I’ve seen a number of fun and/or interesting threads disappeared because a troll started them.
If the idea is to stop the troll by getting attention, this policy isn’t working–the one who posted the original thread now has 3 threads about him/her. (the original, this, the reboot thread)–and telling people not to ask is like saying “DNFTT”–nice theory, doesn’t work.
Wouldn’t a better solution just be to change the name of the troll to “SOCK10010100111001” or something? It removes any “fame” they might have in their name (who’s gonna keep a long binary sequence straight?) but doesn’t punish the posters.
My 2c.
It’s easy to remove a sock’s posts. But if a scok starts a thread, it is impossible to delete the initial post to a thread while leaving the rest in place. (I presume this has to do with how the database ties posts to threads and threads to forums, but it does seem to be inherent in VBulletin and unchangeable.
No–leave the post, change the name of the sock so they don’t get any recognition. Or edit the post to say “This was a sock who said… (one or two sentence precis)”
I was actually screwing around with something like this second method when I got busy with the current **Liberal **pitting. I may see if I can finish it up at work today. But Lost is on tonight, so if I don’t; I don’t.