|
|
#1
10-10-2007, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Why lock?
Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me.
If this: [ QUOTE ] Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point. [/ QUOTE ] is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much. |
|
#3
10-10-2007, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
Come on, no one really cares about Ron Paul, he has no chance to make it to POTUS.
I think Iron locked the thread because of the link about a major candidate that I had posted in the thread. (link) [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
|
#4
10-10-2007, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
[ QUOTE ]
Why lock the racism thread? Seems silly to me. If this: [ QUOTE ] Redbean, since yesterday evening, you have made 76 posts with the word "racist" in it. We get your point. Take the day off to digest my point. [/ QUOTE ] is the standard, can we do the same for people who have x number of posts with the words AC or Ron Paul in them? Of course he has a large number of posts with the word racism in them --- he created a thread about racism with "racism" in the title. I would expect as much. [/ QUOTE ] 76 posts in one day is pretty ridiculous. Redbean is a reasonable guy on just about all topics except race. That thread needed to be locked, there was nothing productive left to say in it. Good judgement iron. |
|
#5
10-10-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
It was my decision.
Redbean has a point about Paul. Even if some speechwriter wrote the article, we hold politicians accountable for the words of their speechwriters all the time. Most of what politicians say or write was originally penned by a speechwriter. That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did. He made is point in every Ron Paul thread he could find, including in a couple Legislation threads that got locked because of him. Another mod may have been justified in banning outside of forum just on the absolute spamminess of it all. I may unlock the thread after Redbean comes back, but for now everyone needs to settle down. |
|
#6
10-10-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
[ QUOTE ]
Good judgement iron. [/ QUOTE ] I'm willing to wager a small amount of money iron was prodded to lock via PM, and his "judgment" merely involved capitulating to whichever Ron Paul acolyte PMed him about locking it and temp-banning RedBean. Maybe adios is right that it came from the higher-ups, but I doubt it. Maybe it was it was completely of his own will, but I doubt that, too. |
|
#7
10-10-2007, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
[ QUOTE ]
That said, no one gets to sledgehammer their point like Redbean did [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't mind seeing this univerally applied [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
|
#9
10-10-2007, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
It's a crusade by RedBean that borders on spamming?? I have no problem with the lock because the point has been discussed over and over and over many times with nothing new being added to the argument.
Further, the title is quite misleading. |
|
#10
10-10-2007, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why lock?
It was not a speech writer, it was not a campaign manager. It was a newsletter during the period (12 years) he was out of office. Not sure how much difference it makes.
Once it was confined to one thread, I didn't care if RedBean made 1000 posts in a day about racism. |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
