fj12ryder wrote:
This snip of a post makes little sense in the overall context of this thread, which is talking about people asking for threads to be closed:
"Take a step back and look at it from the point of view of many ordinary folks following one thread or another. "Passing on by" is a ridiculous suggestion when a member is following a topic in hopes of getting something useful out of it. And in many cases, that includes the Original Poster, whose simple question too often results in a barrage of irrelevant score-seeking by True Believers of one stripe or another."
Seems to me that she is saying "Passing on by" is ridiculous because a person is following the thread, but apparently asking that the thread be closed isn't ridiculous? Isn't that a bit contradictory? :)
Your "analysis" of (my) statement presumes that every person hitting "notify moderator" is demanding thread closure. It's my belief that in most cases all they're doing is just requesting any sort of moderator intervention that gets the thread back on track and/or puts an end to infighting/insults/other obnoxious behavior that just gets in the way of a discussion. If the Mod chooses to intervene/admonish/edit, things get back on track. If instead a decision is made to close/delete, small loss since the thread's been torpedoed anyway.
I've seen threads where the O.P. actually attempts to intervene in behalf of his own discussion, to be completely ignored by folks too engaged in some conflict to pay any attention to his request. Would you tell the O.P. to just "pass on by" his own question?
In my opinion, it's more appropriate to tell troublemakers to just "shut on up" instead...although the last time I actually did that the aggrieved target of my request went screaming to the Moderator and got MY post deleted!
Them free-speechers gits right testy when some of us gits a little too free with our speech..:B.
