Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.
|
I get that, but once again the whole point I and others were making yesterday is being missed. On THAT thread, at least initially, there was no effort to engage the actual topic, it was just one or two word name calling of Ree Moggs (not that I care for him myself). So why is it not okay for others to respond and post about Corbyn in a similar vein (and many were NOT of that variety), comparing one future possible PM to another possible future PM? The tone of the thread was set already by the Ree Moggs detractors, it wasn't in any way a
discussion that was being derailed.
If the thread had contained well thought out posts and we had come in saying 'but what about Corbyn's shortcomings!!!', with disparaging one word this or that's then yes, I see the problem here. But that's not what happened, so it was unfair to delete all of the mentions of Corbyn and leaving all the posts that many considered started off the thread in a baiting manner intact.
Am I making any sense here because it doesn't seem to be understood and I really don't want to say any more about it or start it all up again, I really don't.
So really I think the TONE of a thread is all - important and what I really want to know is what happens going forward using the Ree Moggs thread as an example because obviously many of us were unhappy about the way it was handled.
Can a mod make it clear what the future policy on the type of thread like the Ree Moggs one is going to be please?