I read the thread this morning, and I don't see the issue.
Well, I
do. The thread was summarily closed for no apparent reason - the 'troublemaker' had been banned, and yet for some inexplicable reason all
he had said was important enough to be allowed and thus committed to history.. But right then it had to suddenly be closed to anyone else, because.... Well, we don't know. There's no reason given on thread, not even a message saying that moderators had closed it because of discussions held in the back room.. It just suddenly got locked up.
The poster who made the claims is clearly an angry HB - who is now clearly marked as "banned", so his writings wouldn't be taken too seriously.
Well,
nobody takes anything seriously on the Internet,
nobody ever uses old 'data' to back their new claims, and
no new HB would ever quote an old angry HB.. Sheesh - if this is meant to be justification for the thread closure, it could surely be used to suggest that the entire thread be wiped...
Conversely, Dwights' posts are clear, sane, and full of data.
Which makes the refusal to reopen it even more puzzling / daft. As for the silly suggestion that he should instead start a new thread to refer back to that one.. Yeah, that's how to run a forum and keep things easy to find and on-topic and coherent!
Anyone reading the thread would know which way the facts lie.
Yeah,
anyone who wasn't an HB. And such a person would
never misquote Moonfunk's final words like:
Dw... you are mistaken... Dw... and I have come to an agreement... Links to a website our esteemed member Dw... helped create have been posted and explained.
No, no-one could possibly mis/quote/read that stuff as if Dwight was supporting Moonfunk. Everyone on the Internet plays fair and reasonable at all times....
And there are several other references that Moonfunk made on that thread that were not able to be challenged because of the unexplained closure. And I'm struggling to see any 'unkind' comments from all the other respondents, so the closure remains a mystery to me. Indeed, it is clear that closure happened within hours of the banning - so anyone like me on the far side of the planet wouldn't have had any possible way to respond to anything...
Allowing a "last word", for whatever reason, simply opens up the moderators of that forum to fielding many further such requests, and the hassle of having to justify decisions that don't go the way of the requester.
Rubbish - the mod's can completely ignore future requests if they wish, or gee whiz, maybe they could just look at each case on its merits... Many, many threads are left open for additions and corrections after the thread originator has been banned, and imnsho, that sort of thread should only really be closed if:
- the topic and all related issues/claims are comprehensively dealt with
- it degenerates into silly jokes or bashing of the now banned person.
AFAICS, and correct me if I'm wrong, Moonfunk was the only problem poster on that entire thread. Sorta ironic that the person he impugned was the one prevented from responding, on the supposed basis that lots of other requests for re-opening had been made and the imaginary floodgates mustn't be opened.
I'm not at all surprised the decision in this case was "no".
Neither am I - that's just one small aspect of why the-forum-formerly-known-as-BAUT-and-now-horribly-named-Cosmoquest has lost its way.
It was quite some time ago. Time enough to get over it.
On the Internet, everything old is new again..
Mega's quote was on the money:
This is one of the things that bothers me most about BAUT/CQ - any complaint at all, and you're in the same category as people who are building perpetual motion machines in their basements.
Pzkpfw, you..
It's the sort of thread flouncy ATM posters make when they see they can't push their non-science.
and Swift..
You will be lost among the 160,000+ members
and Henrik..
a very large proportion of the goodbye posts is a cry for a chorus of posts telling the poster to stay
and Jim..
there have been Members in the past who made the "..I'm leaving.." post and started posting again shortly after.
and Moose..
don't rub our noses in 'your' ego(s) and expect kind words
..are all doing precisely that - demeaning posters as flouncing egotistical tinfoilhatters.
And there are current and former moderators in that list.. It's not a good look. BTW, if you would like to see how it *should* have been handled, then I think
Strange's post was the sort of BE NICE post that you guys keep saying is the only basic rule that needs to be remembered...
I'm very disappointed with the way this was handled.
And still waiting for Moose to explain what was egotistical in my post.. Indeed, Pzkpfw, would you like to point at where I or Dwight have pushed non-science? Do you believe we will flounce back?
Or was that .. just possibly .. an unwarranted generalisation? Or just a little harmless tease, like all those other examples?