Thread: closure on off topic, and objectivity in moderators.

I remember when that Second Amendment topic was posted. I was probably one of the first to read the author's initial thoughts, but I chose not to participate in the thread early on because, as garbled as the starting post was, I could sense that even if a discussion got going, it would quickly deteriorate. And now that I've taken a few minutes to read the thread (or what's been left by censors, at least), I can see that's exactly what happened. Discussions about such deep-seated beliefs never go anywhere and I find them very tiring.

That said, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to take place -- regardless of how heated the discussion gets. Throughout this "Objectivity" thread I've noticed that some people seem to think this community should be a familial haunt, where we can all talk like "gentleman" about gentlemanly things, like smoking cigars, drinking scotch, shooting guns, shaving, and waxing our moustaches. And I think those things are all well and good, but when a normal religious/political debate (age-old topics gentleman are known to discuss) arises, it shouldn't have to be broken up like a high school kegger.

Of all the people in that thread, I think Joe Lerch made the most sense (though I've learned that much of his inappropriate comments have also been edited out. Shame on Joe Lerch...Shame...) His (leftover) arguments were logical and, from what I saw (keeping in mind that what's left of that thread seems to be a watered-down version of what it was, seeing as how two members high-tailed it out of here and I think the current thread is too tame to warrant such a reaction), didn't cross the line. I also read that urleebird flew the coop, and yet he doesn't have a post in that thread. I also heard that he had been editing his posts, so...

Anyway, I clearly I got here too late. I wish I could have been here to watch it all unfold, but even though I wasn't, I'm going to conclude that everyone is overreacting.