NationStates Jolt Archive

There was no reason to lock the "Racial Makeup" thread by Schorgenland. People were actually having a pleasant and casual conversation. You only locked it because of who he is. You are really just breathing down our necks now, for no valid reason.

I was curious about that lock too. I didn't see any obvious rule violations there.

I was curious about that lock too. I didn't see any obvious rule violations there.
I know. It was interesting just to talk about each other's background. Nobody was making any judgements on anybody else. :?

There was no reason to lock the "Racial Makeup" thread by Schorgenland. People were actually having a pleasant and casual conversation. You only locked it because of who he is. You are really just breathing down our necks now, for no valid reason.

It looked to me as though some people were not to happy with the poll and it could have went to flamebait.. not sure what statistical outcome you or your friend were looking for.. but it certainly seemed to bother some people. There is an old saying.. might as well nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem!

Stephanie
Forum Mod

There was no reason to lock the "Racial Makeup" thread by Schorgenland. People were actually having a pleasant and casual conversation. You only locked it because of who he is. You are really just breathing down our necks now, for no valid reason.

It looked to me as though some people were not to happy with the poll and it could have went to flamebait.. not sure what statistical outcome you or your friend were looking for.. but it certainly seemed to bother some people. There is an old saying.. might as well nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem!

Stephanie
Forum Mod
What a surprise that you were the one to lock it. I barely know Schorgenland so he's not exactly my"friend". Who did it bother? There are things that are going to bother "some" people no matter what you discuss, unless it's about puppy dogs and kittens. :roll:

Well.. as I don't see a huge protest about it being locked.. I will leave it locked. Not sure why you find it so surprising that I was the one to lock it.. but if you look at some of the first comments on the thread, you can't argue that it could of turned into flames very easily. Sorry if you object.

Stephanie
Forum Mod

Well.. as I don't see a huge protest about it being locked.. I will leave it locked. Not sure why you find it so surprising that I was the one to lock it.. but if you look at some of the first comments on the thread, you can't argue that it could of turned into flames very easily. Sorry if you object.

Stephanie
Forum Mod
I personally think that the Sexual Orientation thread should be locked.....it offends me. It could also turn into flaming.

...that it could of turned

I know this is really pedantic, but it's could have. That one really gets on my nerves.

Sorry,

Phoebos
-Holder of the Righteous Sword of Grammatical Justice

Well.. as I don't see a huge protest about it being locked.. I will leave it locked. Not sure why you find it so surprising that I was the one to lock it.. but if you look at some of the first comments on the thread, you can't argue that it could of turned into flames very easily. Sorry if you object.

Stephanie
Forum Mod
I personally think that the Sexual Orientation thread should be locked.....it offends me. It could also turn into flaming.

I shall look into it right now.. :)

[Edit] Yup, you're right.. some flamebait there huh. It's locked[Edit]

Ah, I see.

...that it could of turned

I know this is really pedantic, but it's could have. That one really gets on my nerves.

Sorry,

Phoebos
-Holder of the Righteous Sword of Grammatical Justice

Well, there is a difference between flaming and flambait.. I suggest the thread was flamebait.. that doesn't mean the flaming had to start for me to lock it. If I believe there could be flaming because of the contents I can and do lock it. That's the difference between flamebait and flaming. As I stated, if you look at the first comments on the thread, it certainly looked like it was headed in that direction. But hey, you don't have to agree with me, nothing says you have to. :wink:

I'm reminded of an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm reminded of an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
From which side of the argument are you coming from?

*snip*

Well, there is a difference between flaming and flambait.. I suggest the thread was flamebait.. that doesn't mean the flaming had to start for me to lock it. If I believe there could be flaming because of the contents I can and do lock it. That's the difference between flamebait and flaming. As I stated, if you look at the first comments on the thread, it certainly looked like it was headed in that direction. But hey, you don't have to agree with me, nothing says you have to. :wink:

I'm confused.

You misunderstand me. I've never seen the thread in question, and I really have no desire to. My comment was that 'could of turned' makes no sense. It's a common mistake derived from could've, which is short for 'could have'. The latter two are acceptable grammar- the former is not

Phoebos
-Holder of the Righteous Sword of Grammatical Justice

I'm reminded of an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I find old cliches to be offensive.

*snip*

Well, there is a difference between flaming and flambait.. I suggest the thread was flamebait.. that doesn't mean the flaming had to start for me to lock it. If I believe there could be flaming because of the contents I can and do lock it. That's the difference between flamebait and flaming. As I stated, if you look at the first comments on the thread, it certainly looked like it was headed in that direction. But hey, you don't have to agree with me, nothing says you have to. :wink:

I'm confused.

You misunderstand me. I've never seen the thread in question, and I really have no desire to. My comment was that 'could of turned' makes no sense. It's a common mistake derived from could've, which is short for 'could have'. The latter two are acceptable grammar- the former is not

Phoebos
-Holder of the Righteous Sword of Grammatical Justice

Ohhhh, haha , Have you been hanging out with Slags or some thing? LOL..

*horrid grammar noted*.. ;)

I'm reminded of an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I find old cliches to be offensive.
This thread is starting to offend me. It should be locked.....the temerity of the guy that started it, really! :mrgreen:

I'm reminded of an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I find old cliches to be offensive.
This thread is starting to offend me. It should be locked.....the temerity of the guy that started it, really! :mrgreen:

Funny .. :lol:

*snip*

Well, there is a difference between flaming and flambait.. I suggest the thread was flamebait.. that doesn't mean the flaming had to start for me to lock it. If I believe there could be flaming because of the contents I can and do lock it. That's the difference between flamebait and flaming. As I stated, if you look at the first comments on the thread, it certainly looked like it was headed in that direction. But hey, you don't have to agree with me, nothing says you have to. :wink:

I'm confused.

You misunderstand me. I've never seen the thread in question, and I really have no desire to. My comment was that 'could of turned' makes no sense. It's a common mistake derived from could've, which is short for 'could have'. The latter two are acceptable grammar- the former is not

Phoebos
-Holder of the Righteous Sword of Grammatical Justice

http://www.almadrava.net/damnans/librarycards/SwordoftheRighteous.jpg

Ohhhh, haha , Have you been hanging out with Slags or some thing? LOL..

*horrid grammar noted*.. ;)

No, we would just seem to share a common gripe.

It's apostrophe misusage that annoys me the most.

And, um, thankyou Goobergunchia. That was... useful :P