[tgs]

to the moderators: andak's argument comes from the thread that was closed--are we allowed to reopen a closed thread just by giving the new thread the title of "foul ball?"

[Slonopotam845]

Andak,

Nothing wrong to discuss any of this. I'm personally uninterested to participate one way or the other. But the way the thread was opened is a little confusing and annoying. It's basically started in a middle of a conversation....

[Lillie_Steins]

The thread that it is from was closed. I am particularly ticked off that a poster here gets to accuse me of being a "soft jihadi", supporting throat slitting and complaining "every time Israel tried to defend herself".

I don't recall complaining hundreds of times when Israel has arrested or killed terrorists. I don't recall complaining when potential bombers were stopped at checkpoints. I didn't complain at the ground force which even now is plowing its way through Gaza. I didn't complain when Israel created early warning systems to reduce casualties from Qassams. I do not support Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaida and I've never expressed such support. In fact, the criticisms of Israel that I've made have never exceeded what Americans and others who one would never even think of calling "soft jihadis" have made.

If I supported throat slitting, I'd bloody well go and support it. I would not spend my cycles telling Scat again and again and again that I the people who did it should be prosecuted.

I get the argument. I was just saying that if you want people to read the thread you should preface it. thats all. Having it start in the middle of a conversation is confusing.

[Big A]

For what it's worth, I get the argument, too. I just think that if the moderators close a thread, they do it for a reason. For anyone to assume that it is okay to reopen the discussion in a new thread is problematic in several ways:

1. As has already been mentioned, it's confusing to those who pick up in the middle of the conversation;

2. It obfuscates the issue for those who were in the original conversation;

3. It sets a precedent for future threads;

4. It shows a wanton disrespect for the moderator who closed the thread;

5. If it is allowed to occur, it lends legitimacy to the charge of "favoritism"--whether favoritism is intended or not;

6. It seems childish (i.e. "I have to have the last word").

I like the list.

[Big A]

Soft "Jihadi" - is a person who fights in defense of Islam.

whats wrong in that.

[Beerinkol]

OK, YOU'RE a soft jihadi! Now let's close this thread!

Well, that just about clears up point number 6!