We recently had a thread where someone provoked TB.  TB’s response then irritated ER.  ER’s answer to TB then provoked Robert.  Robert then allowed as how one person cannot be provoked by successive posts of another person.

One person says, “The government always wastes time and money”. a heartfelt rant with some basis in truth and not particularly relevant to all topics.  The second person says, “You see government ineptness in everything and change the focus of all topics and I’m going to point that out whenever you do that”.

And now comes a person with a great deal of authority who says, “That would be stalking and won’t be tolerated.”  Said practice designed to protect both the poster and the HabitableZone from unsavory practices such as vendettas.

The end result being that the first person is allowed to be provoked and thus relieved of responsibility as often as he cares into making statements which will go unchallenged.  Because the “when you do that” has been ignored.  Because the poster has been confused with the post, or message, which is understandable in this case.  TB is indistinguishable from “government = socialist = communists = screwed up and expensive, enemy of progress, etc.”

What is left unnoticed here is that a particular political stance is being confronted.  The fact that one person most consistently interjects that stance into many, many topics seems to make it personal.   That person doesn’t need to be protected, he’s tough, and his political views are fair game wherever they appear.

I don’t think the “stalking” or “destroying” comments were particularly appropriate nor what was truly meant.  I think the Robert post would have been appropriate for a lower case robert, but not for “Robert”.