[JockoManning]

It struck me reading the new thread . . . that someone virtually hell-bent on irrationally castigating Q and Q followers--has also instructed some to NOT post to them under threat of screaming to Big Daddy.

Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If such a person insists on not being bothered by unpleasant-to-her posts, then let her quit bothering the Q threads with unwelcome posts.

Otherwise, her hypocrisy screams rather loudly.

[bagster]

If such a person insists on not being bothered by unpleasant-to-her posts, then let her quit bothering the Q threads with unwelcome posts.

Who you talking about? DAVEY CROCKETT???

Bagster

[TEXOKIE]

It struck me reading the new thread . . . that someone virtually hell-bent on irrationally castigating Q and Q followers—has also instructed some to NOT post to them under threat of screaming to Big Daddy.
Seems to me that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

If such a person insists on not being bothered by unpleasant-to-her posts, then let her quit bothering the Q threads with unwelcome posts.

Otherwise, her hypocrisy screams rather loudly.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Good points, JockoManning -

but I would want a ruling from Mother of Dragons before advocating any policy actions on the subject as you describe!

At this point, we think we know who some of the disruptors are, and current policy as I understand it, is to not engage or to refer them in a reasonable manner to wonderful links from our Thread Header Grid.