[P-Marlowe]

Since she refused to follow the rules and not post to people who requested not to be posted to.

Since when is that a rule?

Does that mean that if I post stuff you disagree with, that I can request that you not respond. Doesn't that give me a free reign to freely spam the thread with any opinion or misinformation that I want without any fear of being called on it?

Is that why you guys don't want certain posters to post to you anymore?

BTW aNYCguy, sorry about wasting ten seconds of your valuable time.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Since when is that a rule?"

Since JimRob said it was. When asked repeatedly not to post to someone, it is against the rules to post to them.

[Right Wing Professor]

Doesn't that give me a free reign to freely spam the thread with any opinion or misinformation that I want without any fear of being called on it?

No one says you can't follow up, genius, you just set the to: line to 'All' or to nobody.

[Mamzelle]

The first courtesy I learned was that you ought to ping someone if you are discussing them--to give them the opportunity to respond. I don't think it's a rule, though.

This is how that "virtual ignore" is used among the evo-gangup scenarios. "Don't post to me, I forbid it and will tell tales to authority, but I'll post any insult to you behind your back that I please. You can't defend yourself. Nyah Nyah." That's what the "Common Scold" was about.

Pretty good way to dominate the discussion without deserving to do so. I'd even call it a kind of rhetorical fascism.