[Ichneumon]

I do not think the moderators have any interest in enforcing a "you can't hit me back" rule, and the derision an attempt to create one would undoubtedly generate would be rightfully spawned, IMO

The problem is, I think that's exactly what this is about. This is not a matter of inharmonious political views or someone being routinely criticized for his personal tastes or preferences. The science threads are, for better or worse, a *debate*.

They are specifically adversarial: people explain why they think their position is correct and others are wrong, and vice versa. AndrewC knows what he's getting into when he participates in them, and he has never been shy about vigorously defending his position and attacking opposing ones.

With his latest maneuver, the result would specifically be that he can make claims (including attacks on positions I hold) and I can't rebut them. It's a "you can't hit me back because I said you can't" situation.

[general_re]

I am trying to stay above the fray in this one somewhat, but as I have indicated, I think that this is a valid concern, and one that is best addressed by the moderators. If you are to be expected to honor a request not to post to another poster, it seems fair to me that this not be construed to mean that you are no longer to defend yourself if it should prove necessary. Ideally, it would not be necessary, but I cannot pass judgement in this affair here - only the moderators can. I suggested, and still suggest, that you both seek their advice in private, so that you may both continue to post without running afoul of some rule or custom previously unknown to you. Safety first ;)

[PatrickHenry]

With his latest maneuver, the result would specifically be that he can make claims (including attacks on positions I hold) and I can't rebut them. It's a "you can't hit me back because I said you can't" situation.

As I said earlier, post your responses. We all want to see them. Just mention what it is you're rebutting, and address the post to "All."