[general_re]

Clearly, it will have to be a two-way street. If Alice secures a ruling that Bob is not to post to her any more, and then turns around and posts that Bob sure is a real jerk, or continues to publicly critique Bob's posts, Alice is likely to meet with universal disapproval about her choice of tactics, and the rule about no replies will clearly be null and void. 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 - and so therefore I presume that such is not the intent of either of the parties concerned.

[VadeRetro]

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 ...

You'd think.

[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.