NationStates

Quantipapa has made a series of unconstructive posts that do not address the question but seem instead to be spammy one-liners designed to prevent debate:

These posts are from the last page alone:

Quantipapa wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

Piss where, in the toilet?

Quantipapa wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:"Pro-free" would, as I pointed out earlier, upset pro-lifers even more. As, if "pro-choice" were to become "pro-free" (and "pro-free" would be a silly phrase, and not only because it is painfully ungrammatical) "pro-life" would -- by implication -- be "pro-slavery".

That's why both the current phrases make so much more sense.

Yea yea yea, keep insisting.

Quantipapa wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Nothing of value.
Honestly, the reasoning is incomprehensible unless the purpose of it is to simply waste time.

Geez

This is not the usual thread for this, but I would also like to request that this thread be considered for either locking, or merging into the general abortion thread. I believe Godular has requested that it be merged before, but -- since this point -- the thread has consisted of everyone else explaining to Quantipapa why "pro-free" would not be a good replacement for "pro-choice", and these increasingly spammy statements.

IMO, it seems like the thread may have run its course.

While I agree that Quantipapa's most recent posts aren't particularly constructive, and will be an irritant to many thread participants, I don't believe that they're actionable. The act of being irritating is not itself actionable. However, I will loom ominously to try and give him a nudge.

In terms of the broader question about the thread's purpose, and whether it should be locked, I think you have a case, but for now I'm willing to leave it.

Neither ruling should be considered final. These are both questions I'd be willing to revisit should the behaviours reported here continue.

Thank you.

*leaves cookies*

Quantipapa has returned to making the same one-line, unconstructive posts again:

Although the previous post was not directed to him, I can almost see where this response came from:

Quantipapa wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Maybe a little more extreme though. I do consider a fetus to be an innocent human being. I have touched the hand a a premie, born at a legally abortable stage. Even in his incubator, with all the equipment and so much going against him, he still grabbed my finger. Up until then, I didn't have much of an opinion on the subject.

Thank you.

This, however, comes across as a total nonsequitor:

Quantipapa wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
I don't recall how many weeks exactly. This happened before NS.

you speak truth.

These posts appear to continue the previous pattern of behaviour. Additionally, the rest of the conversation between other posters is a rather general topic on the ethics of abortion that may work on the general abortion thread, as it appears that this thread has rather strayed from the original question of the semantics of "pro-choice".

I would like to repeat my request that the thread be considered for locking.

I did not do anything wrong.

Quantipapa wrote:I did not do anything wrong.

That appears to be your standard response, regardless of the report. You ARE a spammer. You ARE posting useless content. You ARE NOT adding to the conversation. Those are facts, and they are accurate.

The Archregimancy wrote:I don't believe that they're actionable. The act of being irritating is not itself actionable. However, I will loom ominously to try and give him a nudge.

The Archregimancy is correct. It's not actionable ... this time. The problem is, you don't seem to think there's a problem, despite multiple people telling you multiple times that there IS a problem with your posting style. If you don't start paying attention to your critics, you're going to find that your career on this site is fairly short.

Luckily you're not the one who decides which time is "this time". Over and out.

Quantipapa wrote:Luckily you're not the one who decides which time is "this time". Over and out.

Actually he is. But this has already been ruled on.