# The Ubuntu Forum Community > Ubuntu Community Discussions > Resolution Centre >  the closing of the syd barrett thread

## fuscia

the thread - http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=213783

the reason given...




> I am closing this thread , I am disgusted at the comments about a persons tragic illness and those who use it to attack that person.


attacking public figures is common practice in the ubuntu forums (gates, ballmer, etc), so i am a bit mystified as to why criticism of barrett deserves different treatment. he is and remains a public figure. 

also, it has always bothered me, here and elsewhere, when the closer of a thread makes a parting personal remark about someone in that thread and then closes the thread leaving the offended poster no option to defend his/her position.

----------


## KiwiNZ

I make no apology for closing that thread. I make no apology for my comment for my reasons.
I have never and will never condone using a persons (living or deceased)illness to be used against them.

----------


## fuscia

> I make no apology for closing that thread. I make no apology for my comment for my reasons.


i guess there's always the option to respond in this section of the forum. that's certainly different from other places.




> I have never and will never condone using a persons (living or deceased)illness to be used against them.


openmind's comments were fairly harshly worded, but the point of his commentary was to disagree with the assessment of barrett's contribution. perhaps if he's worded it differently, the point might have been clearer. my comments were removed as well, but i made no remarks about barrett's illness. my comments (see below) were not harshly worded and only expressed my views on barrett and on what i consider to be peculiar behavior in the event of a death. why were mine removed?




> i don't understand the fascination with barrett and i don't understand the sudden fascination with people who have recently died (if i'm not mistaken, this is the first barrett thread we've had here). when i was seventeen, my favorite uncle died of cancer after having had it for two years. when he died, i was relieved. when i found out he had it is when i was devistated. celebrating someone when they're dead is like saluting their garbage.

----------


## fuscia

if i could, may i please have an explanation as to why the quoted post was removed from the original thread?




> i don't understand the fascination with barrett and i don't understand the sudden fascination with people who have recently died (if i'm not mistaken, this is the first barrett thread we've had here). when i was seventeen, my favorite uncle died of cancer after having had it for two years. when he died, i was relieved. when i found out he had it is when i was devistated. celebrating someone when they're dead is like saluting their garbage.


i have absolutely no clue what rule it violated. thanks. :Confused:

----------


## kassetra

> if i could, may i please have an explanation as to why the quoted post was removed from the original thread?
> 
> 
> 
> i have absolutely no clue what rule it violated. thanks.


When you say removed, you mean, "why was it split to the new thread in the backyard" ...?

----------


## fuscia

> When you say removed, you mean, "why was it split to the new thread in the backyard" ...?


ok...why was it split to the new _closed_ thread in the backyard?

----------


## kassetra

> ok...why was it split to the new _closed_ thread in the backyard?


It was split to the new thread, and then the thread was closed separately.  I have posted my understanding of why it was closed in the resolution center thread by openmind: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...01#post1251201.

----------


## fuscia

> It was split to the new thread, and then the thread was closed separately.  I have posted my understanding of why it was closed in the resolution center thread by openmind: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...01#post1251201.


i understand your explanation for seeing openmind's comments as being not inkeeping with the narrow intent of a tribute thread (i don't mean 'narrow' in the qualitative sense). in that light, my comment doesn't belong either. obviously, some of us don't agree with the high opinion some of barrett's admirers have for his output. in the event of a public figure's death, it is common practice to review the life and work of such a figure. i do wonder if a thread examining barrett's work, in a critical light, would even be allowed here. would it?

thank you for taking the time and effort to respond, kassetra.

----------


## kassetra

> i understand your explanation for seeing openmind's comments as being not inkeeping with the narrow intent of a tribute thread (i don't mean 'narrow' in the qualitative sense). in that light, my comment doesn't belong either. obviously, some of us don't agree with the high opinion some of barrett's admirers have for his output. in the event of a public figure's death, it is common practice to review the life and work of such a figure. i do wonder if a thread examining barrett's work, in a critical light, would even be allowed here. would it?
> 
> thank you for taking the time and effort to respond, kassetra.


Of *COURSE* it would be allowed... just not in the same thread as people paying respect.  

That's really the crux of the problem.

How do we allow everyone that wants to only talk about the positives of someone after they pass and also allow everyone else to talk critically about either the social impact of why we only view the positives, or about the negatives of that person now that they have passed...?

I think that the people that only want to talk positives should have the ability to do so, but I also think the people that want to talk critically should also have the ability to do so... To give everyone peace, how about doing it in different threads?

Then staff aren't bombarded with complaints, people don't get unhappy about having their posts moved, and other people aren't insulted that... the list goes on and on.

Of course, when I say critically discuss - I do *not* mean, "go ahead and attack the person because of their vices in life." But I do mean a discussion, even if heated. I think we can have heated discussions where we DO NOT troll, flame, or bash the people in the debate and the topic in question.

There is plenty of space to discuss a wide range of topics here, they just don't all have to be in the same thread.

 :Smile: 

Kass

----------


## fuscia

in hindsight, it would have been better to have started a seperate thread. no matter how silly i might think the human response to death is, i'm not likely to find an open audience among those who think that response to be reasonable.

----------


## kassetra

> in hindsight, it would have been better to have started a seperate thread. no matter how silly i might think the human response to death is, i'm not likely to find an open audience among those who think that response to be reasonable.


Exactly the reason the thread was split.

Please don't hesitate to start your own thread on this topic to discuss it if you want.   :Smile: 

Kass

----------


## fuscia

> Exactly the reason the thread was split.
> 
> Please don't hesitate to start your own thread on this topic to discuss it if you want.  
> 
> Kass


done (backyard). thanks.

----------


## kassetra

> done (backyard). thanks.


Perfect!  You're welcome!   :Smile: 

Kass

----------

