by PublicEnemy#1 » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:22 am
Reply to Tim's Comment on the Main Page about the Queen Anne Condos and Ardell's "gushing" praise and what her motives are and an assertion that her motives about her praise are on topic or not:
********************************
Tim,
I think if you are being honest with yourself and the readers here, you would acknowledge that you brought it up first by pointing out the "gushing" praise when these condos first came out in your original post. If you hadn't done that, then Ardell may not have come over here to "complain" that you mischaracterized her comments and then you wouldn't haven clarified them, and then others wouldn't have dismantled her assertions that she only did it for the "love of architecture".
It seems completely on topic when your original post, to a degree, mocked her gushing.
It's your blog and you are, obviously, free to enact any "on topic" comment policy that you wish, but when you bring up "over the top gushing" in the original post, why wouldn't the motives behind that gushing be fair game as well?
Seems to me that if you wanted to quash it, you should have told Ardell she was off topic for rebutting your original assertion, rather than continuing the debate with her.