I think you need to step back and reexamine your actions and your motives. Because it looks to me like you've got yourself in a hole, and rather than jump out of it, you're just continuing to dig.Do you understand that your post in your journal about this tangent makes up a part of the larger imbroglio? Do you understand that people, in following the larger imbroglio, will re-direct their attention to your post, because you have positioned it as being a part of the larger discussion at hand?
I'm a late-comer to this, but from what I understand, the entry in question would not have received much attention--if any at all--had it not been posted to linkspam
, and had the resulting kerfuffle not been posted to metafandom
It is completely permissible to rabbit trail on a personal journal. That's half of what they're for
. And if you rabbit trail on your personal journal, you're not hurting anything. You're not shutting down anybody else's conversations. You're not making a discussion between or about other parties all about you.
If the user in question had posted links to that entry here, back, and beyond indicating that it should
be part of the discussion, you would have a point. If the user in question had invaded somebody else's meta post and gone off on this tangent, or had deliberately re-directed someone else's
conversation, you would have a point.
But from all indications I've seen, the user in question did none of that.
Not everybody wants to be part of every conversation all the time. I will say this again: not everybody wants to be part of every conversation all the time
, and it is ridiculous that you would drag someone into a fight they didn't agree to enter.
This user didn't even have the option to say, "Please take that link down, I don't want to be part of this discussion."
The party who linked the "derailing" entry was linkspam
. If linkspam
felt that the post was only tangentially related, it had the option of not linking
. To decide to link a tangentially related post, tag it as "derailing," and then offer no recourse for the link's removal is, gasp shock surprise, appropriating somebody else's content.
Let's try that again, just to make absolutely sure my logic is clear. linkspam
took something that was not linkspam
's, without permission, and posted it under a label one hundred percent sure to offend--again without permission--thus using content for linkspam
's own purposes in a way it had not been intended.
What exactly would you call that?