I know what the topic I wanted to discuss was. No ranger can determine that something I don't believe is on topic, is in fact on topic. It's MY topic.
Oh really? Only a thread originatior can determine what is on topic for a thread, never a Ranger or another poster?
What happens then if, say, someone starts posting about fluffy bunnies in CG's "Congress" thread here in the symp? CG is not currently available here to say "hey that's off topic, can it be split/stopped/etc," so what happens? The other posters in the thread or the Rangers have no right to step in and can the fluffy bunny talk in a clearly innapropriate place? Or does this rule only apply when talking about what IS on topic, rather than not?
In that case, what happens if a thread originator, losing an argument or being pushed down by the majority opinion, suddenly decides his thread SHOULD be about fluffy bunnies, even though that was clearly not the original topic at hand? What if he states anyone trying to continue with the original topic is now off topic? Is that okay?
Also:
The fact TED did exactly what I was complaining about did make me very angry, because I've been angry this continues to happen. The fact it would happen exactly when I was trying to get people to address it, caused me to lose my cool, which I fully admit.
I thought you were trying to discuss personal attacks vs attacks on opinions and the difference between them, not anything at all to do with being off topic and osgiliation.