--------------------------------
Mind you, I'm not here to criticise Sarah, but I'm going to make some points; Suppose similar case was caused by X.
X introduced to Chiff and Fipple a performative sentence of defining President Bush as Fascist. Now, just because X's provocative speech act excludes declarations (allowed only to higher authorities i.e.e.g. King Dale), commissives (unless you're asking for a date), and directives (Need answers?), it does not necesarrily seperate X from his/her responsibility of having displayed the other two speech act, representatives ("I think Bush is nice and all"), and expressives ("I'm just being emotional"). The former may have been what X have chosen with a view to "see if the masses would be aroused" as suggested by few. If this indeed is X's intention, then it follows that S has failed to fulfill the felicity conditions of the pragmatic presupposition which juxtaposes Cooperative Principle. This brings us to *assume* that X may have went wide off the mark of Cooperative Principle proposed by H.P.Grice, but so have and do and will we, as well. Anyway, What is a CP? briefly put, it's a rule to be kept if one is to have a healthy conversation with another. It consists of four elements. Good many number of know-it-alls failed to realise this because it was, unsurprisingly, "just the way it is".
1. Quantity: State only what is necessarily as much as needed. No more, no less.
2. Quality: State what you are convinced of. Do not lie.
3. Relevance: Speak what has direct relevance to the present concerns.
4. Manner: Talk without ambiguity.
Now, all of us commit sins, and we have fallen from the grace given to those who keep the Four Commandments. As exemplified in "10 reasons why the Pope Is A Molester", we can clearly see that equalling Pres. Bush to Hitler is socially unacceptable, but that was what the article has intended, not the speaker, however, whether or not X's original post be locked may depend on if X has directly implied the conformity to the performative sentence i.e. to the mob-cheering article; therefore the practical solution would have been for the Topic Title to be changed to for instance, "What an article!" etc., or if we consider the general nature of this public board aimed to provide discussions mainly on whistles and rec***ers, to not raise the topic at all.
Well, we all make mistakes.
Scott
