As regards passive-aggressive sniping and impositions:
I generally regard a commentable post to be an invitation to discussion, because options exist to close that. However, if an impasse is reached or the postmaker changes their mind, and politely asks someone to desist from discussing, I would heed that.
If they clearly said I "must" pursue it in my own space, I'd take that as blanket dismissal, and as long as my post was about the issue and not the person, I'd feel free to go on at length and possibly even mention in the postmaker's comments that discussion was now going on in my space for any interested parties. It's disjointed a little, as you note, but if the postmaker's serious about not discussing it then people should either give up or migrate, depending on how much they want to talk about it.
Without their clear dismissal... I think it comes down to approach, still. One can say "I saw an interesting post yesterday but the writer wasn't interested in discussion, so here's my take on it" with perfect politeness. I think passive aggression only starts when names are named, or the discussion becomes about the actions of the person you disgree with, rather than the topic. (Are you proving how you think about topic X, or are you proving Person A was wrong about topic X? One's a real discussion, the other's a passive-aggressive attack.)
Not that a bit of passive-aggressive sniping is the worst crime the Internet has ever faced. :D
Edited because I forgot to continue: I know very little about Facebook, so how much the commonly-held rules of journal/blogspace apply there in the userbase hivemind, I really don't know. Ultimately, in other words, I am very little help. (Avoiding Facebook like I would a rabid dog is the policy that's worked for me so far and thus the advice I'm inclined to give; but I know many people can't.) Short of polling a half-million Facebook users to see what the prevailing attitudes are toward reply-policing, I can only go on what I see/feel/acquire from LJ; but I can see there are big differences in the assumptions about interpersonal relationships between the sites.
no subject
I generally regard a commentable post to be an invitation to discussion, because options exist to close that. However, if an impasse is reached or the postmaker changes their mind, and politely asks someone to desist from discussing, I would heed that.
If they clearly said I "must" pursue it in my own space, I'd take that as blanket dismissal, and as long as my post was about the issue and not the person, I'd feel free to go on at length and possibly even mention in the postmaker's comments that discussion was now going on in my space for any interested parties. It's disjointed a little, as you note, but if the postmaker's serious about not discussing it then people should either give up or migrate, depending on how much they want to talk about it.
Without their clear dismissal... I think it comes down to approach, still. One can say "I saw an interesting post yesterday but the writer wasn't interested in discussion, so here's my take on it" with perfect politeness. I think passive aggression only starts when names are named, or the discussion becomes about the actions of the person you disgree with, rather than the topic. (Are you proving how you think about topic X, or are you proving Person A was wrong about topic X? One's a real discussion, the other's a passive-aggressive attack.)
Not that a bit of passive-aggressive sniping is the worst crime the Internet has ever faced. :D
Edited because I forgot to continue: I know very little about Facebook, so how much the commonly-held rules of journal/blogspace apply there in the userbase hivemind, I really don't know. Ultimately, in other words, I am very little help. (Avoiding Facebook like I would a rabid dog is the policy that's worked for me so far and thus the advice I'm inclined to give; but I know many people can't.) Short of polling a half-million Facebook users to see what the prevailing attitudes are toward reply-policing, I can only go on what I see/feel/acquire from LJ; but I can see there are big differences in the assumptions about interpersonal relationships between the sites.