We're now up to and over 1000 posts per day. I'm not going to do that for the same reason I did not respond to them in the first place when the daily threads were more manageable, and now also because if I started now I could spend days doing it.
I want those posts to continue. All viewpoints should be considered, and were I to respond to those posts, "you are wrong because _________" it would just devolve into insults. I can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Here's a counter example, but just one. Look at ncsu95's post history. If you look at the early trial thread history I engaged him in debate and questions and challenged his posts, and even tried to provoke him. That's because I thought he was making some good points and I wanted to see how he responded to someone questioning him. Its a matter of engaging in debate and arriving at a reasoned conclusion. His posts opened me to alternatives, though I certainly don't always agree with him. There are many others who fit that description (from my point of view) here but I'm just using an example.
Anyway, I'm not claiming to be perfectly reasoned any more than anyone else, I'm sure my views have a certain slant as well, but I am getting weary from the random bickering that is popping up as people get more emotionally involved in the outcome.
If you follow the twitter thread #coopertrial, you'll find the absolute worst of the worst. At least here you can post more than 140 characters and have a discussion, the twitter hashtag has highlighted the worst that twitter can become, an endless "Yes he did", "No he didn't". It's like the screaming match Brad and Nancy had in the parking lot.