*Those are your standards and expectations, and they are reasonable. But they may not be this person’s. I can certainly understand waiting for more than one serious response rather than engaging each one, that is reasonable as well. But then they started seeing the other kind of responses. And it is also reasonable that they didn’t ask for or want a book list, they wanted conversation. Why should they ask for something they had no interest in? Do they have to because you say so? That is primarily what this site is, conversation. You are essentially bashing them for not doing what you would do.
But again let’s go to the bottom line. Yes they COULD have commented on your first post immediately, and you are more than welcome to privately have the opinion that they SHOULD have. But to draw such negative and unfriendly conclusions because they didn’t follow your conception of how this works and express them on the thread is not right. I’ll say it one more time: If that is how you feel about someone’s post or lack thereof, either cross the thread off your list and move on or report them if their post violates the Terms of Service. Not responding to the first reply doesn’t enter the same solar system of violations.
In fact, while I would often (but certainly not always) consider it rude to start a thread and then never respond (which is not what happened here), that isn’t a violation either. The thread just dies. Or it doesn’t because other members have a good time talking about it anyway, despite the disappearance of the OP. We have certainly seen that. Whatever the case, you tell me where the ToS say that would be a violation. In fact, Dave Berry does that as a matter of routine. Should we sanction him??
What is not acceptable is for others to immediately then start creating a hostile environment for that person, when in fact they did absolutely nothing wrong but not live up to some other people’s standards, and dared to ask a question here rather than do hours of research first. Sorry, but the hostility and many of the initial comments were unwarranted and not in the letter or spirit of the Terms of Service.*