This is like so already diaried

Okay, I just read about my favorite Tory friend, Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I have to say it was complete euphoria, but then bunches of DKos thought and Diary Police came along and ridiculed the diarist, because... Oh my ever loving god it had been diaried before. Unless something is still on the roll, or has spent time on the rec list, you should not be so quick with the OMG like totally diaried before. Why? Because some people, even those who peruse the site all day at work, didn't effing see it. If it's unimportant droll like: OMG Obama's selling out and I haven't seen more than 300 diaries on it, fine tell them to delete, but when an important story that may have been missed is diaried, be kind. Some haven't seen the story yet unless it has met the aforementioned requirements of recent and reclisting. The example of this complete nonsense below the fold.

Read the important "Previously Diaried" diary hereIf you'll notice my comment, I asked if we could poll Kossacks to see just how many of us had the pleasure of knowing that Hitchens of all people called waterboarding "torture" and remember, he knew he could stop it at any time (yes I think it should be two words in this case, but Droogie help me out. My English is nicht sehr gut), and our torturees don't have that luxury. Don't feel obliged to rec, but do take the poll, because I seriosly don't know how many people have seen this.

Was I being an a-hole for not telling the diarist to delete? Is anyone who recommends a diary that has been diaried before an a-hole for doing so? Should anyone who does in fact recommend a delete be forced to do same in every diary over the past three days about Wes Clark? Who knows, but that's not the poll. This is. Take it, or suffer the consequences when good stories fall through the cracks.