What is a good period of "safe harbor" to avoid having a thread locked as a continuation of another?

[LoZoccolo]

As you can see, I had a thread locked for this reason:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1277819

I am certain that the analysis of the thought process behind strategically ineffective decisions is not an altogether forbidden one at Democratic Underground, and certainly not when the analysis targets declared third-party opponents of the Democratic Party. Indeed, by my own admission, my train of thought was provoked to ponder the general topic of third-party voting by the locked thread, but as I was not making direct reference to any of the arguments therein, and I was not taking the same position as the original poster (which was the reason that it was locked), I felt that I was free of this violation. I do, however, see the value in preventing a sort of psychological warfare against those whose threads have been locked. As I feel that I've hit upon an apt metaphor, an abstraction of the human decision-making process that explains a common maladaptive political behavior, I would like to ask permission to repost the topic at such a time as it would not be confused as psychological warfare, and/or perhaps ask for a guideline for an appropriate waiting period for creating a thread which touches on a general topic of, but does not make specific reference to, a thread that has been locked.

[Skinner]

1. How about this:

Wait long enough so people don't think you're continuing an argument from a locked thread.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Do you think that it would be OK if I reposted it now?

I think that I've hit upon a decent "object lesson" in political strategy, and wouldn't want it to go to waste.