If we had a spell checker and a preview screen editing posts would probably be unnecessary. Most of the time, if I edit something it's because of grammar or spelling or something like that...or I discover a different way of saying something and change a few words...usually within a few minutes of posting.
However:
If something posted reveals personal info, I think that should be edited for all the obvious reasons. It has happened to me....twice.
One time, a poster who knew me (intimatey at one time) made several references to times we had shared together and I asked this person to remove those references, because I held info the WayGB would have killed for. This poster understood the situation and did make changes. I was grateful.
Another time, I posted something that could have given a different 3rd party priviliged information, but I didn't realize it...it was one of those "great minds think alike" type things. I deleted some of my comments in deference to their wish/need.
Perhaps one approach could be to put the 60 minute time limit in, and allow some to appeal to you to edit out certain information. Of course, I know that you regularly do this, and remind others also, but just in case.....
We do need to be responsible and accountable for what we say, and I believe most of us are. However, sometimes things don't always work out as planned.
Hey Paw! Is this survey rigged? I voted NO, but it showed up as Yes -- 1 day. Hmmm...
I suppose unlimited editing has a couple of disadvantages. It allows people to "purify" their posts (in a heated exchange, for example - kind of a sneaky way to tweak the debate) and it even makes it impossible to totally eliminate the content of posts (annoying at best - thread derailing at worst).
While I'm not at all in favor of such behavior, I'm not sure it warrants control. When after-the-fact editing significantly changes the nature of an important exchange, people usually get called on it - which is a good thing in my opinion. Sadly, it's more common to see pointless nagging about the issue over occurrences which aren't really that significant (hey... now THERE'S a rationale for limited editing that I might just be able to get behind - keeping the control-freaks at bay).
I guess I'm just more concerned about the needs of the newbies, the naive, and the nitpickers. When I first posted on WayDale, I put my real name in the text of my post (gasp). Couple days later, after my first weird internet/real-life exchange, I decided I needed to be one of those people who DOESN'T choose to use their real name (fixed a few punctuation errors while I was at it too). And I've seen similar retractions of all sorts of stuff since (inspired by everything from sobering up to finding out about the WayGB or hearing from one's divorce lawyer).
I've learned not to give a $hit if people don't happen to follow tacit rules, and really, I'd much rather have a cow over one of my own commas than a mysteriously "left blank" post.
If someone was going for the juggler they would have a post memorized anyway. If someone wanted to correct a spelling error, the anal retentives would already know.....
I say no limit cause of the assholes that have nothing better to do then make themselves superior in life. Let them squirm in their self righteousness.
(now if I want to change this later I wonder if I will be able to.....lol, maybe shouldn't use swear words for those who might be offended....)
cuz I've mostly stopped caring what others do ('cept Garth- he still irritates me)...as for my editing practices, like Pam I'm much more concerned about my own grammar & spelling. Oh, and posting the links correctly. And that's about all I can remember editing in a post of mine.
If unlimited editing flies, then I'll be happy. If a time limit is the choice, I'll STILL be happy ( won't be my fault, if I screw up in grammar or spelling - evry body does at some time or nuther).
BTW I try to read all of Garth's posts. They are worth reading, even if I don't agree
Unable to get logged in, but if I could I would vote for a one hour edit limit. Knowing that what I would be putting out on the www was going to stay there would help me to consider my ways and words more before I hit the post button.
I also consider it a whole lot more considerate for all the other participants to have the post they are responding to left in tact as they respond. IMHO it is very selfish and self-centered to pull the rug out from under the other people that frequent the Caf?The mature and tolerant road requires a full exchange rather than a complete with drawl.
One can always choose to ignore others, rather than getting drawn in to useless debates, or trying to respond to something that lacks apparent logic or because of previous experience has proven it’s not worth the effort…….
Shoot, once this board gets rolling, it'll be like GS, so many threads I can't find anything from last week anyway...oh wait! We have a SEARCH feature now that B]works[/b] ....!
Still vote for editability ad infinitum, but I will abide by whatever the Great GreaseSpot in the Sky decides in His great wisdom.
By the way, if I offended anyone with my "Spellerman" post awhile back, I apologize. It was just a comment, and I certainly don't give more than a 1/4 rats a$$ about spelling or think less of anyone for something like that, it was just a suggescthun. See? I can't type worth a shiste, so that's why I personally tend to correct over and over because otherwise it'd read like dog-latin.
socks, I was not refering to any post you might be refering to, I know I can't spell worth crapola, nor do I mind if I can or can't. I just know some folks who are quick to judge, correct, mock, etc at errors. It does make them oh so superior you know.
Griz, funny statement, "One can always choose to ignore others, rather than getting drawn in to useless debates, or trying to respond to something that lacks apparent logic or because of previous experience has proven it’s not worth the effort……."
Isn't that why the ones who "live" here at the cafe come here?, to get drawn in useless debates weather experience or logic has anything to do with anything???
I spend less and less time in the forums for that very reason!!
I have the ability to NOT read those who I choose NOT to read, others seem drawn to debate. Its why they live.
Ok,I feel better now, Suz, thanks for responding...a few people have mentioned it lately and I wondered if, in my never ending quest to goof around, I'd made someone feel bad. (You mean it's not all about ME???) I hear ya...thanks! and to anyone else the same stands.
aunnghhhh! ooooowwwww!
It's not the crawling that hurts....
unnnghhh, aiyooowwwwww!
It's this da#@&!!! glass....!!!
Like your swell half, George. I don't know that he and I agree when it comes to some things, but I've always felt you both sound like cool human beings. That's what it comes down to really.
I don't agree on most things with my best friends. Except for Mrs. Socks, with whom I agree on everything she says.
Edits are indicated by time and date at the bottom of the post. There is nothing stealthy about them.
I think the edit window may have a CHILLING EFFECT on posters who will hedge their bets by saying less than they feel at the moment.
If the edit restrictions are put in place we will see as many or more "11th hour" deletions. We will see them sooner.
Editing posts will always frustrate some, and liberate others. I don't care who is frustrated, even if it is me occasionally. I would rather that those who feel more secure with the edit option be accommodated.
Creative posts sometimes need a lot of editing to evolve. We don't see a lot of that right now, partly I think because EZBoard's shortcomings made life so difficult.
If I want to cook something a little different up, I may go back to it several times over weeks, adding, moving, re-phrasing, etc. A perfect example would be Linda Z's birthday thread.
I never changed the substance of my posts after others had followed, but I did add or clarify stuff for the fun or necessity of it which did not change the story line. That thread was a lot of fun until it got squelched by someone who demanded we all edit something out. (Good thing the edit feature was available!)
I don't think it is practical to "clarify" in subsequent posts. I would rather say "edited for clarification" at the bottom of the original post, in fairness to the reader. Who wants a thread cluttered up with corrections, qualifications and clarifications? We won't know for sure what the poster's original intent may have been until we reach the last post.
I don't mind the enforcement of a few posted rules governing the "abuse" of post-deletion privileges. Those situations should be handled with a wide latitude of options by the administrators. There is a big difference in motives between deleting posts to play head-games and doing the same out of panic or humiliation caused by a subsequent post. They should each be considered accordingly.
I think the edit rule is being proposed as a "good neighbor" policy, but may be intended by some to intimidate some GS'ers who need or want it.
Just a few thoughts...
[This message was edited by satori001 on June 13, 2002 at 7:36.]
[This message was edited by satori001 on June 13, 2002 at 7:39.]
It is sometimes rather irritating when a post is edited to change the content or meaning... especially if it is weeks, or in a recent occurence, months later.
I think that a 24 hour time frame is good idea, because it would give folks time to cool off if angry, and sober up if drunk and... reconsider having the whole world see something that they regret having said.
On the other hand, if editing were not allowed after an hour, some posters might think a little more deeply about what they really want to say, knowing that the whole world will be able to see it as long as the board is in business. However, Paw may be flooded with requests to delete or edit posts after folks have a change of heart.
When there is no time limit, some may feel more free to post their inane, rude or less than thoughtful comments, knowing that they can change or delete it at anytime. However, this may allow us to see the real person a little better... warts and all.
Maybe we could try the 60 minute time limit for a while and if it proved too cumbersome, move to the 24 hour limit. If that did not work out, just take off the limits altogether.
Goey
[Edited within 60 minutes to correct spelling]
[This message was edited by GOE on June 14, 2002 at 2:54.]
If we are "accountable" for what we say, we are also accountable for what we un-say, or delete, or change.
I keep reading arguments about our responsibility to community and society, as a basis for limiting the edit option.
Huh?
If we are truly accountable, it means we must have a choice. Accountability = responsibility. Responsibility = having the choice and freedom to act responsibly, or irresponsibly - and if irresponsibly, to accept the consequences.
What are the consequences for behaving inappropriately in society? Prosecution? No, of course not. If one behaves badly, one is left out, avoided by others. No laws are necessary.
If someone is known for deleting or changing posts we will not respond to them in the same way, if at all. That is the freedom to respond and to be responsible.
There are reasonable people and points on the limitation side, I'll concede that. Pam made a few, though she came down on the side of -no- limitations.
I do like the fact that editing posts drives Pat Roberge nuts, as well as the small faction of "Kravitzes" which always seeks to impose its will. Ah, the littlest pleasures in life are sometimes the sweetest.
The reasonable people should acknowledge that while the occasional post deletion may occur after weeks or months, it doesn't happen very often.
They may also acknowledge they don't know the reason why - there may have been a very good reason for that very rare example.
The effort required to go back and find an old post to edit suggests somebody thought there was a good reason. That individual really doesn't owe me an explanation, or Pat Roberge, or "Gladys Kravitz" either.
The irritation is pretty much a small thing... At least to me.
What it may be more about is accountability.
Everyone here already knows the risk involved in posting personal information. So that is for the most part a non-issue. If they post personal info and a wacko starts bothering them, then what good would editing the post after that do?
If an ex-spouse find out someones true feelings, deleting or editing the post seems kinda like destroying the evidence.
Now, if someone twists anothers words, or misrepresents anothers position... in the real world the normal response is to challenge or address that response by way of a reply. That is what discussion and debate is all about. To me, to back up and delete or edit what we said a week later with little or no explanation is kind of like saying, "I never said that".
I understand that there are delicate souls here. And that is why they should be all the more careful as to what they post. A 24 hour time frame should ample for someone to remove or edit a post that they regret.
If they post personal info and a wacko starts bothering them, then what good would editing the post after that do?
If an ex-spouse find out someones true feelings, deleting or editing the post seems kinda like destroying the evidence.
Now, if someone twists anothers words, or misrepresents anothers position... in the real world the normal response is to challenge or address that response by way of a reply. That is what discussion and debate is all about. To me, to back up and delete or edit what we said a week later with little or no explanation is kind of like saying, "I never said that".
/QUOTE]
Goe,
1. What good would it do? It would make the innocent party feel better. Why does there need to be any more justification that that?
2. "...seems kinda like destroying the evidence?" We aren't under perpetual subpoena, are we? That point makes no sense. Somebody who confesses the wrong thing will most likely be too late to do any good, but they will still possibly feel better. Only the spouse and a few voyeurs will be frustrated.
3. People say "I never said that" all the time. Yet somehow mankind endures and survives it. If the thread has any participation at all, people will know what was said, and if the words were that essential, they may be quoted as I am quoting yours.
I noticed a while back one vocal proponent of limiting edits actually edited her own old post not long after criticizing someone else for doing the same thing. Now is she a big, fat hypocrite? You decide. I have NO idea why the first person did not rub her two faces in it. Could it be she had a lot more class than the other, and a lot more discretion than "Gladys?" Yeah, I think so.
I think we need to trust ourselves, even if that trust is abused now and again.
Again, there are reasonable opinions on both sides. But those who just don't like the freedom editing affords to others, screw 'em. Just my humble "o."
If they post personal info and a wacko starts bothering them, then what good would editing the post after that do?
If an ex-spouse find out someones true feelings, deleting or editing the post seems kinda like destroying the evidence.
Now, if someone twists anothers words, or misrepresents anothers position... in the real world the normal response is to challenge or address that response by way of a reply. That is what discussion and debate is all about. To me, to back up and delete or edit what we said a week later with little or no explanation is kind of like saying, "I never said that".
/QUOTE]
Goe,
1. What good would it do? It would make the innocent party feel better. Why does there need to be any more justification that that?
2. "...seems kinda like destroying the evidence?" We aren't under perpetual subpoena, are we? That point makes no sense. Somebody who confesses the wrong thing will most likely be too late to do any good, but they will still possibly feel better. Only the spouse and a few voyeurs will be frustrated.
3. People say "I never said that" all the time. Yet somehow mankind endures and survives it. If the thread has any participation at all, people will know what was said, and if the words were that essential, they may be quoted as I am quoting yours.
I noticed a while back one vocal proponent of limiting edits actually edited her own old post not long after criticizing someone else for doing the same thing. Now is she a big, fat hypocrite? You decide. I have NO idea why the first person did not rub her two faces in it. Could it be she had a lot more class than the other, and a lot more discretion than "Gladys?" Yeah, I think so.
I think we need to trust ourselves, even if that trust is abused now and again.
Again, there are reasonable opinions on both sides. But those who just don't like the freedom editing affords to others, screw 'em. Just my humble "o."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
9
9
7
Popular Days
Jun 17
17
Jun 14
15
Jun 18
10
Jun 13
6
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 5 posts
satori 9 posts
satori001 9 posts
laleo 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 17 2002
17 posts
Jun 14 2002
15 posts
Jun 18 2002
10 posts
Jun 13 2002
6 posts
krys
If we had a spell checker and a preview screen editing posts would probably be unnecessary. Most of the time, if I edit something it's because of grammar or spelling or something like that...or I discover a different way of saying something and change a few words...usually within a few minutes of posting.
However:
If something posted reveals personal info, I think that should be edited for all the obvious reasons. It has happened to me....twice.
One time, a poster who knew me (intimatey at one time) made several references to times we had shared together and I asked this person to remove those references, because I held info the WayGB would have killed for. This poster understood the situation and did make changes. I was grateful.
Another time, I posted something that could have given a different 3rd party priviliged information, but I didn't realize it...it was one of those "great minds think alike" type things. I deleted some of my comments in deference to their wish/need.
Perhaps one approach could be to put the 60 minute time limit in, and allow some to appeal to you to edit out certain information. Of course, I know that you regularly do this, and remind others also, but just in case.....
We do need to be responsible and accountable for what we say, and I believe most of us are. However, sometimes things don't always work out as planned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pamsandiego
Hey Paw! Is this survey rigged? I voted NO, but it showed up as Yes -- 1 day. Hmmm...
I suppose unlimited editing has a couple of disadvantages. It allows people to "purify" their posts (in a heated exchange, for example - kind of a sneaky way to tweak the debate) and it even makes it impossible to totally eliminate the content of posts (annoying at best - thread derailing at worst).
While I'm not at all in favor of such behavior, I'm not sure it warrants control. When after-the-fact editing significantly changes the nature of an important exchange, people usually get called on it - which is a good thing in my opinion. Sadly, it's more common to see pointless nagging about the issue over occurrences which aren't really that significant (hey... now THERE'S a rationale for limited editing that I might just be able to get behind - keeping the control-freaks at bay).
I guess I'm just more concerned about the needs of the newbies, the naive, and the nitpickers. When I first posted on WayDale, I put my real name in the text of my post (gasp). Couple days later, after my first weird internet/real-life exchange, I decided I needed to be one of those people who DOESN'T choose to use their real name (fixed a few punctuation errors while I was at it too). And I've seen similar retractions of all sorts of stuff since (inspired by everything from sobering up to finding out about the WayGB or hearing from one's divorce lawyer).
I've learned not to give a $hit if people don't happen to follow tacit rules, and really, I'd much rather have a cow over one of my own commas than a mysteriously "left blank" post.
In fact, I do it all the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suz
If someone was going for the juggler they would have a post memorized anyway. If someone wanted to correct a spelling error, the anal retentives would already know.....
I say no limit cause of the assholes that have nothing better to do then make themselves superior in life. Let them squirm in their self righteousness.
(now if I want to change this later I wonder if I will be able to.....lol, maybe shouldn't use swear words for those who might be offended....)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ttessa
hmm..I want anuther choice!
That being, "I don't care."
cuz I've mostly stopped caring what others do ('cept Garth- he still irritates me)...as for my editing practices, like Pam I'm much more concerned about my own grammar & spelling. Oh, and posting the links correctly. And that's about all I can remember editing in a post of mine.
If unlimited editing flies, then I'll be happy. If a time limit is the choice, I'll STILL be happy ( won't be my fault, if I screw up in grammar or spelling - evry body does at some time or nuther).
BTW I try to read all of Garth's posts. They are worth reading, even if I don't agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Unable to get logged in, but if I could I would vote for a one hour edit limit. Knowing that what I would be putting out on the www was going to stay there would help me to consider my ways and words more before I hit the post button.
I also consider it a whole lot more considerate for all the other participants to have the post they are responding to left in tact as they respond. IMHO it is very selfish and self-centered to pull the rug out from under the other people that frequent the Caf?The mature and tolerant road requires a full exchange rather than a complete with drawl.
One can always choose to ignore others, rather than getting drawn in to useless debates, or trying to respond to something that lacks apparent logic or because of previous experience has proven it’s not worth the effort…….
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I vote for that, makes it as simple as possible.
Shoot, once this board gets rolling, it'll be like GS, so many threads I can't find anything from last week anyway...oh wait! We have a SEARCH feature now that B]works[/b] ....!
Still vote for editability ad infinitum, but I will abide by whatever the Great GreaseSpot in the Sky decides in His great wisdom.
By the way, if I offended anyone with my "Spellerman" post awhile back, I apologize. It was just a comment, and I certainly don't give more than a 1/4 rats a$$ about spelling or think less of anyone for something like that, it was just a suggescthun. See? I can't type worth a shiste, so that's why I personally tend to correct over and over because otherwise it'd read like dog-latin.
love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suz
socks, I was not refering to any post you might be refering to, I know I can't spell worth crapola, nor do I mind if I can or can't. I just know some folks who are quick to judge, correct, mock, etc at errors. It does make them oh so superior you know.
Griz, funny statement, "One can always choose to ignore others, rather than getting drawn in to useless debates, or trying to respond to something that lacks apparent logic or because of previous experience has proven it’s not worth the effort……."
Isn't that why the ones who "live" here at the cafe come here?, to get drawn in useless debates weather experience or logic has anything to do with anything???
I spend less and less time in the forums for that very reason!!
I have the ability to NOT read those who I choose NOT to read, others seem drawn to debate. Its why they live.
Happy Trails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Ok,I feel better now, Suz, thanks for responding...a few people have mentioned it lately and I wondered if, in my never ending quest to goof around, I'd made someone feel bad. (You mean it's not all about ME???) I hear ya...thanks! and to anyone else the same stands.
aunnghhhh! ooooowwwww!
It's not the crawling that hurts....
unnnghhh, aiyooowwwwww!
It's this da#@&!!! glass....!!!
Like your swell half, George. I don't know that he and I agree when it comes to some things, but I've always felt you both sound like cool human beings. That's what it comes down to really.
I don't agree on most things with my best friends. Except for Mrs. Socks, with whom I agree on everything she says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suz
hey Socks I don't agree w/him either!!!
eww, thanks but no thanks,
but hell, who says I have to??
so glad you agree with your Mrs. Socks.....
anyway off I go to the no spelling zone
suz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
just workin' out the kinks here.
[This message was edited by satori001 on June 13, 2002 at 7:41.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I agree with socks.
I agree with Pam.
I agree with Ginger.
I agree with all who agree with me.
Edits are indicated by time and date at the bottom of the post. There is nothing stealthy about them.
I think the edit window may have a CHILLING EFFECT on posters who will hedge their bets by saying less than they feel at the moment.
If the edit restrictions are put in place we will see as many or more "11th hour" deletions. We will see them sooner.
Editing posts will always frustrate some, and liberate others. I don't care who is frustrated, even if it is me occasionally. I would rather that those who feel more secure with the edit option be accommodated.
Creative posts sometimes need a lot of editing to evolve. We don't see a lot of that right now, partly I think because EZBoard's shortcomings made life so difficult.
If I want to cook something a little different up, I may go back to it several times over weeks, adding, moving, re-phrasing, etc. A perfect example would be Linda Z's birthday thread.
I never changed the substance of my posts after others had followed, but I did add or clarify stuff for the fun or necessity of it which did not change the story line. That thread was a lot of fun until it got squelched by someone who demanded we all edit something out. (Good thing the edit feature was available!)
I don't think it is practical to "clarify" in subsequent posts. I would rather say "edited for clarification" at the bottom of the original post, in fairness to the reader. Who wants a thread cluttered up with corrections, qualifications and clarifications? We won't know for sure what the poster's original intent may have been until we reach the last post.
I don't mind the enforcement of a few posted rules governing the "abuse" of post-deletion privileges. Those situations should be handled with a wide latitude of options by the administrators. There is a big difference in motives between deleting posts to play head-games and doing the same out of panic or humiliation caused by a subsequent post. They should each be considered accordingly.
I think the edit rule is being proposed as a "good neighbor" policy, but may be intended by some to intimidate some GS'ers who need or want it.
Just a few thoughts...
[This message was edited by satori001 on June 13, 2002 at 7:36.]
[This message was edited by satori001 on June 13, 2002 at 7:39.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
The "pure HTML" box did more than I thought it would.
How do I edit now?? Hmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
ok, figured out the paragraphs thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Accountability. 1 day is liberal enough.
Any editing after that can be done by a separate retraction/never mind kinda post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
For what I say and do... etc. and accountable to no one -- only if I choose the life of a hermit.
Otherwise, we are a society of rules, written and unwritten.
Incite others to think and reply, and leave it to let those that follow know why.
If you do not want them to know, or if you have regret, learn to think before you speak... or write.
Otherwise, respect is due to others from you.
Unless you would rather incite then remove the evidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
It is sometimes rather irritating when a post is edited to change the content or meaning... especially if it is weeks, or in a recent occurence, months later.
I think that a 24 hour time frame is good idea, because it would give folks time to cool off if angry, and sober up if drunk and... reconsider having the whole world see something that they regret having said.
On the other hand, if editing were not allowed after an hour, some posters might think a little more deeply about what they really want to say, knowing that the whole world will be able to see it as long as the board is in business. However, Paw may be flooded with requests to delete or edit posts after folks have a change of heart.
When there is no time limit, some may feel more free to post their inane, rude or less than thoughtful comments, knowing that they can change or delete it at anytime. However, this may allow us to see the real person a little better... warts and all.
Maybe we could try the 60 minute time limit for a while and if it proved too cumbersome, move to the 24 hour limit. If that did not work out, just take off the limits altogether.
Goey
[Edited within 60 minutes to correct spelling]
[This message was edited by GOE on June 14, 2002 at 2:54.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
I have not had enough coffee to compose my thoughts yet. I think people should be able to edit whenever they want.
More coffee please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
satori001 -
"I agree with all who agree with me."
As do I.
Galen
ET1 SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
If we are "accountable" for what we say, we are also accountable for what we un-say, or delete, or change.
I keep reading arguments about our responsibility to community and society, as a basis for limiting the edit option.
Huh?
If we are truly accountable, it means we must have a choice. Accountability = responsibility. Responsibility = having the choice and freedom to act responsibly, or irresponsibly - and if irresponsibly, to accept the consequences.
What are the consequences for behaving inappropriately in society? Prosecution? No, of course not. If one behaves badly, one is left out, avoided by others. No laws are necessary.
If someone is known for deleting or changing posts we will not respond to them in the same way, if at all. That is the freedom to respond and to be responsible.
There are reasonable people and points on the limitation side, I'll concede that. Pam made a few, though she came down on the side of -no- limitations.
I do like the fact that editing posts drives Pat Roberge nuts, as well as the small faction of "Kravitzes" which always seeks to impose its will. Ah, the littlest pleasures in life are sometimes the sweetest.
The reasonable people should acknowledge that while the occasional post deletion may occur after weeks or months, it doesn't happen very often.
They may also acknowledge they don't know the reason why - there may have been a very good reason for that very rare example.
The effort required to go back and find an old post to edit suggests somebody thought there was a good reason. That individual really doesn't owe me an explanation, or Pat Roberge, or "Gladys Kravitz" either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
I agree with GOE...
Hey Rocky...is this rockyrococo from the other site?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ginger,
The irritation is pretty much a small thing... At least to me.
What it may be more about is accountability.
Everyone here already knows the risk involved in posting personal information. So that is for the most part a non-issue. If they post personal info and a wacko starts bothering them, then what good would editing the post after that do?
If an ex-spouse find out someones true feelings, deleting or editing the post seems kinda like destroying the evidence.
Now, if someone twists anothers words, or misrepresents anothers position... in the real world the normal response is to challenge or address that response by way of a reply. That is what discussion and debate is all about. To me, to back up and delete or edit what we said a week later with little or no explanation is kind of like saying, "I never said that".
I understand that there are delicate souls here. And that is why they should be all the more careful as to what they post. A 24 hour time frame should ample for someone to remove or edit a post that they regret.
Goe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Ginger,
I've seen one of my posts evaporate lately too.
I did see your reply.
I think because the threads and forums are getting moved around some of the posts may be slipping through the cracks.
Then again, UBB seems much better than Ezboard, but it may have a few quirks of its own.
Bummer about your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.