How is "grace" different from "the freedom to harass others"?
Has Jesus been harrassing you, laleo?
It's been my observation that whenever questions of GS policy have come up, it's been the arguments for and against that have determined the changes (or not) in policy, not the results of the polls.
And there's the difference between a constitutional democracy and mob rule.
Satori, from some of the things you have posted, I am more than glad you could not change them, ever..
It's kind of "Satori in the raw".. a live performance.. the subtle (and not so subtle) nuances really show your character.. and I like it.
But I have edited them, H. Probably several times over. The inspiration for a post may be raw, but the finished product is a finished product. And frankly, their apparent "rawness," after so much editing (which includes refining language, adding supporting facts, unmixing metaphors, breaking up big paragraphs, etc), may indicate how much it was needed.
I think editing is more inspired (to take great liberty with the word "inspire") because those edits are "revealed" upon reflection. They do not accompany first ideas. They follow.
Some suggest appealing to moderators after the time limit is up. Do we really want to make admins our "co-editors?" Would they have any inclination, much less the time, to obey every whim as my own keyboard does? Yeah, right.
I will never tell you that I "wish you could read it in the original." Even laleo once nearly begged me to make a correction long after the 2 hours was up. Fortunately, for her peace of mind (if not soundness of mind) there was no 2 hour limit. And that was just a spelling error. (As if I ever misspell anything). If laleo seems as healthy and vivacious today as ever, we can probably thank the edit feature.
Boards are by nature temporal. I wish, sometimes, they were permanent. They aren't. We shouldn't try to make them permanent or we will change their fundamental nature, and therefore, purpose. I don't know if GS could serve the same function without the implicit "escape clause" of editing offered to some participants.
I rarely see the abuses (as they are described) because I don't "live" here. I don't commune in the same way some of us do. I don't think my editing has ever fallen under that category, although at one time I did wipe a number of posts. I don't even remember why. I only remember that it seemed necessary, and I felt it was my right to do so. MOST of my stuff (and I think, my "best stuff") has been deleted by others, by the way. Ruthlessly. Remorselessly. So, why shouldn't I share some power over my own posts?
I know editing posts can be anti-social at times. I think we can tolerate that. It's the price we pay for the sense of freedom we need to express ourselves.
My guess is that if the unlimited edit function were being used as you use it -- for expansions and clarifications; for additional "insights" and corrections (god knows you need it, and, besides, it wasn't a spelling error, it was an error in syntax, and you know what that does to me); and, on the rare occasion, to delete that stray post that under the strength of the noonday sun isn't nearly as profound nor as witty (nor as suitable) as first imagined -- I doubt time limits would even be an issue. As it is, what Paw is likely facing is the frustration of a disordered forum, and maybe even a few potential legal headaches, for all I know.
I doubt it's a matter of whether there will be limits. There will be. For now. Maybe it's just a matter of adjusting how long the limit will be -- how much time is needed to preserve the writer's freedom of expression (and freedom to "take it back" for whatever reason, although a brief explanation would be considerate) versus how much time is needed to preserve the coherence of the forum.
My guess is that if the unlimited edit function were being used as you use it -- for expansions and clarifications; for additional "insights" and corrections (god knows you need it, and, besides, it wasn't a spelling error, it was an error in syntax, and you know what that does to me); and, on the rare occasion, to delete that stray post that under the strength of the noonday sun isn't nearly as profound nor as witty (nor as suitable) as first imagined -- I doubt time limits would even be an issue. As it is, what Paw is likely facing is the frustration of a disordered forum, and maybe even a few potential legal headaches, for all I know.
I doubt it's a matter of whether there will be limits. There will be. For now. Maybe it's just a matter of adjusting how long the limit will be -- how much time is needed to preserve the writer's freedom of expression (and freedom to "take it back" for whatever reason, although a brief explanation would be considerate) versus how much time is needed to preserve the coherence of the forum.
Six hours?
Nay, not six, nor sixty-six, nor six hundred sixty-six (although that number has a ring to it).
Til archived. That is my plea.
Who can get a good night's sleep on 6 hours? Wierwille supposedly did, but I happen to know he was a vampire, and he slept in his coffin. They're very comfortable, and the trapped Drambuie fumes induced a profound and restful slumber. Wierwille would have gone along with 6 hours. Are you some kind of Wierwillite now? We'll be watching you carefully from now on.
Was it syntax? I thought it was spelling. I do know what it does to you. Tragic, really. Suppose that your six hours had past. Your name would be in the prayer forum right now. "Please lift laleo..."
PS - Please note I have captured your post, and you can't edit it. Nyah, nyah, nyahhhhhh! To those stymied by the edit feature, the quote feature is a fearsome weapon.
I will never tell you that I "wish you could read it in the original." Even laleo once nearly begged me to make a correction long after the 2 hours was up. Fortunately, for her peace of mind (if not soundness of mind) there was no 2 hour limit. And that was just a spelling error. (As if I ever misspell anything).
If laleo seems as healthy and vivacious today as ever, we can probably thank the edit feature.
Reduced to quoting myself now.
Emphasis on "seems." :unsure:
By the way. I don't like these smileys. Never did, really, but these are really too cute by half. Yucko. But here I am, reduced to smileys. Another evil side-effect of no ability to edit a recent post - though I can't explain how exactly.
I think that threads are similar to a school debate. The conversation moves forward, points are clarified and changed as the debate progresses. I certainly want enough time for people to correct or modify a post, but not enough time to destroy the cadence of a thread
I’ve read the posts and think that an eight hour time limit would be a good place to move. We can try it for a few months, if it causes more problems than it solves, then we will revisit it. I don’t want to bring back deleting posts I'd rather read an explanation for an empty post than see blank space.
I realize not ALL threads are debates, and shouldn't be treated as debates. Even with those threads, I would rather read an explanation, then see the whole thing disappear
If 8 hours is good, wouldn't 12 be even better? And 24 would be exceedingly appropriate. I could live with 24, though 48 would be twice as good, but 24 might just work. I'll compromise. How about 24?
If the post is important to the thread it can be captured and saved in quotations.
Thanks for considering extending the edit time. And I appreciate your thoughts as well. I'd prefer a few more hours only so that if I really screw up my verbiage before I head to the office and can't stop to look in until after I return from work it would be wonderful to have the opportunity to correct it. FWIW
I realize that option alone will not correct my way of speaking but it gives me a sense of freedom to at least try.
I was content with the editing options that previously existed and in fact had no awareness that the ability to edit had been curtailed. As far as I'm concerned I don't have lots of time to post here and when I do , I don't have time to remove all the "warts" from the post though I do try to make it readable for the general reader. In the past I definitely have edited some of my own posts but typically within minutes or hours of the original post when I realize that I needed to clarify things. But after that I don't need to go back and mess with it. Don't have the time.
I am aware that in times past that some have taken editing to an extreme and in some cases have changed very old posts to make it seem as if they never wrote something. I do not think that this is cool but then again I don't know that I really care that much about it (except to point it out). Gspot is an online forum, not a newspaper or a magazine, so if posts are less than perfect in terms of grammar or spelling I'm not going to care. Though I do think that it is a problem if someone goes back to change something to escape accountability for a stated opinion. Obviously someone might have a change of heart about something or perhaps realize that a statement was made in a moment of anger but shouldn't they acknowledge it in their edit prociess instead of trying to act like it never happened ? Well I've said things that I later wished I'd never said and most likely will again and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Note: I edited this post to fix a problem.... *laff*
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
12
11
13
Popular Days
Oct 2
36
Oct 3
34
Oct 1
25
Sep 30
15
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 34 posts
satori001 12 posts
Shellon 11 posts
dmiller 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 2 2005
36 posts
Oct 3 2005
34 posts
Oct 1 2005
25 posts
Sep 30 2005
15 posts
Shellon
:D As you should. Sometimes the confusion is funny !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thank you dear!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Has Jesus been harrassing you, laleo?
And there's the difference between a constitutional democracy and mob rule.
But I have edited them, H. Probably several times over. The inspiration for a post may be raw, but the finished product is a finished product. And frankly, their apparent "rawness," after so much editing (which includes refining language, adding supporting facts, unmixing metaphors, breaking up big paragraphs, etc), may indicate how much it was needed.I think editing is more inspired (to take great liberty with the word "inspire") because those edits are "revealed" upon reflection. They do not accompany first ideas. They follow.
Some suggest appealing to moderators after the time limit is up. Do we really want to make admins our "co-editors?" Would they have any inclination, much less the time, to obey every whim as my own keyboard does? Yeah, right.
I will never tell you that I "wish you could read it in the original." Even laleo once nearly begged me to make a correction long after the 2 hours was up. Fortunately, for her peace of mind (if not soundness of mind) there was no 2 hour limit. And that was just a spelling error. (As if I ever misspell anything). If laleo seems as healthy and vivacious today as ever, we can probably thank the edit feature.
Boards are by nature temporal. I wish, sometimes, they were permanent. They aren't. We shouldn't try to make them permanent or we will change their fundamental nature, and therefore, purpose. I don't know if GS could serve the same function without the implicit "escape clause" of editing offered to some participants.
I rarely see the abuses (as they are described) because I don't "live" here. I don't commune in the same way some of us do. I don't think my editing has ever fallen under that category, although at one time I did wipe a number of posts. I don't even remember why. I only remember that it seemed necessary, and I felt it was my right to do so. MOST of my stuff (and I think, my "best stuff") has been deleted by others, by the way. Ruthlessly. Remorselessly. So, why shouldn't I share some power over my own posts?
I know editing posts can be anti-social at times. I think we can tolerate that. It's the price we pay for the sense of freedom we need to express ourselves.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
satori,
My guess is that if the unlimited edit function were being used as you use it -- for expansions and clarifications; for additional "insights" and corrections (god knows you need it, and, besides, it wasn't a spelling error, it was an error in syntax, and you know what that does to me); and, on the rare occasion, to delete that stray post that under the strength of the noonday sun isn't nearly as profound nor as witty (nor as suitable) as first imagined -- I doubt time limits would even be an issue. As it is, what Paw is likely facing is the frustration of a disordered forum, and maybe even a few potential legal headaches, for all I know.
I doubt it's a matter of whether there will be limits. There will be. For now. Maybe it's just a matter of adjusting how long the limit will be -- how much time is needed to preserve the writer's freedom of expression (and freedom to "take it back" for whatever reason, although a brief explanation would be considerate) versus how much time is needed to preserve the coherence of the forum.
Six hours?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Oh my, I must make you crazy then. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Nay, not six, nor sixty-six, nor six hundred sixty-six (although that number has a ring to it).
Til archived. That is my plea.
Who can get a good night's sleep on 6 hours? Wierwille supposedly did, but I happen to know he was a vampire, and he slept in his coffin. They're very comfortable, and the trapped Drambuie fumes induced a profound and restful slumber. Wierwille would have gone along with 6 hours. Are you some kind of Wierwillite now? We'll be watching you carefully from now on.
Was it syntax? I thought it was spelling. I do know what it does to you. Tragic, really. Suppose that your six hours had past. Your name would be in the prayer forum right now. "Please lift laleo..."
PS - Please note I have captured your post, and you can't edit it. Nyah, nyah, nyahhhhhh! To those stymied by the edit feature, the quote feature is a fearsome weapon.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Reduced to quoting myself now.
Emphasis on "seems." :unsure:
By the way. I don't like these smileys. Never did, really, but these are really too cute by half. Yucko. But here I am, reduced to smileys. Another evil side-effect of no ability to edit a recent post - though I can't explain how exactly.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I think that threads are similar to a school debate. The conversation moves forward, points are clarified and changed as the debate progresses. I certainly want enough time for people to correct or modify a post, but not enough time to destroy the cadence of a thread
I’ve read the posts and think that an eight hour time limit would be a good place to move. We can try it for a few months, if it causes more problems than it solves, then we will revisit it. I don’t want to bring back deleting posts I'd rather read an explanation for an empty post than see blank space.
I realize not ALL threads are debates, and shouldn't be treated as debates. Even with those threads, I would rather read an explanation, then see the whole thing disappear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
If 8 hours is good, wouldn't 12 be even better? And 24 would be exceedingly appropriate. I could live with 24, though 48 would be twice as good, but 24 might just work. I'll compromise. How about 24?
If the post is important to the thread it can be captured and saved in quotations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Paw,
Thanks for considering extending the edit time. And I appreciate your thoughts as well. I'd prefer a few more hours only so that if I really screw up my verbiage before I head to the office and can't stop to look in until after I return from work it would be wonderful to have the opportunity to correct it. FWIW
I realize that option alone will not correct my way of speaking but it gives me a sense of freedom to at least try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
PS....I actually agree now that we should have no delete option.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I had to do something. Satori was talking about smilies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Yeah, scary wasn't it! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Do smilies have feelings? Just look at them and then tell me they don't. Now I've insulted them.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
You better watch your back Satori. I can see it now, "Revenge of the Smilies."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Satori,
To help erase the memory of those things here's something I know you like to gaze on to help ya! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
Sorry Kathy. She doesn't do a thing for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I imagine that would make Ted happy. :o :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TED Ferrell
Nah! Kathy she is cute but could not compare with my lovely lady moony.
And I ain't posting no pictures of her so forget it fellows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Ted dear, I meant I was sure it would make you happy that Angelina Jolie did nothing for your sweetie, not you. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TED Ferrell
ahh! heck fire Kathy I thought you posted that lovely picture for us males to gawk at hahahaha
I took it as a fun thing and I know so did my Moony by her response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Cute! Well actually I was posting it for a particular male to gawk at. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I was content with the editing options that previously existed and in fact had no awareness that the ability to edit had been curtailed. As far as I'm concerned I don't have lots of time to post here and when I do , I don't have time to remove all the "warts" from the post though I do try to make it readable for the general reader. In the past I definitely have edited some of my own posts but typically within minutes or hours of the original post when I realize that I needed to clarify things. But after that I don't need to go back and mess with it. Don't have the time.
I am aware that in times past that some have taken editing to an extreme and in some cases have changed very old posts to make it seem as if they never wrote something. I do not think that this is cool but then again I don't know that I really care that much about it (except to point it out). Gspot is an online forum, not a newspaper or a magazine, so if posts are less than perfect in terms of grammar or spelling I'm not going to care. Though I do think that it is a problem if someone goes back to change something to escape accountability for a stated opinion. Obviously someone might have a change of heart about something or perhaps realize that a statement was made in a moment of anger but shouldn't they acknowledge it in their edit prociess instead of trying to act like it never happened ? Well I've said things that I later wished I'd never said and most likely will again and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Note: I edited this post to fix a problem.... *laff*
Edited by diazbroLink 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.