Thank you, Long Gone. I couldn't get past the literal meaning of birds, like, did he mean vultures were circling above the forums, in sneaky blackness, swooping down for the kill, then swerving skyward, disappearing into the stars with their killer words tucked secretly in their beaks, leaving bloody remnants behind? Or did he mean squawking posters were taking off in a "V" formation in search of sunnier climes, after the "chilling effect" of time limits? Neither, I guess. He's no poet, that's for sure. Just a crude image to go with the crude gestures.
Backatcha, wingnut: :P
By the way, Long Gone, in counting up the people who have posted, pro and con, there are nine in favor of time limits, nine against, two who don't care either way, and two abstentions. You're one of the abstentions. What are your thoughts?
No hard feelings for you about the subject I choose to be so anal about ;)
Nah, none at all. I figured if folkd haven't gotten I said I was sorry and was wrong to post it by now well then I'm lost to know how so it's a done deal for me as I said. Not worth my memory to be quiet honest with ya dude.
Nah, none at all. I figured if folkd haven't gotten I said I was sorry and was wrong to post it by now well then I'm lost to know how so it's a done deal for me as I said. Not worth my memory to be quiet honest with ya dude.
But you speak your own mind just like all of us!
For what it's worth, I not only didn't remember it, it took me a minute to figure it out even after Long Gone explained the reference.
I think what it comes down to for me is that while we all say things that in hindsight we maybe wouldn't or shouldn't have said had we not gotten caught up in the moment, I'd rather see the "disputes" play out, rather than allow for subterfuge.
Kathy, would you feel differently about time limits, if, say, instead of that thread playing out the way it did, let's say wingnut posted his gesture after one of your posts. You saw it, but then when you got back to the thread, wingnut had already deleted it without explanation or apology. You post again on the thread, wingnut posts another gesture after your post, then deletes the second gesture after you respond, again, without explanation. It happens a third time, then a fourth. Each time, he deletes the post that offended you, without acknowledging the offense. What would you do?
Would having someone free to post gestures after your posts have a "chilling effect" on your own desire to post, or would you take it in stride, figuring that's the price you pay to maintain your own freedom to edit?
I went back a little while ago to re-read that old thread about Editing Time Limits from a couple of years ago to refresh my memory about the arguments for and against time limits. Turns out, that thread is yet another example of a mutilated GS thread, that now makes no sense. There are so, so many threads like that on the board. Does it matter?
Editing is a handey item to yuse when typing out a post, since sum of us might need to consolt a dictonery in order to make sure we spelt something corectly or rightly define a consept.
Its nice to now we can come back and correct those little mistakes and don't have to council with a counsel for permision in order to change a think or too, like tipos or mispelt words. Hek, it wood even make sense to add spelchick to our little fourum, dontchathink?
However, I believe copious editing should be marked with time and date, to indicate that a post has been repeatedly or possibly radically altered from it's original content. When a person is allowed to make substantial changes without dating those changes, some replies to the post will not only not make sense, possibly throwing a thread into confusion, but also if there are no edit indicators whatsoever, it would be impossible to prove someone altered what they had previously typed.
By the way, Long Gone, in counting up the people who have posted, pro and con, there are nine in favor of time limits, nine against, two who don't care either way, and two abstentions. You're one of the abstentions. What are your thoughts?
My first thought is that I don’t care that much.
What I think would be ideal would be for posters to be able to edit a post, but not completely delete it, for an hour or so after posting. After that, posters could add postscripts to existing posts, but not otherwise change them. That would allow for corrections or explanatory notes, without allowing the thread continuity problems that deletions and major edits long after the original post can cause, but I doubt that the forum software offers that feature.
well... I'm against obnoxious banners! (not really Raf)
when you want to edit right after you post, if you choose the 'quick edit' or 'fast edit' or whatever it's called... you can go back in and fix it and it doesn't show up as edited...
when you want to edit right after you post, if you choose the 'quick edit' or 'fast edit' or whatever it's called... you can go back in and fix it and it doesn't show up as edited...
Hmmmmm. I don't have that feature on my screen. Matter of fact, the smilies to the left are not clickable for me either. I have to type in the bbcode for any and all *alterations* like color, italics, etc.
when you want to edit right after you post, if you choose the 'quick edit' or 'fast edit' or whatever it's called... you can go back in and fix it and it doesn't show up as edited...
This is a test.
Original post.
Quick edit immediately after original post.
The quick edit wasn't tagged as an edit on my screen right after I did it, but was tagged as an edit when I refreshed my screen, so apparently even an immediate quick edit gets tagged as an edit.
Now that's really strange (no offense, Tom). The last paragraph of my previous post was supposed to be a new post, but was added to the other one. (Another quick edit: So was this one.) I don't like that.
For what it's worth, I not only didn't remember it, it took me a minute to figure it out even after Long Gone explained the reference.
I think what it comes down to for me is that while we all say things that in hindsight we maybe wouldn't or shouldn't have said had we not gotten caught up in the moment, I'd rather see the "disputes" play out, rather than allow for subterfuge.
My option of deleting when I told too much of my life, being able to edit so something will not be misunderstood or on occasion just chickening out and deleting something that should have stayed doesn't apply to any definition of that word so I'll assume you're referring to what could happen.
Kathy, would you feel differently about time limits, if, say, instead of that thread playing out the way it did, let's say wingnut posted his gesture after one of your posts. You saw it, but then when you got back to the thread, wingnut had already deleted it without explanation or apology. You post again on the thread, wingnut posts another gesture after your post, then deletes the second gesture after you respond, again, without explanation. It happens a third time, then a fourth. Each time, he deletes the post that offended you, without acknowledging the offense. What would you do?
I would have approached him in private message and asked his reason and consideration of making some note in the thread of deleting a post that has now been acknowledged by reply. If he refused to do so I would advise him that since I responded to him and it is now gone that I will make the announcement there was a post above mine now deleted therefore I apologize if my comment seems inappropriate in the thread. If this person has been contacted by me once and chose not to address it and then repeated it I would send him a private message again asking he resolve this game he’s playing and if he chooses not to advise him I will be contacting the forum moderators of his possible habit and refusal to work with me on it after contact. I would never make it to 3 times.
Would having someone free to post gestures after your posts have a "chilling effect" on your own desire to post, or would you take it in stride, figuring that's the price you pay to maintain your own freedom to edit?
I've bitten my tongue and continued to post more times than you could imagine. I've read accounts that were fairytale land and continued to post. If I have the freedom to edit my posts then so does someone else which opens up the door for whatever. If a person continues to abuse his freedom in that manner I would probably just leave the thread. I pick my battles because some things just aren't worth the fight.
I went back a little while ago to re-read that old thread about Editing Time Limits from a couple of years ago to refresh my memory about the arguments for and against time limits. Turns out, that thread is yet another example of a mutilated GS thread, that now makes no sense. There are so, so many threads like that on the board. Does it matter?
I didn't read that thread so can't comment but I've seen screwed up threads because folks deleted their post(s) leaving what looked like a bunch of lost people responding to things not there. So I agree completely in that, I do. I just feel we should be allowed the freedom and if we aren't mature enough to abide by it and have common courtesy then probably in time everyone we'll lose interest in engaging in conversation with us anymore. It will rather take care of itself I imagine.
And both Long Gone and Catcup had some interesting ideas for notations of edits and deletions.
LG two things: That quick reply thingy did that to me, too, where I wanted to make a new post, and it was added to the previous post--I didn't like that either.
What I think would be ideal would be for posters to be able to edit a post, but not completely delete it, for an hour or so after posting. After that, posters could add postscripts to existing posts, but not otherwise change them. That would allow for corrections or explanatory notes, without allowing the thread continuity problems that deletions and major edits long after the original post can cause, but I doubt that the forum software offers that feature.
I like that idea if we have to have the time limit. (but I still prefer no time limit in spite of the edit abusers that screw up threads!)
vote then, i'm sure the moderators will look at the votes
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.
Thank you, Kathy, for your answer, and, you are correct that I was speaking hypothetically, and not in reference to your own posts. I should have made that more clear.
I like your solutions insofar as how to resolve the problem, but I do have one question. You said that you would alert the forum moderator if the problem persists. I'm curious about what you would expect the moderator to do after he got the alert. In other words, I'm wondering if this new editing time limit is because of all the complaints. Maybe the problem didn't solve itself in its own time.
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
wingnut
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
:P
Copy and paste this one Kathy. Hee hee hee. :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
BTW, Chatty
No hard feelings for you about the subject I choose to be so anal about ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Thank you, Long Gone. I couldn't get past the literal meaning of birds, like, did he mean vultures were circling above the forums, in sneaky blackness, swooping down for the kill, then swerving skyward, disappearing into the stars with their killer words tucked secretly in their beaks, leaving bloody remnants behind? Or did he mean squawking posters were taking off in a "V" formation in search of sunnier climes, after the "chilling effect" of time limits? Neither, I guess. He's no poet, that's for sure. Just a crude image to go with the crude gestures.
Backatcha, wingnut: :P
By the way, Long Gone, in counting up the people who have posted, pro and con, there are nine in favor of time limits, nine against, two who don't care either way, and two abstentions. You're one of the abstentions. What are your thoughts?
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
No way! I didn't know that was what that was. :D
Nah, none at all. I figured if folkd haven't gotten I said I was sorry and was wrong to post it by now well then I'm lost to know how so it's a done deal for me as I said. Not worth my memory to be quiet honest with ya dude.
But you speak your own mind just like all of us!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
For what it's worth, I not only didn't remember it, it took me a minute to figure it out even after Long Gone explained the reference.
I think what it comes down to for me is that while we all say things that in hindsight we maybe wouldn't or shouldn't have said had we not gotten caught up in the moment, I'd rather see the "disputes" play out, rather than allow for subterfuge.
Kathy, would you feel differently about time limits, if, say, instead of that thread playing out the way it did, let's say wingnut posted his gesture after one of your posts. You saw it, but then when you got back to the thread, wingnut had already deleted it without explanation or apology. You post again on the thread, wingnut posts another gesture after your post, then deletes the second gesture after you respond, again, without explanation. It happens a third time, then a fourth. Each time, he deletes the post that offended you, without acknowledging the offense. What would you do?
Would having someone free to post gestures after your posts have a "chilling effect" on your own desire to post, or would you take it in stride, figuring that's the price you pay to maintain your own freedom to edit?
I went back a little while ago to re-read that old thread about Editing Time Limits from a couple of years ago to refresh my memory about the arguments for and against time limits. Turns out, that thread is yet another example of a mutilated GS thread, that now makes no sense. There are so, so many threads like that on the board. Does it matter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Editing is a handey item to yuse when typing out a post, since sum of us might need to consolt a dictonery in order to make sure we spelt something corectly or rightly define a consept.
Its nice to now we can come back and correct those little mistakes and don't have to council with a counsel for permision in order to change a think or too, like tipos or mispelt words. Hek, it wood even make sense to add spelchick to our little fourum, dontchathink?
However, I believe copious editing should be marked with time and date, to indicate that a post has been repeatedly or possibly radically altered from it's original content. When a person is allowed to make substantial changes without dating those changes, some replies to the post will not only not make sense, possibly throwing a thread into confusion, but also if there are no edit indicators whatsoever, it would be impossible to prove someone altered what they had previously typed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
My first thought is that I don’t care that much.
What I think would be ideal would be for posters to be able to edit a post, but not completely delete it, for an hour or so after posting. After that, posters could add postscripts to existing posts, but not otherwise change them. That would allow for corrections or explanatory notes, without allowing the thread continuity problems that deletions and major edits long after the original post can cause, but I doubt that the forum software offers that feature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... I'm against obnoxious banners! (not really Raf)
when you want to edit right after you post, if you choose the 'quick edit' or 'fast edit' or whatever it's called... you can go back in and fix it and it doesn't show up as edited...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmmm. I don't have that feature on my screen. Matter of fact, the smilies to the left are not clickable for me either. I have to type in the bbcode for any and all *alterations* like color, italics, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
This is a test.
Original post.
Quick edit immediately after original post.
The quick edit wasn't tagged as an edit on my screen right after I did it, but was tagged as an edit when I refreshed my screen, so apparently even an immediate quick edit gets tagged as an edit.
Now that's really strange (no offense, Tom). The last paragraph of my previous post was supposed to be a new post, but was added to the other one. (Another quick edit: So was this one.) I don't like that.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
my main concern is accuracy
followed by integrity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
And both Long Gone and Catcup had some interesting ideas for notations of edits and deletions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
I think we should be able to have unlimited edit time in case we may have dumb spelling mistakes that may have to remain in cyberspace for eternity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
vote then, i'm sure the moderators will look at the votes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
Trust me. I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psalm 71 one
LG two things: That quick reply thingy did that to me, too, where I wanted to make a new post, and it was added to the previous post--I didn't like that either.
I like that idea if we have to have the time limit. (but I still prefer no time limit in spite of the edit abusers that screw up threads!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
look the crux of the matter is
if i post something when i'm drunk
i want to be able to delete it when i'm sober
hey can you delete this for me tomorrow ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wingnut
That’s easy, we can just install a tube to blow in and if your drunk the edit function becomes infinite!
(((((((Exie))))))) :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ha ha! Me three. Or is that two??? Hmmmmm. :wacko: :unsure: :wacko:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Wingnut: who's Mr Frued?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Thank you, Kathy, for your answer, and, you are correct that I was speaking hypothetically, and not in reference to your own posts. I should have made that more clear.
I like your solutions insofar as how to resolve the problem, but I do have one question. You said that you would alert the forum moderator if the problem persists. I'm curious about what you would expect the moderator to do after he got the alert. In other words, I'm wondering if this new editing time limit is because of all the complaints. Maybe the problem didn't solve itself in its own time.
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Words to consider
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.