|
rrrADAM
Aug 25, 2003, 5:16 PM
Post #251 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
It is setup so users can delete their own posts before someone replies to it. This is one of the options. It would require a coder to write code to allow users to delete after another has posted, as this is not an option that I see.
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 25, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #252 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
My dear fellows, I must interject at this point, and make the point, that this thread, is, indeed, pointless. I believe it has been hashed, rehashed, and hashed over, to the point to where it has become quite bothersome to continue reading. Quod erat demonstradum. I await your, no doubt, cheeky responses. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 25, 2003, 5:51 PM
Post #253 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: In reply to: cool I am left with two questions. 1. What was so objectionable in rich's original post that it needed to be edited? Also why wasn't he notified? 2. Why do mods get to delete their posts but users don't? Apparently two mod's did this in this particular thread and they seem to have done it by means of a tool not availible to general users. Curious as it used to be an option for users too. 1. As stated above, I deleted a reply I made that could be viewed as incindiary. 2. That's just the way it's set up. Let me see if I can change whether users can delete their own posts.
as far as #1.
I was clear about your involvement. You clicked the wrong button and I find that understandable and believable.
My question was directed at the second event that Tim mentioned ie that someone edited Rich's original post. When I read his original post I did not see anything that would violate the TOS, if there was I would be curious to hear what it was in the interest of not making a similiar mistake in my posts.
as far as #2.
Thanks for that info, no big deal either way
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Aug 25, 2003, 5:59 PM
Post #254 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: How exactly would a log entry indicating intention or lack of intention look? :? Do the logs actually have an attention attribute with entries like "unintentional action"? I don't think so.
To clarify, my judgement about Adam's intentions had nothing to do with the log entries. That belief is based on the conversations we have had privately in the mod & editors forum, and based on how it all unfolded within that context.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Aug 29, 2003, 2:32 AM
Post #255 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: wah wah wah. is there so little in your life that you declare jihad over a missing post? too bad i resigned as a moderator or i would go delete your index post to really fire you up. you are a real a-hole, my friend. Why don't you go torture a bug or something? Inbred little freak. Andy was a great mod. Go make fun of bvb.
what the ffufffuuucclukkkk??? another one? how does my name keep getting dredged up in the middle of these butt-buddy pillow biter pissing matches? and who the ffufuccckkk is flying hatchet?
take it come where else, asshooles. get a room.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 4:28 AM
Post #256 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: My dear fellows, I must interject at this point, and make the point, that this thread, is, indeed, pointless. I believe it has been hashed, rehashed, and hashed over, to the point to where it has become quite bothersome to continue reading. Quod erat demonstradum. I await your, no doubt, cheeky responses. Cheers.
Did you have a point?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
apollodorus
Aug 29, 2003, 6:04 AM
Post #257 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2002
Posts: 2157
|
Free speech doesn't imply the right to yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire. And it doesn't allow such outbursts as, "Burn Him at the stake". Certainly, no exhortations about violence against any person can be seen to be sanctioned under that statute. Only differing opinions are protected. Not fatwa-esque death sentences.
The whole idea of the First Amendment was to allow people to speak ill of the leaders, without repercussion. For example, you are free to say, "Bush is a complete idiot!", or "Bush should be impeached!", or "Cheney probably still has financial ties to Halliburton through his flunkies, and now that company is getting billions from the U.S. taxpayers via the Iraq debacle."
But, if you were to say, "I am going to burn Bush at the stake!", that could be construed as a threat against the President, a felony.
So, the RC censorship was valid.
A better topic might have been, "Should Gawd be taken to the mat, like the scum that he is, for what he did?"
FWIW, the First Amendment checks its hat and coat at the door of privately run forums, like RC. If you call Trevor an idiot, he has all the legal right in the world to ban you from his website.
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 29, 2003, 10:47 AM
Post #258 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
I see... you've failed to note the inference. Read it again... slooowwwlllyyy this time. You may detect that I'm saying that rradam apologized and really all questions are answered. My opinion... free speech and all that. Cheers Dingle.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 12:43 PM
Post #259 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I see... you've failed to note the inference. Read it again... slooowwwlllyyy this time. You may detect that I'm saying that rradam apologized and really all questions are answered. My opinion... free speech and all that. Cheers Dingle.
Uh boy... slowly, eh???
You said all subsequent posts were pointless. Since your post was subsequent, I felt compelled to ask if you had a point... ZING!
That's the sound of sarcasm flying over head.
Inference and free speech... riiiiiight.
As in right on brother. Ain't no thing. Do carry on.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 29, 2003, 1:26 PM
Post #260 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
TALLY-HO!!! :D
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Sep 15, 2005, 5:58 PM
Post #261 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Has anyone read this far?
|
|
|
|
|
hangerlessbolt
Sep 15, 2005, 6:08 PM
Post #262 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2001
Posts: 7255
|
Damn Bill...
You went waaayy back into the closet for this one.
|
|
|
|
|
shano
Sep 15, 2005, 6:16 PM
Post #263 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 98
|
wow - never saw this one. I just read PTPP's OP - same shiit happened to me that year. Am I part of the conspiracy? :lol:
-s
|
|
|
|
|
fingersonfrets
Sep 15, 2005, 6:49 PM
Post #264 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 93
|
Pete...wow. I remember when he PMed me porn. That was when I was b_fost though. Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
mattamatta
Sep 15, 2005, 8:06 PM
Post #265 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 65
|
This is the kind of thread that makes me want to post about how I put honey in my cereal and it was really good, or other such nonsense.
Bur seriously, it's just so cool to watch the honey swirl down into the milk, and then you have a spoon full of honey at the bottom to scoop up!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 15, 2005, 10:31 PM
Post #266 of 266
(17021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Did anyone sing happy birthday when this thread turned two years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
