It was here, now it's gone?

.
You know what I often notice, Steve? Those that call a thread useless and unreadable are usually some of the ones that posted in it the most.

Hi Rosalie,
I made quite a few posts in communication with Evie, which I found very pleasant, and worth while from my perspective, but as far as the main subject was concerned I did not address, chiefly because so much animosity was being shown that I thought a sensible post would just be ignored, as it has been in the past.
I admit I really enjoyed chatting with Evie, but the general value of the thread, in relation to the terrible things some of the Arabic women have to put up with, was very poor. I.M.O

Hi Steve,

I too enjoyed chatting and hope more opportunites to do just that will arise in the future.

If you or anyone here has any question remaining as to who is really interested in the health or civility of this forum, they need only look at their reaction to you for daring friendship with someone they don't approve of. Childish really.

Evie

not really.

NT

I really enjoyed the few emails we've shared in the past.

Hi Steve,

I wonder how long a thread can get without using the 5224 workaround? Like Glenda said, I think Lee is the only one that can pull a thread and not leave a trace, but I can't imagine waiting so long to pull it, that's why I thought maybe it disappeared somehow on it's own.

I agree with the unreadability of the long threads, between scrolling off the page, and number of pages, it's a real time hog.

I'm feeling a bit of alright, thanks for asking. And it's always good to see you here as well. I've been trying to stay out of the more contentious threads, which doesn't leave much!

Cindi

NT

As far as I know Lee Koo is the only one that can remove a whole thread and not leave a message deleted notice. Maybe he was trying to stop it from getting worse.

Glenda

Yes, I believe DaveK and Toni mentioned before that only Lee Koo could delete a whole thread. Lee Koo has very well established and demonstrated a great reluctance to delete any threads, whole or single. He has shown this quite often even in his own forum.


It is also apparent that he will delete a whole thread when DaveK complains or he gets enough complaints with Dave's.

Guess you have also noticed the "Charlie" thread in Feedback has also been completely remove. I don't think Lee would have removed that thread without complaints from above, although people who usually talk civil to each other started to bite and stab in that thread, and it was also critical to some Mod's.

did contain a lot of enlighting information. I'm a believer in letting the threads stand, after all this is SPEAK EASY and people should be able to SPEAK freely within the TOS. Heck, just delete those that go quite overboard with the TOS.

JR

...maybe it should be reported as a possible glitch in Feedback Forum to be investigated.

Lee would do himself and CNet well to merely post a short note "Rule of Rapists has been deleted in its entirety" and all this unnecessary speculation would be ended.

While there were worthwhile posts in that thread, I can understand when a thread just deteriorates into being a mod alert fest that pulling it makes life easier on the administrator. People are acting like their posts here are some golden words that if deleted they are being irreparably harmed or the vast masses are being unjustly deprived of their wisdom. Really folks, nothing any of us write here is of great consequence in the broader scheme of things in this life.

Evie

At least they are announcing when a dupe was removed, for awhile it looked like there were a lot of offensive posts. Now if that could be expanded to when a thread is removed, if indeed that's what happened here.

for me is that they give a perspective on many issues which is wider than the often singular view offered up by media. It is because forum members speak from differing standpoints that the debates are interesting and it is inevitable that conflicts will arise.

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks it is necessary to win a debate, but more to the point, if they do think it necessary, how they expect to win if they have nothing further of value to add to it by their subsequent posts.

It is selfish IMO that our time is wasted by opening posts (there is no quick way with this software) which make no contribution and can be of interest to no-one other than the poster.

Perhaps we should come up with a post - a bit like "NT" - such as "Not a worthwile post". This would be taken to mean that the previous post is neither accepted nor agreed, but it is clear that further postings will be futile. I'm all for a NAWP standard post - what do you folks think?

Regards
Mo