posted
There is a very small -- and I believe both subliminal and completely unavoidable -- mental step from "the posters on this list are 'safe'" and "everyone not on this list is not 'safe,'" passing straight through "everyone not on this list cannot be assumed to be safe."
If anything, recent American politics should make this eminently clear. It's basic semiotics; anyone with a background in psychology, sociology, or literature will tell you that even if this effect is not intended, it is essentially inevitable. The only time it doesn't happen, in general, is if it's simply not popular enough to take off in the first place.
I think it sends the wrong message.
The right message, the message that I as a Hatracker want to send to every other Hatracker -- and that I want to receive from every other Hatracker -- is this: I trust you. I believe you are arguing in good faith and are being honest with your opinions and the facts as you understand them. I believe it is not your intention to hurt me, and if I am hurt, I believe it is the result of a misunderstanding, a difference in priorities, or simple oversight instead of ill-will. It is easier for me to silently forgive you those things than to demand that you change to accommodate my standards, although it is not impolite of me to ask you once or twice to do so.
Obviously, there are some things which breach this contract. Deliberate insults. Obvious fraud. Constant and repeated disrespect. I'm of the opinion that we don't need to keep a list of this sort, though; the people who engage in that behavior rapidly become known to everyone anyway, and are often banned in the first place.
Everything about this particular proposal rubs me the wrong way. It seems fundamentally contrary to what I believe is the spirit of Hatrack in a way that thread deletion (for example) is not.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really not getting the uproar. If you are a person who doesn't believe in deleting threads you start, and you feel that your participation in a thread is important enough to keep around, say so.
If you are a person who doesn't feel that deleting threads is a bad thing, then don't participate in this particular thread, but understand that by reserving your right to delete threads you start, some people may think twice about how much effort they're willing to put in to your thread.
It's really a simple choice. If you care so much about people being willing to post exhaustively in your thread, respect their desire not to have their posts deleted if the thread doesn't go the way you like.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, "safe" in my post meant only "safe from being deleted by the OP". And we have members of the community who have outright declared that they will delete any thread that they feel should be deleted. Or that having one's posts be "safe" is not a reasonable expectation.
From valuable and well-respected - even well-liked - members of the community. Clearly it isn't a point of view that is outrageous or even outlying. The community as a whole doesn't even disapprove of it.
For some people, and for some posts, it is important to have that expectation before putting what can amount to quite a bit of time and effort into a post.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a quick post becasue I can't let this pass.
Pledges of any sort make me feel extremely uncomfortable. My world is not so black and white that I can guarantee my behaviour under any given circumstances.
As such I cannot join up.
Does that mean that any new topic I create is now to be treated with suspicion?
If not, why not?
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. I think, however, that you're trying hard to make the argument that this specific behavior is "bad" behavior,
I have very forthrightly argued that this is bad behavior.
quote: and to deliberately ostracize those who disagree.
I have not done this.
quote:I don't see why maintaining a list of people we permit to stay around but don't trust enough to converse with is particularly valuable to the community.
And, again, this doesn't do that. No one who deletes a thread but hasn't taken a pledge will be listed.
quote:No, Icky. It's one thing to try to change people's behavior by making an impassioned argument one way or another; that happens all the time, and I don't consider it "coercive." Can you understand why I feel a list like this is coercive in a way that saying "I personally dislike thread deletion" is not?
Perhaps you can provide the reason. Jon Boy was so offended by the fact that I actually wanted to apply the meaning of "coerce" to this issue that he refused to answer. Maybe, instead of just asking for other people to divine the reasons for your opinion, you could actually give them.
quote:There is a very small -- and I believe both subliminal and completely unavoidable -- mental step from "the posters on this list are 'safe'" and "everyone not on this list is not 'safe,'" passing straight through "everyone not on this list cannot be assumed to be safe."
So this opinion rests on your ability to decide what people's mental processes are.
The step is definitely avoidable.
quote:Everything about this particular proposal rubs me the wrong way. It seems fundamentally contrary to what I believe is the spirit of Hatrack in a way that thread deletion (for example) is not.
A group of posters deciding that they will publicly announce their willingness to forgo exercise of the power to delete others' words is very much in the spirit of Hatrack.
I'll simply remark on the irony of you having used references to things you dislike about the Bush administration in arguing against this idea in the very same post in which you tell me that I'm being un-Hatrackian without additional comment.
Let's see how the insidious little comparisons being made stack up:
Police state: more parallel to deleting threads than this idea - specific parallels remain unanswered.
McCarthyism and "Unamerican": the side opposing my idea has outlined the un-Hatrack nature of the plan.
Coercion: the people making that charge refuse to identify the coercive elements when asked. (Unless Tom meant his small and unavoidable step to be the reason this is coercive. If so, it's a strange definition of coercion.)
quote:Does that mean that any new topic I create is now to be treated with suspicion?
No.
quote:If not, why not?
There are pages of discussion on this already.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No. I think, however, that you're trying hard to make the argument that this specific behavior is "bad" behavior, and to deliberately ostracize those who disagree."
As I've pointed out before, you've stated repeatedly that this is how, not only hatrack, but communities in general, should treat people who violate rules of decency.
Deleting threads is violating what dagonee and I consider to be rules of decency. Shunning people who think that it is ok to delete threads would seem to me to be exactly in line with what you've stated, in other circmstances, is the appropriate reaction.
And I don't think we need to "try hard" to make the argument that thread deletion is bad behavior. it should be self-evident that it is, and I honestly can't understand how people of good will can see the issue in any other way.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jon Boy was so offended by the fact that I actually wanted to apply the meaning of "coerce" to this issue that he refused to answer.
I can understand why. You're insisting on a very specific definition of "coerce," whereas Jon Boy -- and I -- are using the more common (and connotative) one. The whole problem, from my perspective, is that you appear completely insensitive to the connotative value of what you're trying to do, here.
Lines like "So this opinion rests on your ability to decide what people's mental processes are. The step is definitely avoidable" strongly suggest to me that you're either ignorant of semiotic meaning or are willfully trying to live your life as if it doesn't exist:
"I know we're burning books, but that doesn't mean anything in particular. We wouldn't read these books anyway, and we were cold, so it was cheaper than buying firewood. If you're picking up the wrong message from this bonfire, that's your problem."
FWIW, I consider peer pressure to be coercive when it becomes explicitly punitive. A line like "if you don't do this, I won't do X" contains an implied threat of retaliation. By making a list of this sort, you expand the "target circle" of this threat beyond any specific individuals whose deletions you dislike to include everyone who doesn't consider deletion as harmful as you do.
------------
quote:Deleting threads is violating what dagonee and I consider to be rules of decency. Shunning people who think that it is ok to delete threads would seem to me to be exactly in line with what you've stated, in other circmstances, is the appropriate reaction.
Sure, if thread deletion is that fundamentally damaging to your personal social contract. But, as I've said, I would have been just as stalwartly opposed to a list of people you (or anyone else) are not currently shunning. Merely shunning someone is punitive only to that person; maintaining a list of the specifically not-to-be-shunned is punitive to everyone else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can understand why. You're insisting on a very specific definition of "coerce," whereas Jon Boy -- and I -- are using the more common (and connotative) one. The whole problem, from my perspective, is that you appear completely insensitive to the connotative value of what you're trying to do, here.
What is this common value of "coerce" that covers this? No one has deigned to explain it to me.
quote:Lines like "So this opinion rests on your ability to decide what people's mental processes are. The step is definitely avoidable" strongly suggest to me that you're either ignorant of semiotic meaning or are willfully trying to live your life as if it doesn't exist
Neither is the case. More accurate to say is that I'm not going let someone else's view of what that semiotic meaning is dictate how I interpret it.
quote:FWIW, I consider peer pressure to be coercive when it becomes explicitly punitive. A line like "if you don't do this, I won't do X" contains an implied threat of retaliation.
And that's my primary objection to this definition of coercion. We all make decisions every single day based on how other people act. Being up front about whether a particular factor will be considered is not coercive. It's honest.
Mincing about to avoid your semiotic interpretation is not something I'm particularly concerned about.
quote:By making a list of this sort, you expand the "target circle" of this threat beyond any specific individuals whose deletions you dislike to include everyone who doesn't consider deletion as harmful as you do.
No, I don't. The people who are really most affected by this pledge - those who I don't think will ever delete a thread but don't want to take the pledge - have generally consistently stated their belief that I am not doing this. (Something I really appreciate, by the way.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A line like "if you don't do this, I won't do X" contains an implied threat of retaliation.
I don't see where anyone said that in relation to this. Could you give specifics?
"If you don't <do X>, I won't <do Y>?" Is your X here "take this pledge" and Y "post in your threads"? IF not, what is it?
---
Also, I think your point about trust is kinda bizzare. We should trust people not to delete threads, even though they've deleted threads in the past and have been vocal saying that they will delete them in the future? How does that make any sense?
---
You seem to keep trying to make this about vague generalities. If you could keep it to specifics, I think we might be able to discuss it more productively.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being up front about whether a particular factor will be considered is not coercive. It's honest.
No, it's coercive and honest. I think the difference is that I freely concede that we're coercive to other people all the time, but that coercion crosses the line when it becomes an explicit thread (especially to a broad group of people.) IMO, this list constitutes just such a threat.
quote:The people who are really most affected by this pledge - those who I don't think will ever delete a thread but don't want to take the pledge - have generally consistently stated their belief that I am not doing this.
I've never deleted a thread and will never do so, but do not intend to take the pledge -- for the precise reason that I think you are doing this.
---------
quote:Also, I think your point about trust is kinda bizzare. We should trust people not to delete threads, even though they've deleted threads in the past and have been vocal saying that they will delete them in the future?
No. We should trust them not to intentionally harm us, because they are posting in goodwill. Whether they delete threads or not is completely irrelevant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has been mentioned that in some neighborhoods, houses would put up signs indicating that it was safe for neighborhood children to visit after school. Kate's point was that this was a voluntary program, and was not meant to single out the houses without signs.
I think that, by this analogy, it is only good form to assume that every single poster at Hatrack has such a metaphorical sign.
What is being proposed here is putting up a sign that says "Neighborhood children safe and welcome here: no homosexuals at this address."
I'll explain the point I'm making in more detail if it's necessary, but I personally think that analogy absolutely nails my discomfort with this pledge.
(Another example: if you could buy a little sign that said "I am not a registered sex offender," would you put it on your lawn? What if everyone else on your block had one?)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether they delete threads or not is completely irrelevant.
No. See, it's kind of the whole point.
This isn't about establishing people we hate or some sort of cool club. It is about identifying people who will delete your words so that you can factor that into whether or not it is worth it to put a lot of effort into threads that they start.
Though a separate issue, if someone had a computer glitch that for some odd erason occasionally caused their threads to be deleted, I'd want to know that and would be much less likely to post substantial responses in their threads.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is only good form to assume that every single poster at Hatrack has such a metaphorical sign
It is only good form to assume that every one here has a sign that says that they won't delete threads? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is about identifying people who will delete your words so that you can factor that into whether or not it is worth it to put a lot of effort into threads that they start.
See, leaving aside the issue that this is not a list of thread-deleters but rather exactly the opposite, I honestly don't see why that remotely matters. Can you imagine Dag being flip and imprecise just because he doesn't think a thread is important? Would you be less pedantic if you thought a thread would be temporary? All you (visibly) do right now with the knowledge that certain specific people have a habit of deleting threads that (in their opinion) turn nasty is use it to question their integrity, Squicky. (From a slightly different perspective, the fact that Dag knows I'm not going to argue an issue from the same angle he is doesn't stop him from arguing with me.) Someone like Kate, yeah, I could see it; she would bow out silently and gracefully if she thought it were pointless. CT, maybe. But then I think Kate and CT are the kind of people who might still choose to post a heartfelt, well-argued post regardless of whether or not they suspected that it would be deleted, because they see the inherent value in posting things that are heartfelt and well-written regardless of the fate of their words.
The only real value I can see, then, is a negative one; it's something to hold over those who do not accept the "evil" of thread deletion and use to persuade them otherwise. It's not like you don't already have a mental list for your own use, after all; I'd be seriously surprised if you hadn't taken to making copies of certain threads in Notepad when you choose to post in them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, do you want to explain to Squick the difference between your intentions for the thread and his interpretation of it?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But then I think Kate and CT are the kind of people who might still choose to post a heartfelt, well-argued post regardless of whether or not they suspected that it would be deleted, because they see the inherent value in posting things that are heartfelt and well-written regardless of the fate of their words.
I might do that as well. Especially in cases where it's a personal post to the poster. In fact, I've done it several times on express mayflies.
But I wouldn't pop into FastCase to pull up some relevant case cites, look up a statute to get the proper wording, and perform legal analysis.
I have done something similar via email for some people. It's not about it needing to be public.
You started this a statement about ego, which was a fundamentally wrong way to look at it. You're still there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Dags, do you want to explain to Squick the difference between your intentions for the thread and his interpretation of it?
I've explained it multiple times already.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew a kid who, when he started losing a game, would literally take his ball and go home. We stopped playing games with him after a couple times.
Obviously he didn't understand why we thought his behavior was rude, or maybe he valued his right to stop the game whenever more than our desire to keep playing with him.
I wonder now, had we told him how we felt, and had he agreed to stop doing it, if perhaps we all would have had more fun playing together.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you imagine Dag being flip and imprecise just because he doesn't think a thread is important? Would you be less pedantic if you thought a thread would be temporary?
Errr...what are you talking about?
I don't post in those threads, or if I do, I don't pu a lot of effort into it.
I, personally, also see it often as an idicator that the other person doesn't much respect other people's efforts or opinions, and I got to tell you, with people like kat, Jim-Me, Blayne, and Pelegius on the list, I think it can be a pretty good indicator.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think that, by this analogy, it is only good form to assume that every single poster at Hatrack has such a metaphorical sign."
Except we know, historically, that many posters have abused our assmption that they have such a sign, many other posters have said we shouldn't make that assumption, a group of posters have said its not reasonable to make that assumption, and a large group of posters has said that it is a good thing that people aren't assumed to have the sign.
In other words, its a known invalid assumption.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You started this a statement about ego, which was a fundamentally wrong way to look at it. You're still there.
I wouldn't use the word "ego." It's one's sense of self-importance, how much your words and your time means to you. (Note: this is the kind of careful parsing I do, BTW. Connotations are very important to me.) You aren't even disagreeing with me on that point: you're saying that the cost of a post goes up when you have to spend more time and mental energy composing it, and I certainly agree with you that this is the case.
My point is that handling your concern for the value of your posts is better done in a variety of other ways. Heck, you could even post something in that post saying something like, "BTW, I spent thirty minutes composing this. I'd really appreciate it if you gave me a heads-up before deleting this thread." -- or something along those lines. You could even save it in Notepad and repost it if you wanted. Your method doesn't address the issue, but creates a separate class of posters -- thus increasing divisiveness without actually reducing the incidence of the problem.
Writing "I spent a lot of time researching this post; if you delete this thread, I won't do that again" at the top of your post is personally coercive, by my standards of coercion. By contrast, this list is universally coercive. I prefer the former to the latter; it's more personal and considerably easier to handle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squick clearly isn't understanding you. Maybe he needs to hear it another way.
Unless you're okay with him espousing his false conception of your idea?
I've already clarified it for others to know that this particular way that Squick has presented it is not what I am proposing or doing. Unless you want to take responsibility for all those who do what you consider inappropriate deletion by virtue of your support of the power to delete, don't expect me to do more than clarify what I mean. Which I have adequately done now - "adequate" meaning that anyone who takes a modicum of effort will be aware that Squick's summation is of his ideas, not mine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look how easily this idea was turned to abuse. Less than 24 hours, and it's already been morphed into an enemies list. Even if it wasn't a bad idea to begin with, the semi-legitimacy it lends to truly nasty ideas makes it not worth it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr...I'm talking about my own issues here, mostly, except where I'm explicitly referencing Dag's. I think he's done an adequate job of staking out exactly what he is saying, despite how other people are trying to twist it around or condemn it with generalities.
Looking back, I could have been clearer about this distinction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look how easily this idea was turned to abuse. Less than 24 hours, and it's already been morphed into an enemies list. Even if it wasn't a bad idea to begin with, the semi-legitimacy it lends to truly nasty ideas makes it not worth it.
Err, how has it done that?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, though, Squicky: what value is this list to you? You already know which people you don't trust.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look how easily this idea was turned to abuse. Less than 24 hours, and it's already been morphed into an enemies list. Even if it wasn't a bad idea to begin with, the semi-legitimacy it lends to truly nasty ideas makes it not worth it.
Ah, that's good. Attack my idea with overblown comparisons to police states, repeated mischaracterizations, and then broaden the discussion.
Finally, when someone else - someone who has already said he thinks the plan is not going to accomplish much - responds to those generalities with his own ideas, use those ideas as a springboard to attack the original one.
(And I'm not agreeing with the characterization of what Squick is doing. I'm commenting on the whole process, which would be unfair even if it were accurate.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't I already cover that. I think this is pointless.
Could you answer any of the specific questions I put to you? The one I'd like most is what the X and Y were in the "retaliation" thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe you guys are having such a hard time understanding what Tom is saying.
quote:I knew a kid who, when he started losing a game, would literally take his ball and go home. We stopped playing games with him after a couple times.
See, the problem with this analogy is the same as the problem with the whole thread. It implies that the only possible motivations for somebody deleting a thread are negative.
In reality, the kid could have taken his ball and gone home because people were playing too rough or because somebody was cheating or because there was something somebody else was doing that was bad. But since everybody was bitter about it, and all they saw was the ball was gone, everybody would be bitter and say, "What a bad loser."
(Not saying that's what happened. Just saying that's what could have happened.)
People could delete threads for tons of reasons. I made a thread once about my wife spending too much money. Had I ever come to my senses, I'd have deleted it, lest she ever find it--she wouldn't have taken kindly to having hour quiblles aired publicaly. It would have been the right thing to do, and any pledge like this would have put me in a position of being less free to do the right moral thing.
Tons of good people here have listed similar moral reasons for deleting threads.
The "Ego" behind this thread comes from two things:
1. That our words are so important and vital that they outweigh any possible good that could come from deleting.
2. That the moral decision we have made is so fundamentally superior to the moral decision another has made, that we must know who we are so we may huddle together.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, in all fairness, if people thought this were just your little mental list for your own use, I don't think they'd mind. Heck, you could even make a thread called "Dag's Pledge," where people pledged to be nice to you in return for your favor, and I don't think there'd be a word of protest.
Your intentions for the list are irrelevant to its effect.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That our words are so important and vital that they outweigh any possible good that could come from deleting.
I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful.
Also, I know this isn't true for many people here and it is certainly less true for me than it once was, but some people put a lot of effort into certain types of their posts. They do this, at least in part, because they would like other people to read what they spent time and effort putting together. I'm not sure where the ego is in not wanting to put a lot of effort into something that someone else is just going to wipe out, unless maybe the idea that your tiem and effort (and the other things that you could be doing with them) are actually worth something.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Looking at the likely consequences of a plan is an essential part of evaluating a plan.
But, as Tom has already pointed out, it's not a consequence of my plan. Squick keeps his list anyway.
quote:That our words are so important and vital that they outweigh any possible good that could come from deleting.
That's not a foundational premise of my objection to thread deletion. I fully acknowledge that sometimes deleting a thread outweighs the harm caused. I object to that decision being made by such an arbitrary designee.
quote:That the moral decision we have made is so fundamentally superior to the moral decision another has made, that we must know who we are so we may huddle together.
Another misstatement - and this one is a big one.
It's not that we need to "huddle together" to celebrate our superiority. It's that we want this information because it is useful to us.
But I've said that about a million times (hyperbole), so I have no real hope of this time helping any.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, as Tom has already pointed out, it's not a consequence of my plan. Squick keeps his list anyway.
And, you know, not an enemies list. Just a list of people who delete threads. That they are also on my list of people who often show a lack of respect towards others and their opinions was used as support for the idea that deleting threads is often a good indication that these people don't respect other people's opinions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, as Tom has already pointed out, it's not a consequence of my plan.
It IS a consequence of your plan. But your plan is not the only potential cause of that consequence.
quote:It's that we want this information because it is useful to us.
I dispute this. I doubt it tells anyone on the list anything they don't already know. A list of thread deleters might do it, but not the reverse.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful.
And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.
quote:Also, I know this isn't true for many people here and it is certainly less true for me than it once was, but some people put a lot of effort into certain types of their posts.
Believe it or not, thread deleters do this too. Thread deleters do not inherently see posts as valueless. If they did, then they could leave threads up or take them down--if the words were valueless it would make no difference.
It is precisely the value in the words that leads some posters to feel that sometimes the words need to go. Just like you feel the words always carry enough weight that they must stay, thread deleters feel the words carry enough weight that they occasionally need to go.
quote:It's not that we need to "huddle together" to celebrate our superiority. It's that we want this information because it is useful to us.
Look, Dag. Huddling together is is what you're doing at best.
In reality, at it's core, this thread is a bunch of sneeches coming forward to show their stars so they know who can't go the beach parties.
Again--this is separate from what may have actually been going through your mind when you started the thread.
But if somebody started a thread called, "Pledge to never quote law articles or case summaries in threads," no matter how much they talked about how it was just a list "for thier information," or about how it "Wasn't meant to exclude anybody," you would always feel, in your heart, it was "A list of people who don't like Dagonee's posting style."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I dispute this. I doubt it tells anyone on the list anything they don't already know. A list of thread deleters might do it, but not the reverse.
It's already given me useful information. So dispute away, but you're wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like...? Are you more likely to post a well-researched article on a thread started by "Flying Dracula Hair" than you were before?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A list of thread deleters might do it, but not the reverse.
The sort of ironic thing to me is that a list of thread deleters, though I think people would object to it more vehemently, is actually both much more useful and less...bad (in my opinion and not really the right word) than what Dag is proposing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED, YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! (looks off-camera) WHAT IN THE WORLD COULD THAT BE?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I know this isn't true for many people here and it is certainly less true for me than it once was, but some people put a lot of effort into certain types of their posts.
Believe it or not, thread deleters do this too. Thread deleters do not inherently see posts as valueless. If they did, then they could leave threads up or take them down--if the words were valueless it would make no difference.
It is precisely the value in the words that leads some posters to feel that sometimes the words need to go. Just like you feel the words always carry enough weight that they must stay, thread deleters feel the words carry enough weight that they occasionally need to go.
Absolutely. There is one thread which I have almost deleted several times which represents a huge amount of my time and effort.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
