Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 19:50:35 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2000 at 19:59:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 03, 2000 at 16:55:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On December 03, 2000 at 16:18:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>That was just one. _MY_ reason for asking was to avoid another huge problem >>>with having to delete a thread with hundreds of posts. That takes forever. >> >>Open two browser windows and copy/paste the message ID from one to the other. >>You can stay in "browse" mode in one and be in "delete" mode in the other. > >That is the easy part. The hard part is sending email. That requires several >more windows, one for each poster, so I can cut/paste the message numbers into >the right place... _that_ is a pain. When I did this I deleted all the crud as I said, but each time I found a new person's crud to delete, I clicked on their name in the message "from" field, waited for the email message to pop up, copied their name out of there into the "real" email that I was going to send, then closed the unused window. My email would say something like "I deleted all of your guys' crud because I deleted the whole thread, if you want it back please let me know." If there was one obvious trouble maker he got his own mail, so he couldn't do "reply all" and hit everyone who told him he was a weenie. I'm not arguing, of course, just trying to save you some hassle. >>>>>>And there is no sign of Thorsten, who I believe was threatened with something >>>>>>nasty if he kept bringing up the election himself. >>>>> >>>>>Remember, not the "election topic" but the inflammatory anti-US stuff only, >>>>>was the problem with his posts. If you re-read them you will see what caused >>>>>the email complaints to us. >>>> >>>>I am one of the ones who complained about that, but in the posts mentioned >>>>above, which I am sure were written after these complaints, you focused heavily >>>>upon topicality, not the content of his posts. >>>> >>>>It wouldn't have suited you to argue based upon the abusive content of his posts >>>>at that time, since what you were being criticized for involved the quality of >>>>his posts, which is a related issue. It would have been somewhat difficult to >>>>seperate the tone of his presentation from its content. >>>> >>>>Topicality is something that couldn't be argued against, so you used that then. >>>>Now it makes no sense for you to argue based upon topicality, since this >>>>directly contradicts that point of view, so you redefine those posts. But you >>>>can't edit the archives. >>> >>> >>> >>>I try to do what I said I would do when elected... that is to not delete >>>posts whenever possible. I said I was tolerant of off-topic posts. I try >>>to be so. I take a less favorable stance when the post is both off-topic >>>_and_ abusive. >> >>Your position is evolving a bit, I think. >> >>bruce >> >>[snip] > > >At the suggestion of others, yes. IMHO, I would have no problem in deleting >_every_ off-topic post that shows up. But the general consensus is that that >is not what is wanted. Which is also fine by me... The headache is getting >yelled at by _both_ sides... (a) don't delete that.. (b) why in the hell >didn't you delete that. Etc... I get the idea there is some toleration but it's worn thin if something becomes too noticeable and people start replying with stupid and/or nasty stuff. But yes, no fun. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.