Locking threads??

Yes, that's right. It is a link to a specific post in this thread. Of course if you scroll up or scroll down you may not be sure which post is intended. When you first click the link, it should start with one of your own posts at the top of the window.

Perhaps quoting from that thread may help:

However. I don't know whether this is the one referenced by the earlier comment, I am guessing, as I already said

You guessed correctly.  It's a new day and post 24 still remains post 24.

You guessed correctly.  It's a new day and post 24 still remains post 24.

It is #24 that I reach in Typoz’ link. 
A post by Tim?

It is #24 that I reach in Typoz’ link. 
A post by Tim?

Yup.

[Laird]

What I don't understand though is why Steve001 is seeing 24 given that he's not an admin and thus that deleted posts shouldn't be part of his count.

I figured this out. Typoz, you had turned off visibility of post deletion notices when Chris reported a glitch. That was before we created the hidden politics and conspiracy theory forums though. When we created the group that could access those, its option for deletion notice visibility was set on, so members of that group could then (and still can) see post deletion notices, whereas those who were not members of that group (and not admins either) couldn't. This meant that admins and members of the politics/CT group saw one set of post numbers whereas non-admins who hadn't elected to join the politics/CT group saw a different set, because deleted posts were hidden from them.

I use the past tense because I've toggled on the visibility of deletion notices for all users, including guests, so that post numbers should now be consistent between everybody, whether logged in or not; member of the hidden forums group or not; admin or not.

Laird, I knew you understood it (or maybe it was precognition)

Oh, you don't remember SandyB clearly. Note nearly every thread she starts is moderated. One glaring characteristic I've note are those that do not consider themselves skeptics are the first to hurl insults.

Just a point of order, Steve. I presume you took notice of your 'pal' Malf endorsing PR's statement that I was an imbecile ? 

No insult hurled there, that's true. Rather just a subtle little "dump" on my doorstep. You 'sceptics' are much classier that us... and all done without the need for any genuine emotion involved.

Just a point of order, Steve. I presume you took notice of your 'pal' Malf endorsing PR's statement that I was an imbecile ? 

No insult hurled there, that's true. Rather just a subtle little "dump" on my doorstep. You 'sceptics' are much classier that us... and all done without the need for any genuine emotion involved.

Betcha Malf said that with a twinkle in his eye.

I'm not sure there is such a correlation. It would be an interesting research topic perhaps. But then one would have to define the term sceptic. Would someone such as Prof. Brian Cox, pretty much an adherent and promoter of a particular worldview, be classed as a sceptic, or as a true believer, or both? That was just a random example, there are many whose position on various matters could be described in various terms. Perhaps the term sceptic is simply obsolete, it has become so wide-ranging as to be meaningless.

Betcha Malf said that with a twinkle in his eye.

Away from his "dumbass" explanations for some of the cases, I suspect he's a decent guy.

  Am i a moron or this is petty confused?