Should mass deletion of one's own posts be permitted?

[Laird]

a wonton act of vandalism to the site, analogous to tipping a board game upside down, in a tantrum, to affect everyone else who is playing, because one is losing

Right. That's how I see it too. So, I don't get why, if you recognise this as petulant vandalism (or at least: recognised it at the time - what has changed?), you say elsewhere in your post that (mass) deletions shouldn't be policed.

[Laird]

To elaborate, Max: it doesn't matter how petulant posters are when there are no consequences - who cares, do what you like when nobody else is affected - but deleting a mass of replies from a coherent discussion obviously has interpersonal consequences. And since you seem to recognise that such acts are typically effected in a tantrum, why would you support them?

Max said >"This quoting is well accepted, and explicitly so, as I’ve often seen Tim quote Linda’s posts in full without any relevant response, only with the stated intention of capturing her post for the record, in case Linda’s original post is later changed or deleted."

I have done that at least twice maybe more, Max, yes. Just to add, though, it would have been (usually) because Linda has posted slanted/fallacious information about the prospective work of various NDE researchers, who aren't here to challenge her. And I like to make a record of that for future reference because this is one of her favourite pastimes.

[Laird]

I cannot agree with the wording

Max! I explained in the first post and then again in response to you: the poll answers are not predicated on your agreement with the parenthesised reasons! The poll assumes and asserts that you can (may) choose an answer even if your reason(ing) is different than that in parentheses after the answer! Please, don't fail to vote simply because your reasoning differs from that in parentheses!

[Laird]

And, Max, if your reasoning does differ: please, please feel free to stipulate what your actual reasoning is, in a reply in this thread!

No, because it would be clear that you were rewriting the emphasis you originally placed upon your own unique exclusion from the community into the "general" individual's unique exclusion from the community - which clearly is nonsensical, because you can't have a "general unique" exclusion.

It would be correcting your choice to use a snippet of the conversation in which I used myself as example, while ignoring all the times I used "individual", "people" and "members" to indicate that I was speaking generally, even if sometimes I also referred to my own experience. 

Oh, please. What followed was just as disingenuous as the above, and didn't even need to be quoted. It's like if you were to say, "Hey, listen: black is white. Now, my reasoning is...". Would anybody bother to quote that reasoning? All that needs to be quoted is the bullshit assertion that "black is white".

I see. So if I showed you this and claimed that squares A and B were the same colour, you would think it reasonable to steadfastly refuse to look at the explanation or any evidence, because it's obvious nonsense?

That explains a lot.

And your response makes it even more obvious that you shouldn't be making decisions on anybody's behalf when it comes to something sensitive like this. You behave completely unreasonably when you don't like someone. Why is it okay for you to make decisions against someone based on your emotional response, but not for someone to make decisions to protect their own emotions?

Linda

This thread should be totally excised from the site, as a mistake from beginning to end...

I can't disagree with that.

Linda

[Laird]

It would be correcting your choice to use a snippet of the conversation in which I used myself as example, while ignoring all the times I used "individual", "people" and "members" to indicate that I was speaking generally, even if sometimes I also referred to my own experience. 

At best, then, you have written confusingly, not properly separating your concerns for yourself as an individual from your general concerns for forum members as separate individuals. And I'm being very generous to you in that assessment.

I see. So if I showed you this and claimed that squares A and B were the same colour, you would [...]

This is exactly the sort of disingenuousness to which I referred in my last post to you.

You behave completely unreasonably when you don't like someone.

No, I simply call out bullshit when I encounter it. It just so happens that you provide more bullshit than the average poster on this forum because you have a biased agenda that's opposed to its very reasonable mainstream view, and so you come to the conclusion that you're being targetted... at which point we circle back to the start of this post...