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

Linda, far be it from me to quibble with your good self about polling. Suffice it to say that I continue to think that it's reasonable to maintain that the results of this poll (strongly) suggest that the majority view it as valid.


Good, because I used that word advisedly. Earlier in the thread you had written that it had become clear to you that I was "equally willing to treat Chris badly".

Ah, okay. That would be an example of:

"If you mean forcing me to hold to a standard I don't agree with, that might count. But nobody has done so here, yet."

The "treat badly" part would have been not allowing Chris to delete his posts in the Novel Coronavirus thread (or restoring them after he had done so), as specified in the preceding paragraphs.

Linda

[Laird]

I find it difficult to respect our resident pedophile

I've always assumed that his (very misguided, in my view) position stems from an anarchistic view in which the rights of children are not taken to be significantly less than those of adults, and in which those rights include sexual rights. If, though, his position is actually a selfish one, and his advocacy is intended to secure him and other adults sexual access to children, and especially if he is actively engaged in the sexual exploitation of children, then my view of him would radically change. I would definitely not want our forum to play host to such an individual. [ETA: in fact, I would want him criminally prosecuted for his actions, and locked up where he could do no more harm.]

Her purported reasoning (passed on through the grapevine) actually rings true now and makes a lot of sense.

So for all the gnashing of teeth you've shown me when I've asked for a rationale, you went through the EXACT same thing in this case (the "eye roll" comment) and only came to terms with it once the reasoning was given.

Of course when relaying this anonymous story you still didn't share the rationale.

Hypocrisy Linda, hypocrisy!!

So for all the gnashing of teeth you've shown me when I've asked for a rationale, you went through the EXACT same thing in this case (the "eye roll" comment) and only came to terms with it once the reasoning was given.

The situation has very important differences - the very things which are at the crux of this discussion. At no point did I think or suggest that it wasn't her decision to make, regardless of whether or not I thought her reasoning was stupid.  And I would have defended her right to do so had anybody raised the possibility, although no one did.

And nobody subjected her to persistent badgering to justify her decision - it was none of our business. Even if it was stupid, it was none of our business. It was only later that I saw it in a different light, after my own experience, and remembered an off-hand remark made by somebody who met with her in real life which seemed to confirm my new impression.

Of course when relaying this anonymous story you still didn't share the rationale.

Hypocrisy Linda, hypocrisy!!

1) I have mentioned several rationales, several times. And B) whether a rationale is ever offered or not is immaterial to the discussion. You can think however poorly of me you want (I don't care). But at no point does that entitle you to force me to succumb to your prejudices.

Linda

There is no difference.   You were stumped ("eye rolled") by someone mass deleting their posts.  Yup, I understand that.  That changed once you heard their rationale.  Yup, I'm curious about that too.

You don't owe me anything in terms of a response; I just found your post oozing with irony.

There is no difference.   You were stumped ("eye rolled") by someone mass deleting their posts.

Well, the difference was that no rationale was ever given. You were given several (that you chose to belittle or ignore them, notwithstanding). Had a rationale been given, I hope I would have been charitable enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. But at least I would have acknowledged it.

Yup, I understand that.  That changed once you heard their rationale.

I never heard their rationale. Not even the offhand remark was a rationale. What changed was my ability to recognize why they did it - not because someone was able to explain it to me (which isn't going to work under hostile conditions, anyways), but because my experience gave me insight I didn't have otherwise.

ETA: I just occurred to me I may need to spell this out. I didn't state nor imply that people would not be stumped if no rationale was given. In fact, I referred several times to my own lack of insight prior to my own experience. It is natural and expected that people might be puzzled, and even assume the worst, if they haven't been offered an alternative to their own assumptions. I am included in all that. So there should be no surprise on your part to discover that I also was stumped under somewhat similar circumstances, nor to discover that I initially assumed the worst. Because I did not say anything which would contradict that - I even went so far as to suggest it.   

Yup, I'm curious about that too.

You don't owe me anything in terms of a response; I just found your post oozing with irony.

Lol...irony...truly the most misunderstood word in the English language.
Hint: talking at cross-purposes isn't irony.
Linda

Her purported reasoning (passed on through the grapevine) actually rings true now and makes a lot of sense.

I never heard their rationale. Not even the offhand remark was a rationale. What changed was my ability to recognize why they did it - not because someone was able to explain it to me (which isn't going to work under hostile conditions, anyways), but because my experience gave me insight I didn't have otherwise.

My reading comprehension can be questionable at times, but you'll pardon me in this case as I can't see how I was supposed to parse out of your initial quote (the first above) that you divined your insight out of simple personal reflection (the second above).  Sure sounded like it was given to you.

And nothing is "hostile" here.  i wish you'd knock it off with the victimization.  We're having a discussion regarding community policies.  Many of those you would view as opposition on this issue have already ceded the "juice NOT being worth the squeeze" if it would cause members to leave.  I'm included in that bunch.  Doesn't mean you can't be challenged on what you say; especially if it contradicts things you've said previously.  (Presuming they don't get deleted.  )

My reading comprehension can be questionable at times, but you'll pardon me in this case as I can't see how I was supposed to parse out of your initial quote (the first above) that you divined your insight out of simple personal reflection (the second above).  Sure sounded like it was given to you.

I'm sorry. That was on me. I was talking to someone else about something else, and I phrased it that way initially to simplify a more convoluted process. I thought it should be clarified once you took issue with it with respect to something else.

And nothing is "hostile" here.

I'm sorry. I should have parenthetically specified which definition I was thinking of. Not "hostile" in terms of "unfriendly, antagonistic". "Hostile" in terms of "resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc."

Linda

How one programmer broke the internet by deleting a tiny piece of code

The story of how 28-year-old Azer Koçulu briefly broke the internet shows how writing software for the web has become dependent on a patchwork of code that itself relies on the benevolence of fellow programmers. When that system breaks down, as it did last week, the consequences can be vast and unpredictable.

[Laird]

Right, so, sometimes there's a need for un-un-publishing.