Tee, I see you deleted another thread...
 

I don't know why anyone would participate in a thread started by someone who almost always deletes the thread a day later when the discussion doesn't go in a direction HE likes. It's a weakness of this board.

Don't worry, I'll probably delete it myself. Now that I quoted you, though, your post lives as long as *I* want it to, barring the act of an actual moderator.

Wow. Too bad Tee didn't start this thread.

Glad you're commenting on a WOBW thread with a WOBW. Nice that you're always nearby when Tee is involved.

The mods can feel free to delete this thread whenever they like. I, however, am not going to.

Nahh. I just usually can't resist posting a WOBW to an obvious WOBW. It's a weakness of mine, not the boards.

Which is your "right", just as deleting threads one has started is the right of others. I've utilized it from time to time. Am I not supposed to discuss it because someone else has as well? I'll make note of that.

I sure hope you aren't referring to me, as I do not post on McGriffs. If you see SanDiegoSteve over there, it is someone else taking advantage of being able to name yourself whatever you want over there.

FWIW, I agree with Rich that the "delete thread" feature on this board is a weakness, more like a bug than a feature to me.

Individuals should certainly be free to delete their own posts, but they should NOT be free to delete anybody else's posts, just because they happened to start the thread with the first post.

I would be interested in reading a rationale that justifies this board feature/bug.

You, know, I can understand and accept your thoughts on this. (And without linking you in an accusatory manner to another poster who agrees with you and is "involved.")

You could be right, it might be an unintended consequence of the delete feature. None-the-less, I still believe one who starts a thread should have the ability to end it.

Here's where I'm coming from. Let's say Lieutenant Dan or littleboyblue posts an umpiring 101 question such as "what defines an umpire?" Let's say you or I or anybody else resists the temptation to make fun of him, and instead takes the time to type up and post a thoughtful, detailed response, with rule citations from section 9.00 and everything.

My answer does not belong to Lieutenant Dan; it belongs to me. And it belongs to every reader of the board, as long as I want my words to stay there. If Lieutenant Dan in a fit of pique or embarrassment or whatever decides to delete his post, he should be entitled to do that, but if deleting his post automatically wipes out MY post, made in good faith and intended not only as a reply to Lieutenant Dan but also as sharing the benefit of my experience with any other readers out there, that's gonna piss me off, legitimately, and that is a BUG, not a feature of the board software.

However, since, as you say, he is "entitled" to delete his thread starting post for whatever reason, he should be entitled to delete it completely. When one "quotes" his post, it is then contained in their post. The only way he can delete his post completely, is to delete the thread.

Again, I can accept that this is an unintended consequence of the the delete feature, but I don't have a problem with it.

Being quoted is one of the risks of hitting the SEND button in the first place. There is a huge difference between being QUOTED and being CENSORED. Being able to delete your own post doesn't fully mitigate the risk that you might still be quoted, but being able to delete an entire thread effectively censors everyone else who participated in the thread, and that ain't right.

Just what in the hell are you babbling about here? Responsibility for what, exactly? You mentioned McGriff's, which is a troll site that I do not visit. I have been on there exactly twice in my life. Once, to post a notice to whoever keeps posting there pretending to be me to stop doing it, and another time as Sarah Evans in response to PWL writing as Jim Evans over there. I did not post any of the garbage over there. The one time I read the sick crap on that site was more than enough for me to know better than to go there.

As far as what is written on this site, sure, I've made many boneheaded posts, some of which I deleted, some of which Mick or Bob has deleted, and some of which live on in archive infamy. So what is your point? I still don't get it. I don't "wish" to go back to do anything. Any post I left on this board is just fine with me, as-is.

he he he...
 

The more and more I read, the more I begin to think......













You the Man!

This thread is hilarious.;)

Why should a thread starter have this privilege when someone who replies doesn't?

I'm poster number 3 in a thread and I quote the second poster in the thread. Poster number 2 has no ability to make anything but his post go away -- not the quote or the reply. Why would you argue that the thread starter should have special privileges?