|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 64 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 50 of 64:
| 
Feb 4 23:51 UTC 2004 |
Re #41: The problem was that her items also contained other people's words.
Nobody here would have objected if she only removed her own words,
because as you say she has the right to do whatever she wants with
them.
However -- other people have the same rights she does, and we didn't
want our words deleted.
|
sarahlee
|
|
response 51 of 64:
|
Feb 7 21:20 UTC 2004 |
I'm saying that I may do whatever I wish with my own words. I'm also
saying the creator of an item may delete my words if s/he chooses to
delete the entire item. S/he may not selectively go through an item and
delete my posts, and no one else's, without my permission. I think that
is totally reasonable.
Aren't items deleted all the time, or at least with some regularity? Why
weren't they an issue?
|
naftee
|
|
response 52 of 64:
|
Feb 7 21:35 UTC 2004 |
Because they are usually deleted with a warning and with input from the public
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 53 of 64:
|
Feb 7 21:57 UTC 2004 |
And they aren't deleted regularly.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 54 of 64:
|
Feb 8 07:01 UTC 2004 |
Re #51: A lot of people don't agree that the person who starts an item
should have the right to delete the entire item. Once others have
posted, the item is a group work, and is not their property any
more.
And no, they aren't deleted with any regularity.
|
naftee
|
|
response 55 of 64:
|
Feb 22 23:14 UTC 2004 |
I THINK WE SHOULD START A NEW TREND GUYS :: SCRIBBLE YOUR OLD RESPONSES_ THEN
RE-POST THEM! HEREL: I'LL START IN THE NEXT ITEM.
|
naftee
|
|
response 56 of 64:
|
Feb 22 23:17 UTC 2004 |
GUYS' SOMEONE TELL ME AN AUTOMATED METHOD
|
rational
|
|
response 57 of 64:
|
Feb 23 00:58 UTC 2004 |
MOIDIFY VALERIE"S SCRIBBLE PROGRAMME
|
naftee
|
|
response 58 of 64:
|
Feb 6 08:52 UTC 2005 |
WHOA> YEAH< DO IT
|
scholar
|
|
response 59 of 64:
|
Feb 6 18:12 UTC 2005 |
UNLUCKY!
|
jesuit
|
|
response 60 of 64:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|
gelinas
|
|
response 61 of 64:
|
Nov 18 02:19 UTC 2006 |
Looks like it is in fronttalk:
} Ok: part other
}
}
} other Fri Nov 17 12:24:35 2006 Eric the Plush
}
} 1 participant total.
}
} Ok: part spooked
}
} loginid last time on name
}
} spooked Fri Nov 17 20:21:23 2006 Michelangelo Giansiracusa
}
} 1 participant total.
}
} Ok:
|
spooked
|
|
response 62 of 64:
|
Nov 18 03:01 UTC 2006 |
Another good reason to move to modern, open-source software.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 63 of 64:
|
Nov 18 18:29 UTC 2006 |
My dad (a former staff member) wrote me an email:
> (It's been a few years, but I *think* that the way the part command worked
> in picospan was not by checking whether one had posted, but by scanning
> all users' directories for a participation file for the particular
> conference.
> It was hideously slow, IIRC. And if the file was in a directory without
> proper permissions, it wouldn't report it. I could be wrong, but that's
> my memory of how it worked.)
|
spooked
|
|
response 64 of 64:
|
Nov 18 21:56 UTC 2006 |
It's a poor implementation - regardless of its intended purpose.
|