You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   101-125   126-150   151-175   176-200 
 201-225   226-250   251-275   276-300   301-325   326-350   351-357    
 
Author Message
25 new of 357 responses total.
rcurl
response 126 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 20:28 UTC 2010

Why bother? Many users currently correct their typos, if significant, in a
subsequent response. It's not as if anything posted here is for the ages. 
lar
response 127 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 20:30 UTC 2010

you can say that again
richard
response 128 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 21:09 UTC 2010

As long as you can /quote a user's previous post so it shows up in your 
post in a box, it shouldn't matter if they subsequently edit it.  It 
wouldn't change the quote of their dialogue that you posted in your 
response.
slynne
response 129 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 21:16 UTC 2010

resp:128 Exactly! That is why I think it would be nice if we also added
something like blockquote tags to make it easier. 
tonster
response 130 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 23:00 UTC 2010

resp:124: I think it's unlikely someone would want to modify their posts
much past about 5 minutes after they've written something, and usually
to correct a typo.  Either way, it may be similar to a conversation, but
it's not the same.  
lar
response 131 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 23:19 UTC 2010

I don't see why slynne is worried,her posts look just as stupid in 
context as out
mary
response 132 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 23:27 UTC 2010

How would this go? Say slynne entered a response in responding to 
something tod entered.  In her response she copied tod's comment.  tod 
comes back and some point and removes all of his posts.  Do tod's words in 
slynne's response get immunity from deletion?

I don't know why but I think this may come up. ;-)
mary
response 133 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 23:30 UTC 2010

See, I told you I couldn't proof read worth squat. 
tonster
response 134 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 12:46 UTC 2010

resp:132: tod's words in slynnes response would not be removed, nor
should they.   I doubt very much any software that allows quoting would
have the ability to remove such things.
tod
response 135 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 13:19 UTC 2010

Yea, like if I entered an item about breastmilk then I couldn't go and
erase what slynne duplicated from me in her own responses?
Maybe you could setup privileged censorship commands for friends of grex
board members so a few folks could go and do that while the rest can
go eat a hat.
What if I started an item about divorces and then said a bunch of things
and later wanted the entire discussions removed.  That would be the
perfect example of an increased privilege erase command.
Not that those things have ever happened before 
*COUGH*
kentn
response 136 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 14:12 UTC 2010

Even in Confer days some people quoted entire items to keep them from
being deleted by their owners.  So this is quite an old issue.

Although this seems like an interesting twist, it doesn't affect the
editing discussion because this issue of quoted text could occur (and
has) even without editing.  This is getting into "business policy"
territory rather than technical (although the BP might be implemented as
a technical solution).  One solution is to allow moderation due to the
number of people and competing interests that might be involved.  And of
course, we don't like *COUGH* moderation.
mary
response 137 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 14:58 UTC 2010

Yep, making it clear that your ability to edit your words only extends to 
responses you have entered sounds like a good policy.  I'd support giving 
users the ability to edit their responses in that case.
slynne
response 138 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 15:05 UTC 2010

One thing to consider would be a time limit. One site I frequent allows
editing but only for 90 minutes after the response is entered. 
lar
response 139 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 15:35 UTC 2010

you lamers are so clusterfucked it's amusing
tonster
response 140 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 15:44 UTC 2010

a time limit isn't possible with backtalk, so unless we switch
conferencing systems that's off the table.  I absolutely support editing
of responses, as I've stated previously.
kentn
response 141 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 15:56 UTC 2010

Why isn't it possible, Tony?  We know the time the response was entered
since that appears in the item response.  Apparently if we turn on
editing, we know the modification time (since it would go into a note
added to the response). Can't those two times be compared and editing
disallowed if the difference is more than some limit?
lar
response 142 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:23 UTC 2010

DAMN...what clusterfucks..just allow editing of posts and be done with 
it you petty motherfuckers
lar
response 143 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010

Why?

Here's why
lar
response 144 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 145 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 146 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 147 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 148 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 149 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

lar
response 150 of 357: Mark Unseen   Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010

This response has been erased.

 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   101-125   126-150   151-175   176-200 
 201-225   226-250   251-275   276-300   301-325   326-350   351-357    
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss