Curious Forum

[bbenson]

Curious forum you have here. I will no doubt be banned from this forum. This post will probably be edited or responses to it:

In a legal forum, a thread I started became controversial and posts were deleted and altered. Both the deletion of posts by m artin as well as changing existing posts Then the thread was closed.

I have seen closed threads before and spam posts deleted, but I have never seen threads manipulated by changing posts and removing posts to alter the intent or context of the thread.

How do you as a legal forum expect to have credibility when you alter the context and intent of threads you don't agree with.

Particularly interesting was the deletion of a definition from wikipedia. If encyclopedia definitions offend you, how do you expect to have credibility in your legal opinions.

 

[proud_parent]

Particularly interesting was the deletion of a definition from wikipedia. If encyclopedia definitions offend you, how do you expect to have credibility in your legal opinions.

Pardon, but how do you expect to have credibility if your source for legal rubrics is wikipedia ?

 

[Just Blue]

Curious forum you have here. I will no doubt be banned from this forum. This post will probably be edited or responses to it:

In a legal forum, a thread I started became controversial and posts were deleted and altered. Both the deletion of posts by m artin as well as changing existing posts Then the thread was closed.

I have seen closed threads before and spam posts deleted, but I have never seen threads manipulated by changing posts and removing posts to alter the intent or context of the thread.

How do you as a legal forum expect to have credibility when you alter the context and intent of threads you don't agree with.

Particularly interesting was the deletion of a definition from wikipedia. If encyclopedia definitions offend you, how do you expect to have credibility in your legal opinions.

The posts that admin considered to be offensive or off topic were removed or edited. Admin did this to preserve the credibility of the site. Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable source for ANY information, especially legal.

 

[las365]

I won't presume to speak for m m a r t i n, but my opinion is that the moderator of this forum has her hands full, and I doubt that she has the time or inclination to set out to destroy the integrity (for lack of a better term) of individual threads. My understanding is that edits are done to make posts comply with the terms of service, or to delete misinformation.

Just so you know, the moderator is not the only one who can delete a post. My observation is that threads are usually moderator-locked when they have become ongoing arguments, posters are being rude, and/or the thread has ceased to serve to address the purpose of the OP's query.

Funny, the filter ******'d m's last name. Hence the spaces in it above.

 

[LdiJ]

Curious forum you have here. I will no doubt be banned from this forum. This post will probably be edited or responses to it:

In a legal forum, a thread I started became controversial and posts were deleted and altered. Both the deletion of posts by m artin as well as changing existing posts Then the thread was closed.

I have seen closed threads before and spam posts deleted, but I have never seen threads manipulated by changing posts and removing posts to alter the intent or context of the thread.

How do you as a legal forum expect to have credibility when you alter the context and intent of threads you don't agree with.

Particularly interesting was the deletion of a definition from wikipedia. If encyclopedia definitions offend you, how do you expect to have credibility in your legal opinions.

I have to agree say that its not the admin's normal modus operandi to actually edit someone's post. She either deletes posts she considers to be offensive or very inappropriate or closes a thread that she thinks has gotten out of hand for one reason or another.

 

[LdiJ]

I won't presume to speak for m m a r t i n, but my opinion is that the moderator of this forum has her hands full, and I doubt that she has the time or inclination to set out to destroy the integrity (for lack of a better term) of individual threads. My understanding is that edits are done to make posts comply with the terms of service, or to delete misinformation.

Just so you know, the moderator is not the only one who can delete a post. My observation is that threads are usually moderator-locked when they have become ongoing arguments, posters are being rude, and/or the thread has ceased to serve to address the purpose of the OP's query.

Funny, the filter ******'d m's last name. Hence the spaces in it above.

The bolded portion is sort of incorrect. The moderator is the only one (besides the author) who can permanently delete a post. Any other deletion is temporary.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, there are many examples of MM editing posts. I'm amused that my post on that thread was deleted, but as a moderator elsewhere, I'm not going to sweat it.

However, IMO, "gringo" is rarely used as a descriptive term. Although I'd be willing to accept it as such - if the other term I (didn't even fully post) used is considered as "descriptive" for those of Latin American origin.

Racism is racism - regardless of the race on either side.