Posted by john on November 14, 1999 at 22:34:28:
In Reply to: UNFAIR posted by Steven on November 14, 1999 at 19:14:19:
: : : : : : Beautifully written and such a true sentiment.
: : : : : WHAT is beautifully written????
: : : : : You shouldn't delete the former post(s) you are referring to! It's confusing!
: : : : Should I just change the perl script so that a poster can't delete the former posts in his/her replies anymore?
: : : : That would certainly solve the problem, although it would be prohibiting the quoting of only one section of a former post to respond to...
: : : I guess that my problem is that when you want someone to read a response they might not want to scroll through the last 4 or 5 messages. then again, they might. but either way, i say make the poster personally resp. it's like a give ant take thing. ab skin
: : I know I made an error. You don't have to tell me, Steve. I know your brain has already figured that out by the time you got first post.
: I didn't say a word about it, nor would I have.
: When was the last time you saw me correct someone's spelling on the board?
: If fact, name ANY time.
: Why must you blame me for what I haven't said just because you IMAGINE me saying it?
There seems to be alot of suspicion and accusation stirring around the board. Everyone has been taking things in the worst possible intent. While Bill's post was possibly misinterpreted, what he said was no worse than what Steve said to Wondereal with all the exclamations and capitals. Honestly does it really matter if they delete the clutter of a long original post to make a clearer statement when the thread is clearly visible in the formating of the titles? Many people on this board do so, Bill was one in this thread. But more importantly why do we always assume that there is some rude, or angry meaning behind posts when they could be interpreted in several ways?
Perhaps we should all think first about our perception of what we read before we jump to a conclusion.