RoR: Forum

Ted,

I still value the benefit you bring to this forum, but I don't like the abrasive nature that so many of your posts seem to take. You don't even seem to grasp when you are insulting. I have the impression that you have been on a fairly long negative binge at this time. Maybe that's just me.

Usually I'm in a better mood and I overlook this flawed aspect of too many of your posts because of my respect for your flair with the language, extraordinary learning and powerful intellect. But on occasion you appear to be a powerful engine that isn't being that intelligently guided and I can't understand how you can be so blind to that.

If you feel insulted to such a degree that I have no further value to you in the absence of an apology, then so be it - that is up to you. For me, I'd just as soon not respond to you till my annoyance goes away and I can return to enjoying your responses.

Post 81

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 4:47am

Ted's "abrasive" style, not his nature, is irrelevant. Get over it. Think for yourself, and stop investing so much time and effort into meaningless emotional retorts. No one but secondhanders care.

Post 82

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 8:01am

Excuse me, Teressa, but how exactly did you become Ted's protector and my critic? I can assure you that it was not at my request.

What is in your mind that makes you think it appropriate to call me a second-hander? Or, were you referring to the people that read my posts, or to the people that sanction them? You weren't clear. If you consider my posts to be "meaningless emotional retorts," and believe that no one is interested in reading them - then you should follow suit and not read them yourself.

Post 83

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 4:20pm

Per Ted's request, I have removed his posts that directly addressed Steve in this thread.

Post 84

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 4:24pm

Excuse me, Teressa, but how exactly did you become Ted's protector and my critic? I can assure you that it was not at my request.

What is in your mind that makes you think it appropriate to call me a second-hander? Or, were you referring to the people that read my posts, or to the people that sanction them? You weren't clear. If you consider my posts to be "meaningless emotional retorts," and believe that no one is interested in reading them - then you should follow suit and not read them yourself.

Troll ignored.

Post 85

Friday, January 8, 2010 - 5:05pm

Trollette chuckled at.

As the editor shouldn't you be banishing trolls to Dissent?

Or, are you being 'objective' in your duties as editor and allowing yourself to be subjective as a member?

:-)

Post 86

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 2:30am

Numbers 13 and 18 directly address Steve yet they�re not deleted. Some editor you are.

Post 87

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 3:53am

Looking forward to a 2010 on RoR replete with conversations where one party gets to delete his week-old posts thereby making an incomprehensible mess of the remaining non-thread�

(Teresa; kindly set this post to self-destruct in 144 hours.)

Post 88

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 9:18am

The hope was that another individual would opt to also have his removed, but alas, the hope and change have failed. I should have seen that coming.

Post 89

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 3:21pm

Teresa, Jon,

I asked that my posts be left as-is when it was first suggested that I move some elsewhere and leave others here. Teresa then pointed out a confusing typo in a post to old for me to edit and she was kind enough to correct that.

I did not know that Ted was going to have Teressa delete a large number of his old posts from multiple threads.

Even if I had the time to comb through multiple threads, making complex edits so this would become comprehensible, it isn't something I'm motivated to do right now. I don't think people should make extensive changes to old posts that have already been replied to, sanctioned, and were the base of other's replies.

If people were to change old posts, they should carry forward some sort of content so that follow-on posts make sense. If I did edit my old posts I'd want to go through and change those sentences that refer to posts of Ted's that are no longer there - sometimes deleting a sentence, other times changing words typed in the heat of the moment, and leaving other things there. But even that, and even if done thoughtfully isn't right - too much like trying to rewrite history.

I have no idea why Ted had Teresa delete all of his posts - (anymore than I have any idea why I suddenly find myself on Teressa's list of jerks). If Ted did this as an offer of conciliation, then I feel bad about leaving any negative comments of mine up.

Since Ted's posts are no longer visible I can't read what they used to be in order to make decisions as to what to do.

There are no good moves from this point.

My only hope is that this proves to be a teachable moment for Teresa who should be more impartial, and less activist when she is wearing her Editor hat.

Post 90

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 5:55pm

�I don't think people should make extensive changes to old posts that have already been replied to, sanctioned, and were the base of other's replies.�

Exactly.

�There are no good moves from this point.�

None for you, but Teresa could put all his posts back up and deny similar requests in the future.

Post 91

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 6:48pm

Nope.

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 7:04pm

Teresa,

In my (about five?) years here I have never seen an exception made to the editing time limit, let alone total deletions of week-old posts.

Does everyone have this power now? Or just Ted?

Steve,

I think it would be prudent, if you choose to respond to anything Ted ever writes, to quote his entire post in your post. Of course, this will only work until Ted asks her to delete your posts.

Post 93

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 7:20pm

Jon,

Your idea of extensive quotes in a reply is a good one. Not so much for Ted... He and I have gotten along well (most of the time). But for everyone. It is better to be able to see the before and after text when there is any kind of edit - and without the extensive quotes that can't happen.

I don't see the problem as being Ted - In this case, it is more that Teresa appears to be partisan in her editing in these threads. Maybe there should be multiple editors so that if one is part of a dispute, they can ask the other to step in and do any needed editing.

Post 94

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 7:58pm

A case was made, and I complied with a member request. Read into it what you want. I frankly don't care.

Post 95

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 9:41pm

Steve,

***********
I don't see the problem as being Ted - In this case, it is more that Teresa appears to be ...
***********

But Ted is such a WORDSMITH that he could sell sand to the Arabs (and have THEM walking away from the deal thinking of HIM as the sucker).

Without concluding anything either way on this issue, I still have something to say about it:

I would have great reservation with the placing of ANY blame on Teresa without also indicting Ted to an EQUAL or GREATER degree.

Ed
[often good for approximately 2 cents]
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/09, 9:44pm)

Post 96

Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 9:58pm