Can I get my account and all of my posts deleted, please?
I’ll get back to you on this soon Blurry…
3538 posts is a lot of posts to delete.
Uprooting and re-settling can feel a purifying experience. I’ve done it so many times and now I belong pretty much nowhere. I’d recommend it, but it does have its down sides. And unfortunately you can never escape disturbing the earth around you, to continue the metaphor.
Short answer: no. We can delete/lock/ban your account, and we can remove whatever information you want from it, but deleting your posts would not only remove your posts, but the context in which others made their posts, thereby destroying much more content that just your posts. So while your account can be shuttered to prevent any future interaction with the site through it, your past is a part of ILP.
That is straightforwardly false, and to see why: Delete your post, and then re-read this thread. Re-read the thread, this post included. And then notice that not a thing is lost, and certainly not a thing worth saving.
(I’m surprised you’re still pumping that kind of garbage).
[redacted]
[tab]On the subject of erasing things – in the vein of taking back words, moments, impressions, or periods of interaction – I find redaction generally less satisfying and effective than publishing anew.
It seems to me that past errors and disappointments are made much more irrelevant, or whole, by the force of future deeds rather than by any attempt to change what’s been written.[/tab]
Doesn’t matter anyway:
You see what I did there…?
If we didn’t have a strict policy of not deleting posts, people reading this thread might think you actually wrote that and then had your post deleted.
That’s no argument against deleting posts. Anyone can do that whether posts are deleted or not.
Not an objection to deleting posts… only misusing quotes.
no i mean even if you have a mod delete all your posts, other people’s posts will contain all the profoud and
stupid things you said in quotes…
Yes, if I delete a post, someone else can have alreay quoted a part of it, and thus it’ll still be there. Nothing’s perfect. Is that your argument against allowing someone to do with their posts what they will? Do you make a rule against cleaning a room, just because you might miss a spot?
Or is your point that if I delete a post, the context of your reply will be lost? --Because if you’re worried about that, then quote the specific idea/claim that you’re responding to----and that should solve the problem. But more to the point, the only kind of posts that have value, and are worth keeping, are the ones that are not like a telephone conversation… I mean, that actually make arguments, with conclusions, and reasons, and premises----and those tend to stand alone, no matter what is said around them.
Really, if there’s a chance Blurry (or anyone else) might feel more comfortable with control over her past posts here, why shouldn’t you need better reasons to disallow that? What you’ve said so far is sooo easily brushed aside.
Even when the boat’s gone by the wake remains.
I wonder if you think this is a fair response to what I said, or if you are just saying something like, “Yes, agreed, sigh but hark at the wind”.
Frankly, in the case that someone actually wants to delete a whole post, it’s probably because they don’t want new people coming along and reading it. Yes, people have already seen the post, the waves are there… but that’s no objection to deleting the post. Don’t make ‘the perfect’ the enemy of ‘the good’. If you happen to swear in a crowd of children, it doesn’t mean you have to continually re-broadcast that recording.
Is there even a single good reason for denying someone control over their past posts?
I’m pretty sure the best reason for leaving thread posts in tact has already been mentioned and acknowledged by both sides of this argument: the whole context thing.
Yes the context will be damaged, and yes some, perhaps sometimes enough of the context will remain in tact. The point is that it’s simply just better when the context remains in its original form, if the thread is to be best comprehended.
The argument is whether the value of increased control over one’s own content is more or less valuable than the improved context of a thread to all, when none of its posts are deleted.
Clearly some are siding one way and some the other.
There’s already some “give” on the side of creative control, with the whole editing option - which I believe is now only allowed for a short time period, as well as showing up as a footnote once anyone else has posted since. At least this shows evidence of alteration, even if the post is subsequently edited to something like “…”. Personally I think that is sufficient. Post deletion would leave no such trace.
I’m guessing the argument for increased creative control is essentially an argument for increased personal freedoms, even at the expense of others (because the damage caused is deemed less in comparison). But I side with the context argument - I think any demands for creative control such as those by Blurry are out of shame. I think it is important to learn to deal with your shames, seeing as you cannot delete and edit your own past in the offline world. I think regret is pointless and should not be entertained.
Apparently you didn’t read the thread, at least not my responses.
No, it’s not----because there’s no problem for context, period.
Then read the thread. And the latter part of this sentence is just an insult made out of ignorance. Not impressive.
Okay, didn’t mean for this to turn into an argument.
If my posts can’t be deleted, that’s fine.
And Sil, you may think that I should be ashamed of some of the things I’ve said here, but I don’t, and that’s not why I requested that my posts be deleted. The fact that I have an account here and that my words are all over this place is a draw for me. It brings me back. Because I’ve invested my time and emotion into my posts, I am invested in the forum, and I don’t always have a whole lot of will power, so I was trying to take steps to help myself with that. Thanks for your assumptions, though, they’re always appreciated.
No problem. I do try to assume as much as possible.
In light of your response though, I amend my personal accusations to what you have just admitted: your demands for creative control are out of lack of self control. I think it is important to develop self control, offline or on. Using the special abilities of the “on” do nothing to prepare you for the lack of such ablities in the “off”. Leave your embedded attachment to this forum and still see if you can keep away. As always, it’s never whether you “can” keep away that is the question, it’s whether you can appropriate your affiliation with something that determines whether you make the best of it or let it become a target for blame in stead of your self. (Sometimes it is the fault of someone/thing other than yourself, but there is always something you can do yourself regardless).
So do you talk to everyone in this condescending manner, or is it just me?
And why do you do it?
And what is up with the people on this forum who, upon reading/noticing that someone is down, feel the need to go out of their way to add to that? I mean, do you really think I need you to be condescending to me? Or does it just tickle your funny bone when you attempt to fuck with someone who is already having a hard time of it?
No, I’m condescending to everyone.
As to why, it’s because I genuinely think that most people are below me. A horrible thing to say, I know. It’s not like I don’t know the arguments against being condescending.
It’s better not to be in so many situations… and yet I choose to be, still. What do I have to gain? The pride (vanity) of so many is easily enflamed such that they reveal so much honesty - it’s that which interests me so. It’s a way in which to much better directly access people whilst simultaneously being honest on one’s own part. It’s win-win. When you are riled up, are you not compelled to defend yourself to the best of your ablities?
You may not appreciate this, but an attack on an idea is extremely flattering. Look at the best of arguments: they would not be so worthy of attack if they were not so well substantiated, and worthy of attack.
I understand you are in a low place, I really do. There is no way in which to communicate this to you and I do not expect you to believe me. I’m not even going to try. But I will tell you that those who attack you the most, from seemingly such hostile and unsympathetic angles, are probably those who understand you the best. Perhaps you need to come out the other side in order to appreciate this. We will see.