Alf's House

[Thomas Dalby]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It isn’t changing the original post, do I don't see what is upsetting. 

What I find irritating about it is that if you have been following a particular thread on here you will probably understand readily what has been changed, but if you are not and are instead just skimming through a thread in case something has posted something relevant or interesting there is a chance you will glance at a doctored post (which does not highlight what has been changed) and there is enough crap on internet forums without doing something which gives rise to misunderstandings etc. And if the person doing it thinks it’s funny or clever and the original poster doesn’t and hasn’t agreed to it then it’s just rude

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Thomas Dalby said:

What I find irritating about it is that if you have been following a particular thread on here you will probably understand readily what has been changed, but if you are not and are instead just skimming through a thread in case something has posted something relevant or interesting there is a chance you will glance at a doctored post (which does not highlight what has been changed) and there is enough crap on internet forums without doing something which gives rise to misunderstandings etc. And if the person doing it thinks it’s funny or clever and the original poster doesn’t and hasn’t agreed to it then it’s just rude

Fair enough, but still not a big issue to me. Agreed on highlighting the change though. 

[Passing Time]

On 9/20/2024 at 9:05 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

This meddling with, and altering other peoples posts because you don’t agree with them and using terms such as “ fixed for accuracy “ doesn’t sit well with me.

If you don’t agree with another’s post, just set out your reasons for doing so. It’s a forum.

You can correct factual errors, but you can’t fix an opinion for accuracy merely because you have a different opinion.

And because it’s a forum, I don’t give a flying fart that it doesn’t “sit well” with you 

[Luker]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

It isn’t changing the original post, do I don't see what is upsetting. 

But it IS categorically changing the original post. By replacing it with a re-post that is amended without a note added and where people might not go back up the thread and realize its an amendment to the original quote made.

Edited September 21 by Luker

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Luker said:

But it IS categorically changing the original post. By replacing it with a re-post that is amended without a note added and where people might not go back up the thread and realize its an amendment to the original quote made.

It isn't, the original post still exists in its original form. 

[Luker]

5 hours ago, Gladys said:

It isn't, the original post still exists in its original form. 

No it clearly is. You just seem to be some forum arse kisser who will support the mods on anything. Even by stating black is white. 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Luker said:

No it clearly is. I have just changed your post, but your original post remains inchanged.

See?

[Luker]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

See?

But the fact remains, you painfully smug supercilious old witch, that if that post was made pages ago, and you haven’t marked anything in the text to suggest you have amended it when you re-posted it, then posters assume that it is a straight quote as nobody goes back to check. Whereas if I amend a post I’ve made, it automatically flags it as It “amended” underneath to show that it has changed. It is pure manipulation and seems to be used here at lot  It must be very tiring for you expending the tireless effort to be such a sad pedantic moderator arse kisser on a dull little used forum.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Luker said:

But the fact remains, you painfully smug supercilious old witch, that if that post was made pages ago, and you haven’t marked anything in the text to suggest you have amended it when you re-posted it, then posters assume that it is a straight quote as nobody goes back to check. Whereas if I amend a post I’ve made, it automatically flags it as It “amended” underneath to show that it has changed. It is pure manipulation and seems to be used here at lot  It must be very tiring for you expending the tireless effort to be such a sad pedantic moderator arse kisser on a dull little used forum.

I posted above that I agree changes to a quoted post should be highlighted. 

It must be very tiring for you to be in a rage all the time.  Chill, it is a little used forum and shouldn't have such an  impact on you. 

[Fred the shred]

Stop being so rude Luker it is not needed and adds nothing to the point you are making.

[Banker]

54 minutes ago, Luker said:

But the fact remains, you painfully smug supercilious old witch, that if that post was made pages ago, and you haven’t marked anything in the text to suggest you have amended it when you re-posted it, then posters assume that it is a straight quote as nobody goes back to check. Whereas if I amend a post I’ve made, it automatically flags it as It “amended” underneath to show that it has changed. It is pure manipulation and seems to be used here at lot  It must be very tiring for you expending the tireless effort to be such a sad pedantic moderator arse kisser on a dull little used forum.

You are an absolute idiot and hopefully the personal abuse you’re directing at people will get you banned , obviously your previous bans under different names haven’t deterred you!

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Luker said:

[...]  Whereas if I amend a post I’ve made, it automatically flags it as It “amended” underneath to show that it has changed. It is pure manipulation and seems to be used here at lot  It must be very tiring for you expending the tireless effort to be such a sad pedantic moderator arse kisser on a dull little used forum.

If you're a subscriber, as Gladys is, any changes you make aren't flagged up with amended timestamp.  You too could have the same privilege by paying some money.

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

If you're a subscriber, as Gladys is, any changes you make aren't flagged up with amended timestamp.  You too could have the same privilege by paying some money.

Unfortunately, even though I subscribe that function doesn't work for me. Not too bothered, but I think Luker's issue is other people amended a post when quoting it.  Again, not too bothered, personally, as the original post is still there but it would be  courteous to highlight the edit. 

But that's just me being a smug, supercilious old witch! 

Just corrected a typo, so you can see. 

Edited Sunday at 11:56 AM by Gladys

[Luker]

48 minutes ago, Banker said:

You are an absolute idiot and hopefully the personal abuse you’re directing at people will get you banned , obviously your previous bans under different names haven’t deterred you!

So says regular raging forum mental case. Grow up small man. 

[piebaps]

4 hours ago, Luker said:

I love you Gladys, will you have my babies?

Aww that's nice.