How do you delete a thread?

[msjprincess]

I believe the original thread has been deleted (or at least closed). And, I believe the OP changed his name. Good move actually.

At a minimum, he deleted his signature listing the many trips he's made to Disneyworld.

I find that fascinating, really. Post something. Get the responses you utterly should expect (if you spent anytime around here), and then get all huffy and indignant when you do get those responses.

two different threads and posters

 

[mnrose]

two different threads and posters

Ah. You are right! Sorry about that.

 

[DisneyFan32WI]

Ah. You are right! Sorry about that.

ROFL...its been a busy day for all of us on the DIS. How can we possibly keep it all straight?

 

[DebbieB]

Raise your hand if you just did a search of the OPs name.

OK, I did!

You are better off just letting it die. By posting this or by changing the thread title to "delete", you are going to have curious people look at it.

 

[phorsenuf]

I went and searched out the post the OP was talking about and that thread was tame. Not a big deal at all OP. I wouldn't even give it another thought.

As for the "rule", I was the one that started it and my reasoning was not to be mean but for the reason Heidi said below.

I follow the "rule". The main reason for my doing it though is because there have been plenty of times when the OP gets angry or upset at the replies they are getting and goes running back to their first post and deletes it. Kinda like the spoiled brat, grabbing their toys, slamming the door and running home.

 

[Pakey]

Yes I am guilty of searching also. Honestly, I'd expected something worse.

I follow the "rule" too but in this instance, if I were to receive a PM requesting a delete, I would honor the request.

OP there's a good chance that thread has already been copied to another board. It's really difficult to take back Internet posts.

 

[disney11fan]

name change why does that thread so so familiar and funny. lol. people are touchy here. take everything with a grain of salt. by the way i diden't search for the op . but the name change thread brings back a lot of laughter.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I once had someone PM me and ask me to delete my reply, which I had copied them on (I didn't copy them to be mean...I just hit the quote button out of habit..wasn't aware of any rule, but you can bet I will stop doing it now...I like to play nice. ). I was more than happy to oblige.

I think most people are good natured on a one on one basis.

Good luck to ya.

Same here, though I wanted to know why first.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I believe the original thread has been deleted (or at least closed). And, I believe the OP changed his name. Good move actually.

At a minimum, he deleted his signature listing the many trips he's made to Disneyworld.

I find that fascinating, really. Post something. Get the responses you utterly should expect (if you spent anytime around here), and then get all huffy and indignant when you do get those responses.

I think you're talking about a different poster and different thread.

ETA: OOps, I see that's already been pointed out. Ignore me.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

Even if a thread is deleted, it's not "deleted." Once posted, it exists forever. Somebody could easily copy it to another board as somebody else has said. Somebody doing a Google Search with your username could use the "cache" feature. Engines maintain a cache and if a search is done, can give you access to information even after that information has been deleted. I don't know how far back the cache goes, but it's something that everybody needs to be aware of.

Certainly the deleting will help if you are concerned about your family coming upon your post, but be aware there is a chance it still exists elsewhere in cyberspace.

ETA: You may want to consider changing your username if you are concerned about random family members finding your posts as it appears that you use your initials and last name as your username.

 

[rie'smom]

Raise your hand if you just did a search of the OPs name.

It didn't bring up anything though.

 

[pbthompson]

I don't really care if people looked me up or not. I know the thread isn't that bad, I just thought about it and came to the conclusion that it would be better deleted.

Why would people copy a thread to another board? I mean it wasn't juicy or anything. I wasn't flamed. I just asked for opinions. I got them. I agree with them. End of story.

 

[Mrs. Darcy]

As for the "rule", I was the one that started it and my reasoning was not to be mean but for the reason Heidi said below.

If the person goes back and deletes their original post and storms off like a brat why would you need their original post?

 

[disneyjunkie]

If the person goes back and deletes their original post and storms off like a brat why would you need their original post?[/QU A thread doesn't die when the OP runs off. Poster can and will continue to discuss the topic. If someone quotes the OP, posters that come to the thread late will know what is/was going on.

 

[AKL_Megs]

Our posts live on forever and ever, not just here, but in little nooks and crannies of the Internet.

Thankfully here, even the craziest threads only have a shelf life of a few days, then something else comes up.

But they live on forever, unfortunately.

 

[bicker]

A thread doesn't die when the OP runs off. Poster can and will continue to discuss the topic.

This is a good point, and I think the fact that you have to outline that points out a major point of confusion on the part of many people, perhaps more so people newer to online discussions: Discussion forums are for discussions - for multiple people to discuss the myriad aspects of issues raised. It isn't a single person getting an answer to a single question. There are other services for that (I'm a volunteer for one of them). Nor is it (as sometimes seems to be the intent) an unrebutted soap-box. People who want to post their issues with control over contradiction can use a blog for that. The nature of a discussion forum is that the issue raised is the starting point, but the discussion is about the issue, not about the person who asked it. The great advantage of discussions is that synergy: Many people add value to a discussion, rather than just one person (the original poster, as in the case of most blogs) or two people (the person asking the question and the person answering it).

So, as you said, the notion that a discussion ends with the original poster goes away is mistaken.

 

[Dan Murphy]

It's become a "rule" around here......

I don't follow that 'rule". People use that "rule" so they can pull an a-ha on someone if they change their mind and want to delete something they wrote. It's done to be mean, not to help others understand what the post was about.

It is for things like this, among others (cliques, badgering, etc, etc), that over the years, the time I spend on this forum, community, has diminished to minutes a week. And not for my changing an OP of mine, never have that I can recall. But for seeing others beat up when they are looking for a breath. I recall seeing when someone, can't recall whom, started this so-called 'rule', and many agreeing with it, I thought, you got to be kidding. Not my type of crowd.

 

[Becky2005]

I thought the rule was mostly for those that totally change the original post, so then all the following things make no sense whatsoever. They either leave out things that that they then want to add later and make it appear it was there all along OR they take things out that change the context. I have no idea what spurred this post so don't have a clue if my examples are anywhere close.

A post starts out with a "what would you do" situation say as an example: I don't want my child to go over to their friends house on Friday night because the friend & my child had a fight on Tuesday but now they are acting like best friends.

So, most people respond with "eh, that's how kids are, don't get involved, etc..."

THEN the OP gets changed to "I don't want my child to go over to their friends house on Friday night because there are illegal drugs, guns and a man in the house"

Or vice versa -- starts with the original drugs, gun, man and they start question why they are even associated with the people and it gets changed to something minor and the OP says "I never said that".

Although, not sure how much I trust quoting here anyway as it CAN be changed any which way, so it's not real accurate anyway if someone wanted to be malicious.

 

[bicker]

The idea of having to evaluate "trustworthiness" of quoting, itself, is pretty ridiculous. If there is any question what a poster meant by what they posted, then ask the poster -- and accept, unequivocally what that poster says that they meant. I could type "The sky is black," and if I later said that I actually meant the sky was blue, then the correct reaction to that, imho, is, "Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that confusion." The idea that there is some ethic in preserving (through quoting) the words someone typed in earlier, as if that's therefore an irrefutable statement of what that personal actually meant to project is indefensibly predatory and almost surely nothing more than self-serving troll-ism. The only defensible explanation for "the rule" is to preclude confusion that would stem from the quote-er's response following from a message that either later becomes empty or gets completely rewritten.

I quote most things I reply to, because I think it is best to make very clear what words I'm replying to, so the reader doesn't have to work so hard to understand the context of the reply. As such, "the rule" is utterly unnecessary. Quoting is just standard practice, ensuring each message can make some sense, standing on its own. That, alone, is probably the best criteria for determining what to quote: What makes the message stand on its own, the best.