Those individuals CHOSE to delete their own posts...THEY were not moderator edited...

Personally what I don't understand is the continual INCITING...

Mrs. W

Orchid, please note that your post was the ONLY post on this thread that was edited by the moderator. All the others were voluntarily deleted by the posters THEMSELVES after your incendiary remarks were removed. I did so as a courtesy to you.

Only YOU were edited, Orchid.

I have to say this quote is pretty darn funny considering what actually happened on ths thread. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I've tried to steer clear of this stuff on board for a while....but first and foremost.....I have no idea what was said on this thread by ANYONE. I arrived here to read after all the edits were done. I have guesses based on what I know, what's followed, and what I expect....but they are guesses....nothing more.

I try not to write things that need to be editted by the mods....or that I need to edit myself. That certainly does not mean I haven't been editted.....I certainly have <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> but rarely by myself. I've said things that have caused controversy....and while that might not be an overt violation of TOS....I accept that sometimes the mods just need to keep the peace.

I must admit.....sometimes the editting has been confusing to me.....but even if I didn't agree with it....I thought it was probably to restore peace.

In the interest of authenticity....I don't edit for "content" unless it is harmful to another person. (ex: Once I said something like "I must have Alzheimers" and some folks asked me to remove it because they had loved ones with the disease....so I did. Just today....I removed a post on EN because I'm just feeling more and more unsafe here). Apologies or misunderstandings, I leave RIGHT on the board where they so people can see that I'm willing to examine my own stuff and be willing to allow folks to see what I write (even if I have to apologize for it). I'm not afraid to make mistakes and give honest apologies.

I think self moderation is a good thing...a great thing! Ideally, it would make the mod's job SO much easier. In this case....it's hard to tell....but it looks like something Orchid said might have created some controversy??? dunno J moderated....and then everyone else took the opportunity to moderate themselves. For what reason?....it seems kinda weird to me. Why was self moderation a need? I don't know. After an edit from JustUss....it doesn't seem very authentic to self edit....because then the "appearance" is that ONLY what Orchid said was edit-worthy.....somehow....I doubt that. Consequently....from someone who didn't see any of it...it has the effect of looking like people can say ugly things, get action from the mod, and then remove them before being "officially" editted.

As it stands now....it's hard to tell what Orchid did. From the later comments it sounds like she posted a link to an old thread....a locked thread. Maybe the edit ought to say that so there's no confusion. I'm not sure why that's necessary....but other edits seem way more confusing.

What the heck is going on??? A whole thread of editted posts? I don't get it.

editted for grammar! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

No big deal, starfish, and no reason to read into it something that is not there. Orchid made an incendiary post, which was edited by Justuss. Since it was no longer there, the responses to her post were no longer relevant, hence the self edits. Since Justuss removed her incendiary post, I removed my post out of courtesy to her. Its all over and we can move on.

p.s. that was the point of the edits, so that folks would not "GET IT." It was incendiary and unnecessary, which is why it was removed, I suspect. The goal is to keep the peace, after all.

Incindiary: An artillery shell that burns upon impact, usually stuffed with white phosphorous.

I gotta fess out, I don't see the applicability of the term here.

2 no one in particular, this is how I feel when I'm on MB these days. 2 paraphrase the reporter who covered the Hindenburg disaster, 'Oh, the humanity!':

Oh, the [cynicism]!

Oh, the [paranoia]!

Oh, the [silliness]!

Oh, the [consipiracy]!

Oh, the [mistrust]!

-ol' 2long.
P.S. Oh, the [weather is so wonderful out 2day. I'm going 2 go work on the Model A]!

The word was carefully chosen, 2Long, and fits perfectly:

in·cen·di·ar·y Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sen-dee-er-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
–adjective 1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
–noun 5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military. a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.

Mel

I understand

I do not agree.

-ol' 2long

Thats ok with me, 2Long, call it a baloney sandwich if that makes ya happy. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

edited for pointless and meaningless content

ba:

I did!

I noticed after I quoted that definition, though, that the other spelling is correct, 2.

Seems odd, considering it's based on "incinerate".

But then, I get all a'flutter when people use the verb "orientate" instead of "orient". Both are correct, though the former ought 2 be a felony! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

you did it wrong, you silly yankee! It is supposed to say:

Post deleted by DAMNYANKEE BA109! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I didn't see Orchids "comment" but it sounds like she linked something that might have created controversy/conflict. Okay. But the comments you folks made in response, were not incendiary right?

If you hadn't removed them....they wouldn't have been controversial either? Or created so conflict? Or violated TOS? Or might have possibly been editted?

They were respectful comments, right?

And there's no significance in the fact that you all editted in just the same way....at the same time?

Mel....you must think we're really dumb.

well, I didn't remove my comments...but I saw nothing in the posts after mine that would have warranted an edit. In fact, they were very similar to what I posted in the first response to Orchid.

Sf...who is "we're?" Are you the speaker for a group of people here?

Hey! Dems could be considered incendiary remarks there, ya ole sillyass Texan.

starfish, the comments were all removed, either by the MOD or the posters themselves, so the subject would be dropped. I believe that was the POINT, so there is no reason to REHASH it.

Mel:

Why don't we simply stop assuming and take Orchid at her word?

What's wrong with what she said?

If this whole discussion (and others like it) doesn't just blow the sh!+ off a flat rock! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

If reading between lines that aren't there, searching for conspiracies, is what these boards are going 2 be all about, those who choose 2 live in that kind of self-inflicted misery can HAVE them!

*I* *personally* have seen my name on placards carried in front of my workplace by "conspiracy enthusiasts" (2 give it a "nice" term), for something I published that wasn't 'liked' by those folks. These same 'folks' have made death threats 2 some of my colleagues in the recent past. And over s2pid stuff that doesn't exist outside of these folks' imaginations and dreams - conspiracy or the basis for it.

I've got better things 2 do than this.

I'm going 2 notify the mods of my own post after I get done here. I hope they'll look at ALL of what's going on here and that it's a useful exercise for them.

I hope they don't edit it, but I'll understand if they choose 2. It's just an expression of my very deep concern over what goes on here sometimes. it's how I feel. It may be wrong or half-baked, but I somehow don't think so.

"Peace, tranquillity 2 all" - Landru, "Ret2rn of the Archons"
-ol' 2long

"WE'RE?" Who is the "WE'RE?" And no, I don't think you are DUMB, just very overly eager to see boogeymen where none exist.

You missed a 2. "be2een". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />