The set amount of time's usually assumed to be more than two hours, though.
I contributed because I thought it was a general paen to how debates suddenly turn into overpersonalised moody gothdom - which I see on other boards, mailing lists and Eng Lit seminars. But not on Barbelith, overmuch. So I contributed. If there's a chance it could be taken as a thinly veiled personal attack, then yes, I agree with the K-C C that I don't mind it being wiped at all; board all sensitive and pink at present, maybe let the sting out of the sunburn.
But my contribution wasn't really a comedic masterpiece.
Which leaves us no closer to who owns the thread.
On a compromise to Tom's suggestions about preserving the sense of the argument without making yourself look better in retrospect, I quite like cusm's approach (well, not the initial approach, but the correction) - could the originator theoretically replace their first post with a post saying [This post has been deleted as the poster now regrets (causing offense, choice of language, starting the thread in the first place etc.); the poster hopes this doesn't cause confusion in the rest of the thread]?
You still get the fact that this can make a poster look waaaay better than their ill-conceived post-pub vent originally did, and they could always use the replacement post as an excercise in retrospective self-justification. And it could still totally mess up a decent discussion. But I feel it's rather better than tinkering with the content of one's posts to make oneself look better, or leaving a thread with all its seams undone.
How would mods feel about allowing something like that to be stuck up? |
