|
_Damian S_ wrote: I just wondered about that one particular message.
If Chris deletes that message, then there will be other requests to delete threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: there will be other requests to delete threads.
Yes, and I do appreciate that... I did consider carefully whether to say anything or not, but quite frankly, it was a pretty disgusting thread and I thought it warranted special mention.
|
|
|
|
|
_Damian S_ wrote: Yes, and I do appreciate that... I did consider carefully whether to say anything or not, but quite frankly, it was a pretty disgusting thread and I thought it warranted special mention.
Yeah, I got what you posted this here. My point was more on the lines of how what's alright to one person is disgusting to another, so for someone else, the majority of recent Back Room threads may be similarly disgusting and apparently worthy of removal.
Personally, I just avoid the Back Room.
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity I followed the link. I wish I hadn't. I now feel sick - having lost a child, I empathise with the recipient of this vitriolic, hateful, sick outpouring of putrid bile. This poster has truly stained Code Project, and while I support Chris' intentions to keep the Back Room as a place for the type of sewer utterances that shouldn't be allowed to pollute the rest of the site, I cannot support this posting.
I am absolutely disgusted with Harold. I hope that he never comes to know the pain of losing a child and that, in future years, he comes to a level of maturity that he currently lacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly just to say that I agree with everything you say above.
However, I also believe that Harold was articulating his own deeply felt pain, and a number of us suggested how he could better deal with it. If that helps him (and maybe others) to a higher level of maturity or sensitivity, then perhaps some good may come from the thread.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: If that helps him (and maybe others) to a higher level of maturity or sensitivity, then perhaps some good may come from the thread.
Or it may encourage him to repeat his disgusting behavior. You have no idea how he was affected. (Nor do I.) A little old fashioned negative reinforcement, like being banned for CP might teach him something - or might not - and would definitely mean the rest of us wouldn't have to read that kind of putrid sickness again.
Remember in November:
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: You have no idea how he was affected.
I did not claim that I had.
Oakman wrote: A little old fashioned negative reinforcement, like being banned for CP might teach him something
I prefer my suggestion of positive encouragement.
Oakman wrote: the rest of us wouldn't have to read ...
As has been said many times, the Back Room is open season for anything, and this was not the worst I have seen in that forum (and yes, I do know that is only my opinion).
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I did not claim that I had.
You said that you thought the thread might redeem a sick and disgusting human being. Which is probably insanity now that I think about it.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: As has been said many times, the Back Room is open season for anything, and this was not the worst I have seen in that forum
I'd bet you don't have children.
Remember in November:
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: You said that you thought the thread might redeem a sick and disgusting human being.
I said nothing of the sort.
Oakman wrote: I'd bet you don't have children.
Since you know nothing about me I would suggest you don't make bets.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
As revolting as that thread is one of the major benefits of free speech is that it allows the vermin to identify themselves. That makes it much easier to ignore everything else they say.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Would be even easier if Chris gave us an "ignore" option.
Remember in November:
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
|
|
|
|
|
You have an 'ignore' option.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
I may be learning something. How, exactly could I arrange never to read a post by you again?
Remember in November:
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
|
|
|
|
|
Look at the value in the poster name column and if it is Richard MacCutchan don't click to expand it. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman wrote: How, exactly could I arrange never to read a post by you again?
Well I've obviously touched a raw nerve with you.
Just say 'NO' to evaluated arguments for diadic functions! Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Please take a look here[^].
The OP removed the message, but we can still reply, and see the original message. Is there any reason or you guys missed something. 
|
|
|
|
|
did you try to reply? The problem has been reported long ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, And I can see the original message.
|
|
|
|
|
Rutvik Dave wrote: Yes
All the way?
try again, below!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deleting it now.
|
|
|
|
|
hhmmmm... let me guess, it was this, right ?
Luc Pattyn wrote: try a reply!
modified on Monday, October 11, 2010 5:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you can see it, that is by design AFAIK; however you did not reply to that message!
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Yes you can see it, that is by design AFAIK
OK. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Replies can always be viewed.
Rutvik Dave wrote: and see the original message
That's because you have admin rights in that forum.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
