Chat talk and light discussion

Sun May 27, 2007 1:58 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Rusty Martin* wrote:Dear FECC....Please obliterate Steve_M`s posts from this board, not for my sake but his, they are his words ...

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but since this is a public forum, one would assume all content generated belongs to the owners of the site.
So it is their choice to do whatever they want with it, including shutting it down if they wish!


Well, exactly.

That's why Rusty has addressed her polite request to them...............

Sun May 27, 2007 4:01 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Rusty Martin* wrote:Dear FECC....Please obliterate Steve_M`s posts from this board, not for my sake but his, they are his words ...

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but since this is a public forum, one would assume all content generated belongs to the owners of the site. So it is their choice to do whatever they want with it, including shutting it down if they wish!


That is why they are being asked!!! :roll:


:lol:

Sun May 27, 2007 8:08 am

ColinB wrote:Well, exactly. That's why Rusty has addressed her polite request to them...............

You miss my point. When she says "Please obliterate Steve_M`s posts ... they are his words" she is incorrect.

They are FECC's words.

Get it?

Sun May 27, 2007 8:26 am

What a moron!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Amd that's FECC's words not mine!!! :shock: :roll:


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by sam on Sun May 27, 2007 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 8:29 am

Hey I been deleted!!!

Sun May 27, 2007 10:05 am

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 10:47 am

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 11:19 am

Steve

you wrote:Doc, I don't think that's the case that they are FECC's words because FECC allow us to change the content of our posts, in other words they selected the opition that means the "Edit" button appears in the posts. This is something they could have not allowed if they had wished.

Also the terms and conditions state that the content of the posts belong to the posters and that FECC is limited in its responsibility for such content, however it endeavours to administer the removal of content that it deems unsuitable but it isn't responsible for it.

I don't agree with the above. Where does it say that the contents of the posts belong to the posters (as opposed to they "express the views and opinions of the author")? And just because FECC grants us to edit the posts we're author of does not mean they do not belong to them. They might as well decide not to grant us that and would not be in breach of the terms.

Doc

you wrote:When she says "Please obliterate Steve_M`s posts ... they are his words" she is incorrect.

No, Rusty is correct. "His words" means "he is the author of the words". If it weren't his words he wants to get deleted, we would not be discussing this topic as we do. We would rather use a lot of expletives.

Sun May 27, 2007 11:22 am

Steve_M wrote:...in principal I s'pose I was referring to ones solitary interests and that there just might be more to this world than Elvis or if not then maybe 35 years of having him as a primary interest should be sufficient enough to say that one had given it their best shot.


But Steve, you make it sound as if you're [we're] doing some sort of chore or penance in following Elvis, like it's your [our] duty or whatever.

He is a major presence in my life because his body of work brings me great pleasure.

I enjoy it all.

When that enjoyment stops, I guess it will be time for me to move on as well................

Sun May 27, 2007 11:27 am

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 3:33 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
ColinB wrote:Well, exactly. That's why Rusty has addressed her polite request to them...............

You miss my point. When she says "Please obliterate Steve_M`s posts ... they are his words" she is incorrect.

They are FECC's words.

Get it?


Oh, I see.

You mean that once we post here, the 'ownership' of our words passes to FECC.

Well, assuming we accept that, it's still the correct procedure to address to them a request for the mass obliteration of said words then, isn't it ?

Sun May 27, 2007 5:02 pm

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 5:19 pm

It's the 40 year old blues!!! :lol:

Sun May 27, 2007 5:25 pm

Steve_M wrote:Yes Colin, I am making it sound like that because that's what it has become to me.
I've said before that the music no longer gives me the pleasure it once did because I ruined that magic by wanting to know too much about it.

If it was announced that a DVD of highlights from the 69 shows that were pro shot was coming out - I'd now pass on it.


Well, as I said before, you need a break from all things Elvis.

In a while, those old feelings would return....

Sun May 27, 2007 5:33 pm

Steve

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings I may have caused by using a qualifier such as "the above" and subsequently responding to the second paragraph before responding to the first paragraph instead of being more precice and just writing "the second paragraph"... (you know the rest ;))

You can access the current rules by pretending to register again.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want any of your posts to diappear whether by yourself or with admins help. You're not just deleting your posts. As a result you're also destroying our discussions.

Sun May 27, 2007 5:51 pm

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 5:56 pm

Steve

You call it "record", I call it "discussion".

That's just semantics.

It's the same thing that's being "destroyed" (or "removed"; semantics again).

Sun May 27, 2007 6:00 pm

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 6:01 pm

Torben wrote:Steve

You call it "record", I call it "discussion".

That's just semantics.

It's the same thing that's being "destroyed" (or "removed"; semantics again).


Steve's point is that the 'debates' will still have happened, whether the record of them is removed or remains intact...

Sun May 27, 2007 6:14 pm

Steve

If you just want to get rid of your side, why don't you just leave and never look back again? Your old posts surely won't knock on your door and force their way back into your life.

Why should we have to let something go we want to keep just because you're not able to just say for youself "that's it" and be done with it?

This forum is not a chat where discussions are as ephemeral as in real life. I chose the forum for a reason, you'd hardly ever see me in a chat.

Sun May 27, 2007 6:27 pm

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 6:37 pm

Steve

No you're not suggesting anything, you're actually doing something harmful to our (recorded) discussions.

I've mostly (;)) been nice to you. So why don't you just respect my whishes whether or not you share them?

Sun May 27, 2007 6:48 pm

Last edited by Steve_M on Mon May 28, 2007 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sun May 27, 2007 7:04 pm

Steve

My wishes aren't selfish. They are just wishes. My reaction to your request is based on my wishes alone and thus the reaction is selfish. But so is your request.

You want to do something with our discussions (or the records of them), not just with your posts (or the records of those). These two things go hand in hand.

As for the "nice" part: You may think that's irrelevant. I think it's irrelevant for your request whether you've tremendously helped the forum as you did or not.

I'm against the outcome of your actions. The difference is within the time that the outcome is reached and how many valuable threads I can save locally.

Sun May 27, 2007 7:08 pm

Steve_M wrote:.....All I'm asking is to get the backing to have PEP do it.
The out come is not going to be any different, I get the impression you think it will.


Torben, I guess Steve has a point.

Any poster can remove their own posts using the 'edit' facility.

Steve is requesting that PEP be allowed to do it to save time.

The outcome is the same either way.

All we can do, as members here, is express an opinion; say whether we think they should be removed; say whether we are happy with them being removed.

Any other argument is spurious.