[Rama Set]

You say that, yet here is Pete and Parsifal looking in to it. Maybe it’s you that has the problem here?

[Dr David Thork]

You say that, yet here is Pete and Parsifal looking in to it. Maybe it’s you that has the problem here?

If they end up plotting "How can we punish Tom for this?" then that's a poor reflection on them. Not how wonderful your suggestion is. I've no idea how yet another Tom bashing thread has been allowed to slip through the net, but its clear it is yet again targeted at one individual. Stop it.

[garygreen]

tom is the only one who does this tho

[Rama Set]

You say that, yet here is Pete and Parsifal looking in to it. Maybe it’s you that has the problem here?

If they end up plotting "How can we punish Tom for this?" then that's a poor reflection on them. Not how wonderful your suggestion is. I've no idea how yet another Tom bashing thread has been allowed to slip through the net, but its clear it is yet again targeted at one individual. Stop it.

Is this another moment where you dream of punching me in the face?

[AATW]

You say that, yet here is Pete and Parsifal looking in to it. Maybe it’s you that has the problem here?

If they end up plotting "How can we punish Tom for this?" then that's a poor reflection on them. Not how wonderful your suggestion is. I've no idea how yet another Tom bashing thread has been allowed to slip through the net, but its clear it is yet again targeted at one individual. Stop it.

If one child is spoiling the playground for everyone then the solution is to deal with the one child, not tell all the other children that they have to put up with their poor behaviour

[Dr David Thork]

If one child is spoiling the playground for everyone then the solution is to deal with the one child, not tell all the other children that they have to put up with their poor behaviour

And what do you do if all the other children are ganging up to bully this one child?

[Rama Set]

If one child is spoiling the playground for everyone then the solution is to deal with the one child, not tell all the other children that they have to put up with their poor behaviour

And what do you do if all the other children are ganging up to bully this one child?

You find out what is going on. Once you realize no one is being bullied you chastise the boy who cried wolf. That’s you.

[stack]

Here's a variant on the issue I've come across before, but it just happened to pop up yesterday so I was able to capture it:

- A member who shall not be named nor singled out made a post in a thread (In the uppers).
- I hit "Quote" to respond.
- I got distracted and didn't actually type anything for like 10 minutes
- I typed my response, hit "Preview" and got this message:



So then, in another tab, I navigated all the way over to the thread to see if the post I was responding to had been deleted. It was still there, nothing had changed that I could tell, and there was no edit timestamp.

So I guess the poster, in that 10 minute interim where I hadn't responded yet, deleted their post and then re-posted it exactly as it was before? Why would someone do that?

[Dr David Thork]

Here's a variant on the issue I've come across before, but it just happened to pop up yesterday so I was able to capture it:

- A member who shall not be named nor singled out made a post in a thread (In the uppers).
- I hit "Quote" to respond.
- I got distracted and didn't actually type anything for like 10 minutes
- I typed my response, hit "Preview" and got this message:



So then, in another tab, I navigated all the way over to the thread to see if the post I was responding to had been deleted. It was still there, nothing had changed that I could tell, and there was no edit timestamp.

So I guess the poster, in that 10 minute interim where I hadn't responded yet, deleted their post and then re-posted it exactly as it was before? Why would someone do that?

And you say we are the conspiracy theorists on this site? This is some tall tale. Also, leave Tom alone. 

[Clyde Frog]

Here's a variant on the issue I've come across before, but it just happened to pop up yesterday so I was able to capture it:

- A member who shall not be named nor singled out made a post in a thread (In the uppers).
- I hit "Quote" to respond.
- I got distracted and didn't actually type anything for like 10 minutes
- I typed my response, hit "Preview" and got this message:



So then, in another tab, I navigated all the way over to the thread to see if the post I was responding to had been deleted. It was still there, nothing had changed that I could tell, and there was no edit timestamp.

So I guess the poster, in that 10 minute interim where I hadn't responded yet, deleted their post and then re-posted it exactly as it was before? Why would someone do that?

If you notice that again, look at the message number in the quote you had originally and compare it to the message number in the new quote. Example: Your quote above has "link=topic=17876.msg234767#msg234767" referenced when I clicked to quote it, so the message number is 234767. You can delete that, and then repost exactly the same thing, and you can do that before anyone else has a chance to respond, but the message number will change.

[stack]

Here's a variant on the issue I've come across before, but it just happened to pop up yesterday so I was able to capture it:

- A member who shall not be named nor singled out made a post in a thread (In the uppers).
- I hit "Quote" to respond.
- I got distracted and didn't actually type anything for like 10 minutes
- I typed my response, hit "Preview" and got this message:



So then, in another tab, I navigated all the way over to the thread to see if the post I was responding to had been deleted. It was still there, nothing had changed that I could tell, and there was no edit timestamp.

So I guess the poster, in that 10 minute interim where I hadn't responded yet, deleted their post and then re-posted it exactly as it was before? Why would someone do that?

And you say we are the conspiracy theorists on this site? This is some tall tale. Also, leave Tom alone. 

Did I mention anyone by name?

[stack]

Here's a variant on the issue I've come across before, but it just happened to pop up yesterday so I was able to capture it:

- A member who shall not be named nor singled out made a post in a thread (In the uppers).
- I hit "Quote" to respond.
- I got distracted and didn't actually type anything for like 10 minutes
- I typed my response, hit "Preview" and got this message:



So then, in another tab, I navigated all the way over to the thread to see if the post I was responding to had been deleted. It was still there, nothing had changed that I could tell, and there was no edit timestamp.

So I guess the poster, in that 10 minute interim where I hadn't responded yet, deleted their post and then re-posted it exactly as it was before? Why would someone do that?

If you notice that again, look at the message number in the quote you had originally and compare it to the message number in the new quote. Example: Your quote above has "link=topic=17876.msg234767#msg234767" referenced when I clicked to quote it, so the message number is 234767. You can delete that, and then repost exactly the same thing, and you can do that before anyone else has a chance to respond, but the message number will change.

I bet you're right. I didn't take notice of the message #'s though I suspect it did change. I still don't get why someone would delete a post then repost the exact same thing within a 10 minute span. As in what would be the benefit? Could be just as simple as, "I'm going to delete this post. (Delete it.) Awww, you know what, I'm just going to post it..." Idk.

To the Toddler: No conspiracy involved. Just a variant on what we've been discussing.

[AATW]

From my experience, I don’t think people delete and and re-add the exact same post. But I do know one poster who tweaks a word here and there multiple times which causes the issue you’re seeing and in a generally netiquette sense is poor form.
It’s like having a conversation with someone, they say something, you start to reply and as you’re doing so they keep interrupting you. Makes it impossible to know when they’ve finished so you can actually reply.

[Pete Svarrior]

No you can't. If Tom wants to edit his posts after the fact ... he can.

Nobody said about preventing people from editing posts.

You are arguing a subject you haven't even attempted to understand, and turned a valuable suggestion into pages of irrelevant rambling about your experience of being bullied in school. Don't do that.

From my experience, I don’t think people delete and and re-add the exact same post.

They do. We can see it when they do it. There really is no mystery here.

They post, then edit, then delete, then repost the post with edits. Rinse and repeat, sometimes dozens of times.

But I do know one poster who tweaks a word here and there multiple times which causes the issue you’re seeing and in a generally netiquette sense is poor form.

You already said this. There's no need to repeat yourself in this thread, making your point a second time won't alter the outcome.

There are two separate issues here:

• Implications of editing posts to change the meaning of what's been said, or making small tweaks for ages. This is a discussion of culture with a potential need for a social solution.
• The fact that certain ways of replacing your post's content are disruptive to all other users - posts highlighting as new despite being rehashes of old posts, people being interrupted when they try to reply, etc. This is a technical problem.

We are discussing the second bullet point. If you want a discussion on the first one, please start a thread and make your case - don't hijack another thread.