It is hardly expecting "perfection" to ask that at least one other observer take objective note of tendentious alterations to the public record of events in this forum.

Whether there exists a perfect Recording Angel is a question of theology, which I am not qualified to address, and am not trying to address.

What I do know is that:

We do have software for retaining traces of our conversations, which appears to work almost perfectly, but which has been programmed to allow alterations to the record.

And:

In this case, these alterations have gone far beyond editorial changes (to which in general I have no objection, and which I often make myself).

And:

Even we mere human beings can attend quite truthfully (even if not perfectly truthfully) to the reality of our dealings with one another (both online and offline, and both private and public); and that dire consequences attend a failure to do so; and that so far no-one but myself has attended to the alteration of the truthful record of what has been happening in this thread.

The silence on this matter, when I have repeatedly, reasonably, and accurately drawn attention to it, is no mere "imperfection".

Anyway, do I now understand you to be informing me that some official note has been taken of the actual problem - and not just my personal "objections" - on which I note you carefully refrain from expressing any opinion of your own, even though some of the empirical evidence for my statements has in fact surely passed before your eyes, while you have been following the thread?

Im no administrator nor moderator but I know by experience that we should see a certain conclusion. We agree with you to a degree but its not our **** thats sore , is it? What would have us do chain ourselves to the gates of heaven?

I think this is the third time I have said this:

No-one else has acknowledged the actual tampering with the public record.

In the case of Alan's post #1, this may quite simply be because no-one but myself (and Alan!) saw the original and remembers it. If so, fair enough. (In that case, however, judgement on my response to the original should still be suspended. It hasn't been.)

In the case of GoshisDead's tampering, that explanation cannot apply.

No-one has to chain themselves to anything. I would just like not to be the one person stating a plain empirical fact, one which has consequences for our personal interactions in this thread. (Indeed, it has given rise to almost the entire thread.)

Will you please explain to me in what way I have failed to make it clear that this simple and obviously reasonable acknowledgement of a significant empirical fact is what I want? Not perfection, not people chaining themselves to heavenly gates.

As well as it being a fact that the record has been significantly altered, it is also (still!) a fact that no-one but myself has attested that the record has been altered.

You can see, can't you, why I might be at least a tiny bit steamed about that?

Ive got to admit it, his right twirlip...for whatever reason you have shot yourself....

As the lay public of the forum we have no proof of what was originally posted in any of our cases.

1) Tampering implies that there is a rule against editing as if the forum is not a community of free individuals expressing and/or retracting opinions at will, assuming that thos opinions and retractions abide by the rules of the forum to which we agreed.
2) This is a voluntary forum not a court transcript. If there is a court here it is the court of public opinion.
3) Count the posts that say edited in this thread. Pot and Kettle. As the lay public of the forum we have no proof of what was originally posted in any of our cases.

There your main gripe about post retraction has been addressed.

I am hopping mad at this transparent emotional manipulation,

If you find yourself displaced by all this "Tampering" you are free to modify your own posts if you believe that this is all about a "Fair display of the truth" or some such.

Just as others are free to modify their own posts, whether it implicitly makes you appear stupid, you have the same right to return the favor. One who modifies his/her post is doing so because they have made an error, or because the differences were resolved or whatever. There is no reason to read in as to why someone change his/her post.

Now, instead of complaining and shouting about like a madman ("oh no! they changed their posts and made me look like an idiot!") why don't you remove those posts of yours which indeed make you appear to be bigoted and insensitive and consider the matter closed.

The best you are doing for yourself is, in addition to making yourself appear bigoted, you are portraying yourself as being incensed and obsessed with this issue. Is it really so offending to you that your own rhetorical devices backfired?

There is precedent for a removed post being reinstated by an administrator. He (Justin) said it showed disrespect for time and consideration of those who answered the post to remove it. So he put it back.

Twirlip: do you feel your time and consideration were disrespected?

Arjun:
They are the Admins they are free to repost if they feel the need. In fact they have already been reposted several times by Twirlip. S/he is accurate in what s/he reposted as far as I remember. Reposting them will in no way change what the posts left up say or mean.

It still stands to reason that the only way Twirls original post was not designed to incite, demean, or deride, was if Alan's original post dared him/her to do it. The parts of that post I find the most entertaining are in fact the parts that are direct attacks on Alan and not his post's content. The choice to single out His stylistic choices of capital letters etc... can in no way be construed as commentary on Alan's content. That is where this started. It was a simple kettle and pot call on this quote that seems to be getting out of hand.



As Baal noted -someone got caught in his own rhetorical attack and is pissed off about it -

So admins feel free to repost

Cheers,
Russ

So your first post in this thread was a great logical exegesis on the nature of the holy ghost, hmm?

As it currently stands, it is only you who are claiming that posts were somehow mangled and distorted. You have yet to prove this to other people.

Despite this being a philosophy forum where "logic"(sic.) and "though"(sic.) prevail

the onus is on you if you wish to state a claim that does not necessarily stand in harmony with facts as others see them. What may be a "Fact" for you is perceived by others as a fact only from you, revealed to you quite repeatedly by the voices in your head, or such is what people will perceive.

It's fairly evident that:

a) Twirlip was a bit rude in his first two posts ("honey, "Aw gee", a bit taunting in general).
b) This looks a lot worse if the (apparently ludicrous) post that it was in response to is deleted, making it look like twirlip reacted that way to a well thought out philosophical viewpoint like jgweed was referencing.

So, nobody wins! :phone:

the other observation is that this particular forum area is called 'evangelism' and i also wonder if alan did indeed mean to post it here or has it been switched by admin from some other area? normally if i feel there is an evangelist trying to get my attention i would turn off my hearing because i find those people trying to force their beliefs on others, even if sincerely believing their beliefs are the only credible ones. but seeing who was taking part in the thread on the list of 'top ten posts' drew my attention so i peeked in, and in fact it kept my attention all the way through.

i have seen a lot of alan's writing, and i would not call him an evangelist using my definition of the word. i dont know if he feels he is one or not. i know he has other websites where he posts, and if he were only looking to showcase his ideas there would be no need to come here. i think he does that only for the purpose of sharing with a group of people who are part of a wider base of individuals and free thinkers.

i wonder what would the reaction have been if the original OP were in the 'creative writing' area.