Posted by Lou Pilder on October 9, 2006, at 7:37:41
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by zazenducky on October 8, 2006, at 17:41:47
zazenducky,
You wrote,[...pass judgment on relevance...]
I am proposing that there be in the FAQ here a well-defined way to determine if a statement is to be redacted from a thread as having the potential to divert the innitiator's topic to another destination. This is commonally refered to as "highjacking" in internet parlance.
Your question as to the determination of relevance could be handled, if I was the administrator, by listing in the FAQ the criteria that determines if a statement is relevant or not.
Once the list is incorporated in the FAQ, then those criteria could be what determines if a statement is relevant to the discussion or not.
I do not think that a personal attack upon the innitiator of the thread is relevant. Nor do I think that if the >subject< is changed, that that could be relevant. In the case at hand, DR. Hsiung highlighted the poster's statement [...no more replies...]. I think that that statement could divert the thread to {stop}, which could be IMO a form of "highjacking" as in this case the poster would cause his/her own thread to stop moving completly if there were [...no more replies...], {"crash"?} So I would like to include DR. Hsiung's case in point in that FAQ about statements that could have the potential of diverting threads.
If you or anyone else would like to see posts here that illistrate my proposal, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:693061
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/693279.html