THAT thread about UKSA...

[jamesjermain]

[ QUOTE ]
& JJ agreed

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I didn't, I merely pointed out that the UKSA had also supported the Gipsy Moth project. I did draw the moderator's and YM's editor's attention to the thread but, in view of the way it was running, I felt it should remain, particularly after the personal details had been edited

 

[DOK]

[ QUOTE ]
Having some work to avoid, I Googled the name and found it, with email and phone number, on another marine employment website.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this "private" information was already publicly available on another website (and presumably still is)?

Anyway, if the concern was in respect of the information contained in the original post, why delete the whole thread.

I'm sure Keith recently promised that he would explain fully any future acts of censorship. Maybe he's on holiday.

 

[Barr Avel]

Sorry, having re-read the original thread I stand corrected. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

Actually, thats exactly where he is.....

 

[DOK]

Gosh, I got something right /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Hang on, who pulled the thread then?

 

[wetndry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having some work to avoid, I Googled the name and found it, with email and phone number, on another marine employment website.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this "private" information was already publicly available on another website (and presumably still is)?

Anyway, if the concern was in respect of the information contained in the original post, why delete the whole thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Because presumably on the other site it was put there with the consent of the person whose info it is

2) Because the other site is not the responsibility of IPC

3) Because the OP and subsequent posts the thread contained detail about the person's CV (for example, later posts mentioned his experience, amount paid for the fasttrack etc).

 

[LadyInBed]

[ QUOTE ]
not the root of democracy and world freedom

[/ QUOTE ] I reel back devastated! I thought it was /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[mikefleetwood]

ALL the information about the CV, experience, cost of fasttrack, etc. was in the Original Post - all the rest was speculation and guesswork. The original poster, or anyone else directly involved, did not reply or add to the story (unless it was after I went home).

It did seem odd to me to launch such a thread into the ether then sit back and ignore it! Perhaps it was posted in the heat of the moment, then regretted and requested pulled?

 

[duncan]

if requested I would agree, if the material presented included a statement to the effect that it shouldn;t be published maybe but effectively most actually include the fact that the content is the property of the sended and it's intended recipient; thus once recieved by the intended recipeint it becomes his issue. If you got hold of it outwith those terms however...........

 

[danfoley]

Hi everyone, sorry for the late reply and for dragging this thread back to the top, but I thought I'd better explain why the original thread was pulled. Before I do I hasten to add that what with the whole of IPC Media moving buildings and the long weekend things have been disrupted more than usual!

I originally edited the post because it showed an email conversation without one party's consent, but thought the rest of it was fine. I eventually pulled the thread because the original poster requested it.

I hope this is satisfactory for everyone, apologies again for taking a while to get back to you.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]
with the whole of IPC Media moving buildings and the long weekend things have been disrupted more than usual!

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder, Dan, did you lose 'anyone' along the way? Fnaar, fnaar!
/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

And thanks for the short explan. It reinforces the confidence in 'real people'......

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[bbg]

Sorry, Dan, but I think you have got it wrong there. Once someone starts a thread, they don't have "ownership" rights to the thread such that they have the right to ask for the thread to be pulled.

I can understand a thread being pulled for legal reasons, but if the original poster has changed his mind, he should come back to the forum and say, "Sorry chaps, I got it wrong." Or otherwise explain his about-face.

 

[Oen]

I'm firmly with bbg.

There was no breach of forum rules, and I don't agree that personal whim is grounds for deletion of the collective consciousness.

Also, it wastes the time and considered input of those who posted replies.

 

[jhr]

A classic illustration of marry in haste, repent at leisure. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If the originator of a thread regrets posting something then I believe that they have a perfect right to request that it be deleted and I think YBW have always made it clear that they will respect the poster's wishes in such situations.

In this case I think it was a bit more than a "personal whim". I imagine the poster realised that he was probably damaging his son's prospects of employment (and seriously embarrassing him, I expect), quite apart from having quoted other people's emails without their consent and laid his son open to ID theft.

If I'd posted something similar, I'd be asking Dan to pull the thread as well

.

 

[danfoley]

I agree that the thread wasn't in breach of rules, and that the poster doesn't have rights over the thread once they've posted it.

However, in this case I just felt that the poster did regret what he'd put up in the heat of the moment and felt sympathetic to his request. I didn't have to pull it of course and I hear what you're saying about feeling annoyed by contributing to a now defunct thread, so apologies for that. I guess I just empathised with the situation!

 

[jenku]

Just curious, but would it have been an alternative (technically at least) to pull the original post but not the thread that followed?

 

[AlJones]

I'm with you guys on this, Dan I understand your explanation also.

I PM'd the dad and invited him to get his son to forward his CV as I may be in a position to give him a opportunity to calm down and have a look at the industry through another angle.

Guess what, Although I got an answer from the dad, Nowt.........Nada...............Nufink................FA from the son!!!!!!!!!!

Leopards and spots eh?

Al.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the thread wasn't in breach of rules, and that the poster doesn't have rights over the thread once they've posted it.

However, in this case I just felt that the poster did regret what he'd put up in the heat of the moment and felt sympathetic to his request. I didn't have to pull it of course and I hear what you're saying about feeling annoyed by contributing to a now defunct thread, so apologies for that. I guess I just empathised with the situation!

[/ QUOTE ]

Having been "at the brunt" of a thread that attacked me and and a few who were with me ... I'm sorry - but I think Dan was completely right to pull the thread. I have no reservation about it at all. There is a line that should be drawn and I think that the thread went over it on first originators post. Subsequent post's IMHO do not absolve the error.
The thread was up long enough anyway to do the damage - so it's acedemic anyway.

 

[duncan]

[ QUOTE ]
Having been "at the brunt" of a thread that attacked me and and a few who were with me

[/ QUOTE ] hmmmmmmmm haven't had one of those for a while - come on Nige try harder!

re the post - I'm with Dan and the operative issues for me were that the OP made a request, Moderator considered the matter and made HIS decision. Finally communicating such to all.

Compared to most forums this is exemplary - many many will pull any post that any member reports (even pushing the 'report button' does the job) without any consideration or explanation at all.

 

[oldharry]

Personally I think the thread should not have been pulled. There was a lot of useful information coming out from people 'the other side of the desk' which was of considerable collective value to anyone in the job market, and I think we have lost a useful reference source.

Nor do I think that if a poster puts up something contentious, and finds forum opinion against him, that the thread should be pulled just because it is embarassing to have so many people disagree!

I think there is a clear distinction between the type of poster who simply attacks and tries to rubbish a posting and the poster, and the kind of considered and factual responses we were getting from many people 'in the know' in this posting.

A few replies were not very helpful it's true, but I see no reason to pull a thread which gave a lot of factual and interesting information, just to save someone a red face!

Its not as if we can even see him blushing!