TO ALL.....
Comments
-
For Those Who Want To Lock Posts...
Why?
Is it because it bothers people that someone died?
Isn't a post on juicing still relevant now even if it was created in 2005?
If we started a new thread, then would we have to cross reference the old post so the continuity of the thread makes sense?
From the comments I've read, it seems more of an "uncomfortability factor" of who's posting than posts not being relevant to what members want to talk about.
Can someone explain this to me and to the others who feel that threads should not be locked why you think the threads should be locked.
Thanks...
-p0 -
DittoPhillieG said:For Those Who Want To Lock Posts...
Why?
Is it because it bothers people that someone died?
Isn't a post on juicing still relevant now even if it was created in 2005?
If we started a new thread, then would we have to cross reference the old post so the continuity of the thread makes sense?
From the comments I've read, it seems more of an "uncomfortability factor" of who's posting than posts not being relevant to what members want to talk about.
Can someone explain this to me and to the others who feel that threads should not be locked why you think the threads should be locked.
Thanks...
-p
Also, I'm thinking that others that have moved on in their life might have had something releveant to say way back when and if brought to the forefront again it might be beneficial to someone new - someone not used to searching the board for a certain topic. Don't look back on someone that has passed as always sad because that person just being on this board contributed much valued information, whether a kind word, an experience, a prayer, a research contribution, etc. The only problem is when a hacker gets on and brings old posts up just to spam us - that's when it's sad to see a person we lost.
Kim0 -
A couple of thingsPhillieG said:For Those Who Want To Lock Posts...
Why?
Is it because it bothers people that someone died?
Isn't a post on juicing still relevant now even if it was created in 2005?
If we started a new thread, then would we have to cross reference the old post so the continuity of the thread makes sense?
From the comments I've read, it seems more of an "uncomfortability factor" of who's posting than posts not being relevant to what members want to talk about.
Can someone explain this to me and to the others who feel that threads should not be locked why you think the threads should be locked.
Thanks...
-p
* Often, when someone responds to an old thread, they get few, if any answers.
* Spammers seem to target old threads (most of the recent spam attacks I've seen were old threads)
* Sometimes, the question in an old thread (like the one John linked to) is addressed to a particular user, who will never answer
* There does seem to be a limit where the "new post" feature works on threads. Once the post count gets too high the thread opens at the beginning regargless
The thread is still relevant, can still be found in a search, may answer whatever question the searcher had. Of course, times have changed, treatments are a bit different, there may be solutions that have not be brought to the fore...
Add to that the uncomfortable factor, and yes, there is a good argument for locking old threads.
Of course this whole conversation is moot if the forum software does not allow for thread locking...0 -
Addressing Your PointsBuckwirth said:A couple of things
* Often, when someone responds to an old thread, they get few, if any answers.
* Spammers seem to target old threads (most of the recent spam attacks I've seen were old threads)
* Sometimes, the question in an old thread (like the one John linked to) is addressed to a particular user, who will never answer
* There does seem to be a limit where the "new post" feature works on threads. Once the post count gets too high the thread opens at the beginning regargless
The thread is still relevant, can still be found in a search, may answer whatever question the searcher had. Of course, times have changed, treatments are a bit different, there may be solutions that have not be brought to the fore...
Add to that the uncomfortable factor, and yes, there is a good argument for locking old threads.
Of course this whole conversation is moot if the forum software does not allow for thread locking...
Looking at these points:
* Often, when someone responds to an old thread, they get few, if any answers.
-that happens with new posts too. If people aren't interested they won't respond, period.
* Spammers seem to target old threads (most of the recent spam attacks I've seen were old threads)
-that makes it VERY easy to spot spam. Those are eliminated by the Elves on the night shift and threads stay in the order they were in before the spam attack.
* Sometimes, the question in an old thread (like the one John linked to) is addressed to a particular user, who will never answer
-sometimes new members don't respond. Thats the way it's been and will be.
* There does seem to be a limit where the "new post" feature works on threads. Once the post count gets too high the thread opens at the beginning regargless
-as long as you select the correct link you will be directed to the new posts that were made since your last visit. At times I do find it confusing when people may mean to respond to the original post, but they comment on someone else's response and then I've found I have to chek the date and time of the posts. Even the post you mentioned in the Spirituality Forum which has over 200 responses goes to the new ones for me
The people we miss had voices. I can't help but view this idea as silencing the dead. I know I'd be dead but I'd really be offended by this.
I have no idea what software they use...0 -
I didnt read all the threadsPhillieG said:Addressing Your Points
Looking at these points:
* Often, when someone responds to an old thread, they get few, if any answers.
-that happens with new posts too. If people aren't interested they won't respond, period.
* Spammers seem to target old threads (most of the recent spam attacks I've seen were old threads)
-that makes it VERY easy to spot spam. Those are eliminated by the Elves on the night shift and threads stay in the order they were in before the spam attack.
* Sometimes, the question in an old thread (like the one John linked to) is addressed to a particular user, who will never answer
-sometimes new members don't respond. Thats the way it's been and will be.
* There does seem to be a limit where the "new post" feature works on threads. Once the post count gets too high the thread opens at the beginning regargless
-as long as you select the correct link you will be directed to the new posts that were made since your last visit. At times I do find it confusing when people may mean to respond to the original post, but they comment on someone else's response and then I've found I have to chek the date and time of the posts. Even the post you mentioned in the Spirituality Forum which has over 200 responses goes to the new ones for me
The people we miss had voices. I can't help but view this idea as silencing the dead. I know I'd be dead but I'd really be offended by this.
I have no idea what software they use...
I didnt read all the threads here but I do get a jolt when I see the faces of those departed friends. I would say the jolt is because they passed from a desease that we all have. A reminder that some are dying from this, will we be next? My input.
But maybe their picture should state the date of their death or just say, wil be missed, lost the fight or something similar0 -
I agree with Phil
I agree with Phil that it is nice to think our words live on after us. And Phil, I suffer from no delusions that anyone will EVER have the last word with you. *grins*
It startles me sometimes to the point of a sharp intake of breath to see one of our dear ones who is gone, but I do still like to look at their faces and remind myself how dear and precious they still are to me.
*hugs*
Gail0 -
Good grief.PhillieG said:Addressing Your Points
Looking at these points:
* Often, when someone responds to an old thread, they get few, if any answers.
-that happens with new posts too. If people aren't interested they won't respond, period.
* Spammers seem to target old threads (most of the recent spam attacks I've seen were old threads)
-that makes it VERY easy to spot spam. Those are eliminated by the Elves on the night shift and threads stay in the order they were in before the spam attack.
* Sometimes, the question in an old thread (like the one John linked to) is addressed to a particular user, who will never answer
-sometimes new members don't respond. Thats the way it's been and will be.
* There does seem to be a limit where the "new post" feature works on threads. Once the post count gets too high the thread opens at the beginning regargless
-as long as you select the correct link you will be directed to the new posts that were made since your last visit. At times I do find it confusing when people may mean to respond to the original post, but they comment on someone else's response and then I've found I have to chek the date and time of the posts. Even the post you mentioned in the Spirituality Forum which has over 200 responses goes to the new ones for me
The people we miss had voices. I can't help but view this idea as silencing the dead. I know I'd be dead but I'd really be offended by this.
I have no idea what software they use...
I started this thread because we have new individuals asking
dead people questions and expecting answers. When they ask
three dead people and are ignored three times, they wonder
what's wrong.
There's nothing "wrong", they just need Dionne Warwick to get
their message through!
Cancer kills. I'm sure there are some that need to be reminded
of that really ugly fact, but just reading through the archives, or
doing a search for a topic and dredging up an old thread will
provide a perfect illustration of just how deadly cancer is.
But once an old thread (2009?) is resurrected by posting to it,
it will again appear to be a "new" thread. Unless of course,
someone takes the time to look at the thread's initial date.
But how many of us do that?
I've posted to an old thread because I didn't expect to see a
thread from 2006 on the top of the pile. If it was "locked",
it would have been prevented from being resurrected.
There is no loss of data, and the words of the original poster,
dead or alive, remains intact and perfectly readable.
The only difference, is that we won't have unsuspecting people
asking questions, or providing answers to the deceased.
Imagine hovering in the ether, looking down at someone that's
finally asking you a question you can answer........ and thinking
"What the #$%^, how am I gonna' answer that clown?"
A bolt of lightening maybe?
Seriously, it isn't about being made sad, it's about preventing
the resurrection of threads and replying to those that can no
longer answer.
It's just common sense... isn't it?
Best wishes to all.
John0 -
Well hopefully they wouldJohn23 said:Good grief.
I started this thread because we have new individuals asking
dead people questions and expecting answers. When they ask
three dead people and are ignored three times, they wonder
what's wrong.
There's nothing "wrong", they just need Dionne Warwick to get
their message through!
Cancer kills. I'm sure there are some that need to be reminded
of that really ugly fact, but just reading through the archives, or
doing a search for a topic and dredging up an old thread will
provide a perfect illustration of just how deadly cancer is.
But once an old thread (2009?) is resurrected by posting to it,
it will again appear to be a "new" thread. Unless of course,
someone takes the time to look at the thread's initial date.
But how many of us do that?
I've posted to an old thread because I didn't expect to see a
thread from 2006 on the top of the pile. If it was "locked",
it would have been prevented from being resurrected.
There is no loss of data, and the words of the original poster,
dead or alive, remains intact and perfectly readable.
The only difference, is that we won't have unsuspecting people
asking questions, or providing answers to the deceased.
Imagine hovering in the ether, looking down at someone that's
finally asking you a question you can answer........ and thinking
"What the #$%^, how am I gonna' answer that clown?"
A bolt of lightening maybe?
Seriously, it isn't about being made sad, it's about preventing
the resurrection of threads and replying to those that can no
longer answer.
It's just common sense... isn't it?
Best wishes to all.
John
Well hopefully they would realize what the dates are on either the initial post or the responses. I would think if someone did not post an answer to a question I asked they might either be in treatment or perhaps dead. I would like to think they would only ignore if they had passed on though and not because they just wanted to ignore me
I sometime like to look back at old posts, I miss some of the people, plus it shows me how far I have come. I am still friends with many who have passed on from here on my Facebook page,but I would never delete them from there either.0 -
No one is talking about deletingchristinecarl said:Well hopefully they would
Well hopefully they would realize what the dates are on either the initial post or the responses. I would think if someone did not post an answer to a question I asked they might either be in treatment or perhaps dead. I would like to think they would only ignore if they had passed on though and not because they just wanted to ignore me
I sometime like to look back at old posts, I miss some of the people, plus it shows me how far I have come. I am still friends with many who have passed on from here on my Facebook page,but I would never delete them from there either.
locking a thread just prevents any new posts to it.0 -
Me
I'm with Gail on this one, same feelings, I see a face of one who has passed on, I kind of catch my breath, but have gotten to the point I can smile after and think of them fondly and enjoy their words. So I kind of enjoy when an old post pops up, and I can see their faces, and "hear" their words again, I find it rather comforting. And if the threads were locked, I would never get to "accidentally" see their faces again, as I tend not to search through old posts (lack of knowledge how to for one)
Just my thoughts,
Winter Marie0 -
Winter-Marie ---- (et al)herdizziness said:Me
I'm with Gail on this one, same feelings, I see a face of one who has passed on, I kind of catch my breath, but have gotten to the point I can smile after and think of them fondly and enjoy their words. So I kind of enjoy when an old post pops up, and I can see their faces, and "hear" their words again, I find it rather comforting. And if the threads were locked, I would never get to "accidentally" see their faces again, as I tend not to search through old posts (lack of knowledge how to for one)
Just my thoughts,
Winter Marie
Re:
"And if the threads were locked, I would never get to "accidentally" see their faces again,"
Wow.... I really don't know how this topic has taken such a bad turn.
Of course you can "see their faces again". You can read what they typed,
and consume the thoughts they tried to convey. The only thing you can't
do, is ask them a question, or give them a reply.
That, is what "locking a thread", is all about!
Doing a search for any topic will still produce threads from the past,
just as they do now. The only @#$%^& difference, is that you will
not be able to post anything to that thread!
Why is that such a problem to anyone? Why would anyone want to
ask someone that is no longer alive, a question? Why would anyone
want to give a reply to someone that can not read that reply?
I miss those that have died, but I shed more tears over those that
are on their way to that destination. I wish I could stop the madness
and remove the fear of trying something different.......
But all that has nothing to do with the problem of old dead threads
being resurrected as if they were new.
There are solutions to everything, and locking an old thread, is just one.
Oh well.....
Be well.... Life's short!
John0 -
LOL JohnJohn23 said:Winter-Marie ---- (et al)
Re:
"And if the threads were locked, I would never get to "accidentally" see their faces again,"
Wow.... I really don't know how this topic has taken such a bad turn.
Of course you can "see their faces again". You can read what they typed,
and consume the thoughts they tried to convey. The only thing you can't
do, is ask them a question, or give them a reply.
That, is what "locking a thread", is all about!
Doing a search for any topic will still produce threads from the past,
just as they do now. The only @#$%^& difference, is that you will
not be able to post anything to that thread!
Why is that such a problem to anyone? Why would anyone want to
ask someone that is no longer alive, a question? Why would anyone
want to give a reply to someone that can not read that reply?
I miss those that have died, but I shed more tears over those that
are on their way to that destination. I wish I could stop the madness
and remove the fear of trying something different.......
But all that has nothing to do with the problem of old dead threads
being resurrected as if they were new.
There are solutions to everything, and locking an old thread, is just one.
Oh well.....
Be well.... Life's short!
John
I just never really go back to threads,and if they were locked then no one would cause them to "pop" up on occasion, and when one from the past pops up, I don't know, I guess I kind of like seeing it, kind of like coming across an old picture you forgot you had of a good time, and it invokes a pleasant memory for that moment, and I kind of like those moments. I'll keep my vote out of this though, I'm computer illiterate as to solutions and such.
Love at ya man, you know I loves ya,
Winter Marie0 -
Winter-Marie....herdizziness said:LOL John
I just never really go back to threads,and if they were locked then no one would cause them to "pop" up on occasion, and when one from the past pops up, I don't know, I guess I kind of like seeing it, kind of like coming across an old picture you forgot you had of a good time, and it invokes a pleasant memory for that moment, and I kind of like those moments. I'll keep my vote out of this though, I'm computer illiterate as to solutions and such.
Love at ya man, you know I loves ya,
Winter Marie
Re:
"kind of like coming across an old picture you forgot you had of a good time"
Yeah, I hear ya'. It's like that picture of Blake that I have up here on
my dart board.
(just kiddin' Blake, old man...)
Seriously, I didn't intend to start a fiasco over this, I just felt bad
for the "new member" that asked a question to someone that's
died some time ago.
I will not go into details, but we have a forum for a totally different
topic as part of our side business. Years ago, I left old threads intact,
since the info was never "old". But I found that questions were being
directed to people that had posted 8 years prior. Who knows where
those posters are now? Who sits for years, waiting to get a reply?
I don't want to even be on "hold" with a phone contact for more than
five minutes..... but 8 years? Crazy!!
After I finally go, please don't try to ask me a question, ok? I'll be too
busy shovelling coal into the furnaces of hell, and if I stop to answer you,
he'll add another trillion years to my sentence.
Be well.... (love'ya' too!)
(shhh, don't tell anyone I said that)
John0 -
LOLJohn23 said:Winter-Marie....
Re:
"kind of like coming across an old picture you forgot you had of a good time"
Yeah, I hear ya'. It's like that picture of Blake that I have up here on
my dart board.
(just kiddin' Blake, old man...)
Seriously, I didn't intend to start a fiasco over this, I just felt bad
for the "new member" that asked a question to someone that's
died some time ago.
I will not go into details, but we have a forum for a totally different
topic as part of our side business. Years ago, I left old threads intact,
since the info was never "old". But I found that questions were being
directed to people that had posted 8 years prior. Who knows where
those posters are now? Who sits for years, waiting to get a reply?
I don't want to even be on "hold" with a phone contact for more than
five minutes..... but 8 years? Crazy!!
After I finally go, please don't try to ask me a question, ok? I'll be too
busy shovelling coal into the furnaces of hell, and if I stop to answer you,
he'll add another trillion years to my sentence.
Be well.... (love'ya' too!)
(shhh, don't tell anyone I said that)
John
Well, I see where you're coming from, you have to hit the blond on the head a couple of times, so your point is the poor guy who asks a question on a 5 year old post, and he's wondering why he isn't getting an answer from the original poster who is possibly no longer with us, so then that person feels ignored and unwanted in an already confusing, sad, lonely world of cancer. Got ya.
Winter Marie0 -
and then there is....
Sometimes I find myself reading a long thread with fascination only discover a response I myself posted -- years ago. Since I have truly terrible memory problems, I'm always interested to find out what I wrote! Just kidding -- I appreciate this current thread and agree that it would be good to have the information still readable, but to stop additional responses after a certain length of time....
Tara0 -
Gailtootsie1 said:I agree with Phil
I agree with Phil that it is nice to think our words live on after us. And Phil, I suffer from no delusions that anyone will EVER have the last word with you. *grins*
It startles me sometimes to the point of a sharp intake of breath to see one of our dear ones who is gone, but I do still like to look at their faces and remind myself how dear and precious they still are to me.
*hugs*
Gail
You've got my number!
I already have the Ouiji Board app for my iPad (which I plan on taking with me when I go.)
There may never be a last word with me
;-)
I often feel the same way Gail when I see someone who is no longer with us.0 -
An Additional SolutiontaraHK said:and then there is....
Sometimes I find myself reading a long thread with fascination only discover a response I myself posted -- years ago. Since I have truly terrible memory problems, I'm always interested to find out what I wrote! Just kidding -- I appreciate this current thread and agree that it would be good to have the information still readable, but to stop additional responses after a certain length of time....
Tara
If it is decided not to lock "old" threads and you notice a new member waiting for a response from someone who is no longer with us, you might do a kindness by making them aware of that fact or calling their attention to the original thread date. When I was a new member, I did not search for a specific topic. It was just a big general cry for any and all help.
Blake and John,
Fascinating to see you guys getting along. Just don't get too mushy on us.
Luv,
Wolfen0 -
We Are Not Alone...
What about the other forums that are not as active as ours? There ARE other forums. If someone isn't as fortunate as us to have a more common cancer where there are a lot of advances being made (yes, we ARE fortunate that we don't have something like pancreatic cancer), people do not post as frequently so how would locking posts benefit them? Do you think this would ONLY apply to us?
So we have to look at a date on a post. Big deal.
How often is this an issue? Once a month possibly?
As you said John, it's just common sense...
Let it be
-phil
PS: there is a Grief and Bereavement Forum on this site.0 -
Holy Carp, Batman......PhillieG said:We Are Not Alone...
What about the other forums that are not as active as ours? There ARE other forums. If someone isn't as fortunate as us to have a more common cancer where there are a lot of advances being made (yes, we ARE fortunate that we don't have something like pancreatic cancer), people do not post as frequently so how would locking posts benefit them? Do you think this would ONLY apply to us?
So we have to look at a date on a post. Big deal.
How often is this an issue? Once a month possibly?
As you said John, it's just common sense...
Let it be
-phil
PS: there is a Grief and Bereavement Forum on this site.
There are other forums? LOL!
I am enjoying this thread and I must chime in my opinion. I say let it be. I'm fairly new and luckily felt my way around and figured out the protocal. However, had I posted on an old post, I would not have been offended had someone come on and told me to start my own thread and perhaps guide me through the proper procedure. This can be daunting to some posters and help is usually appreciated.
I enjoy reading the old posts. They helped me to get to know you guys better and answered a lot of the questions I had without asking them again (although I did sometimes ask again, just for my own clarification.)
JMHO
Deb0 -
and what about a caregiver,PhillieG said:We Are Not Alone...
What about the other forums that are not as active as ours? There ARE other forums. If someone isn't as fortunate as us to have a more common cancer where there are a lot of advances being made (yes, we ARE fortunate that we don't have something like pancreatic cancer), people do not post as frequently so how would locking posts benefit them? Do you think this would ONLY apply to us?
So we have to look at a date on a post. Big deal.
How often is this an issue? Once a month possibly?
As you said John, it's just common sense...
Let it be
-phil
PS: there is a Grief and Bereavement Forum on this site.
and what about a caregiver, we have a lot of them on the board, who didn't die, but still don't post.
And what about those who never died and rarely if ever post anymore, like that spongebob person?
and those that passed, maybe like a fancy funeral ribbon across their picture with RIP on it?
(sorry, I wasn't serious, just throwing things out there)
And you are right- some of these boards if you lock the threads after a certain period, then there would be no posts to respond to.
I have seen a couple of great "john" posts to some of the threads, like, "say, you might want to post this in a new thread as so-and-so can't respond, or they don't come here anymore"
I still think just to leave them alone.
Great conversation though!:) 0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 122.1K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 448 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 398 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 673 Leukemia
- 795 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 239 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.2K Ovarian Cancer
- 65 Pancreatic Cancer
- 490 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 543 Sarcoma
- 738 Skin Cancer
- 658 Stomach Cancer
- 192 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards