There is no reason to take exception to my comments, but if you choose to, you will. That is beyond my control, save for my saying nothing when I think I see something wrong for fear that my comments should be taken out of context and cause offense.

For the context of my words you quoted, please (re)read both my original post and Old_Grey_Bear's OP. Both are concerned community policy, not physical layout or code the code used to display it.

What type of patch is required to allow a monk to choose to remove his or her content?

I applaud your recent efforts, along with all those of the other active PMDevers, and all those that have gone before too. I have bever found fault with you for what you have done, nor anyone else for that matter.

There is no reason to take exception to my comments, but if you choose to, you will.

If theres no reason to then I won't, but also realize that my interpretation was not wholly unlikely.

What type of patch is required to allow a monk to choose to remove his or her content?

A reasonable amount of work would have to occur. First off there is the impact on existing threads, second off there is the means of handling it. Do we nuke them? Do we update them? Or what? There a lot of types of node here, handling them all is not super-difficult, but nor is it trivial. Overall I'd say that if someone solved the technical problems (which implies answering the questions i pose) then wed have a good basis for a debate as to how it would/should work. But until then I suspect its a debate wed prefer to avoid as we dont really want to write that code as there are more important things to do. But if it were presented to us outright I doubt we'd just ignore it.

I applaud your recent efforts, along with all those of the other active PMDevers, and all those that have gone before too. I have bever found fault with you for what you have done, nor anyone else for that matter.

Ok, fine. Just remember we have feelings too and that harmless words sometimes arent. :-)

---
demerphq

A reasonable amount of work would have to occur.

I guess my question was to ambiguous in it's wording. I was not trying to get at the technical means of "allowing". That can be done by the author, albeit laboriously, without any patches whatsoever. Indeed, at least one (ex)monk has done this.

The "allowing" I was alluding to, is the policy of allowing him, and honouring, that right. Which requires no patches at all, just the decision to allow it.

Just remember we have feelings too and that harmless words sometimes arent.

If you read the comments I made, in the context in which they were made, you shoud be able to avoid interpreting them as saying things I never said.

Should I quote every earlier post in the thread in order to ensure my comments are read in context?

This thread was never, in any of the posts, mine nor any of the others about the implementation of this site.

There is not a single line or phrase that even vaguely alludes to critisism of that. (I just re-read them all to confirm my memory).

I am totally mystified by your interpetation.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon