Deleted posts....

[Anonymous]

RE: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/4800/850091.page

Hi, Jeff. Do you mind telling me why was the post at 22:28 of this thread was allowed to remain, while the strong negative reactions to it were deleted? That's hardly a representation of what people on the thread think, and it's especially unfair if the person who reported the posts was the PP at 22:28.

I'm really disgusted by the hatred expressed toward Meghan and Harry and I'm trying to counteract it. It's like paddling upstream. I think people have a right to know what everyone on the thread thinks.

[jsteele]

The 22:28 post was about Meghan who is the subject of the thread. The posts I removed were all attacking the poster. That does not mean that I agree with the post -- I don't have an opinion as there are very few things that I care less about than the royal family -- but it is on-topic. Attacks on other posters are not on-topic.

[Anonymous]

Were those posts reported by 22:28?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RE: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/4800/850091.page

Hi, Jeff. Do you mind telling me why was the post at 22:28 of this thread was allowed to remain, while the strong negative reactions to it were deleted? That's hardly a representation of what people on the thread think, and it's especially unfair if the person who reported the posts was the PP at 22:28.

I'm really disgusted by the hatred expressed toward Meghan and Harry and I'm trying to counteract it. It's like paddling upstream. I think people have a right to know what everyone on the thread thinks.

That thread is 320+ pages. Even if such a "right" existed (it doesn't), who would demand it? I think one of my posts there yesterday also got deleted, but I'm not going to wade through dozens of pages to find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RE: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/4800/850091.page

Hi, Jeff. Do you mind telling me why was the post at 22:28 of this thread was allowed to remain, while the strong negative reactions to it were deleted? That's hardly a representation of what people on the thread think, and it's especially unfair if the person who reported the posts was the PP at 22:28.

I'm really disgusted by the hatred expressed toward Meghan and Harry and I'm trying to counteract it. It's like paddling upstream. I think people have a right to know what everyone on the thread thinks.

That thread is 320+ pages. Even if such a "right" existed (it doesn't), who would demand it? I think one of my posts there yesterday also got deleted, but I'm not going to wade through dozens of pages to find out.

Do you want points for that or something? The posts were at the end of the thread. No wading necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

Calling someone “mental” is an unnecessary personal attack. If you want to respond, respond to the substance of the post, not with a personal attack. Responses like yours degrade the quality of DCUM as much as anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

Calling someone “mental” is an unnecessary personal attack. If you want to respond, respond to the substance of the post, not with a personal attack. Responses like yours degrade the quality of DCUM as much as anything else.

Have you even read the thread? People are posting crazy s$%t on there and it's fair to tell them that. They think they are mind readers who know the workings of the royal couple's minds and souls. It's crazy. No other way to describe it.

[Anonymous]

And BTW there was a really good post also deleted that explained why the poster was so upset.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

Calling someone “mental” is an unnecessary personal attack. If you want to respond, respond to the substance of the post, not with a personal attack. Responses like yours degrade the quality of DCUM as much as anything else.

Have you even read the thread? People are posting crazy s$%t on there and it's fair to tell them that. They think they are mind readers who know the workings of the royal couple's minds and souls. It's crazy. No other way to describe it.

Personally, I don't think anyone who is getting this worked up about two people they will never meet and obsessively posting in a 320 page thread needs to be commenting on anyone else's mental state, regardless of their views on the couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And BTW there was a really good post also deleted that explained why the poster was so upset.

Then that poster should repost the point without any personal insults attached. It’s not that hard.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

Calling someone “mental” is an unnecessary personal attack. If you want to respond, respond to the substance of the post, not with a personal attack. Responses like yours degrade the quality of DCUM as much as anything else.

Have you even read the thread? People are posting crazy s$%t on there and it's fair to tell them that. They think they are mind readers who know the workings of the royal couple's minds and souls. It's crazy. No other way to describe it.

Personally, I don't think anyone who is getting this worked up about two people they will never meet and obsessively posting in a 320 page thread needs to be commenting on anyone else's mental state, regardless of their views on the couple.

So that's okay to say to me? I thought you said that was not acceptable. And I only jumped on the thread towards the end. It is shockingly hateful.

But since you think it's appropriate to disparage my mental state, I'll say thank you for breaking my DCUM habit and call it a day.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were those posts reported by 22:28?

DP who hasn’t posted on that thread in at least a couple dozen pages. Who cares if it is? If those posts were personal attacks on the poster, why should the poster have to endure that unless and until someone else decides to report them?

Because if someone is posting hateful posts and others are saying, "You are mental" "that is crazy" then it's in response to their attitude toward the subject -- which they are publicly stating. No one was saying to 22:28 anything remotely like, "You are a horrible, self-serving, gold digging, using, attention seeking, self-pimping scum bag" which many on the thread are saying about Meghan. If you're going to sling that kind of crap around, then you shouldn't be immune from people's strong reactions to it IMO. It's not like someone is being kind and polite and being attacked for no reason.

I think people should be aware how others respond to their sentiments. Otherwise it seems like posters like 22:28 are in the majority, and their opinions are acceptable to others, when they are not.

Calling someone “mental” is an unnecessary personal attack. If you want to respond, respond to the substance of the post, not with a personal attack. Responses like yours degrade the quality of DCUM as much as anything else.

Have you even read the thread? People are posting crazy s$%t on there and it's fair to tell them that. They think they are mind readers who know the workings of the royal couple's minds and souls. It's crazy. No other way to describe it.

Personally, I don't think anyone who is getting this worked up about two people they will never meet and obsessively posting in a 320 page thread needs to be commenting on anyone else's mental state, regardless of their views on the couple.

So that's okay to say to me? I thought you said that was not acceptable. And I only jumped on the thread towards the end. It is shockingly hateful.

But since you think it's appropriate to disparage my mental state, I'll say thank you for breaking my DCUM habit and call it a day.

Wow, you want to be able to call other posters "mental" but then get offended by my mild comment? Good thing you were not the target of your own post which was considerably more harsh.

[Anonymous]

This is the kind of thread that brings me to website feedback.

(And I do have an opinion about the Royal situation but I like having that convo on a site with names! So much kinder than I’m assumingbthis one is being)