On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Chris Mason <chrisma...@belgacom.net>wrote:
> Sam - and John McKown > > > ... some of the responses to the OP's post were funny in a way. > > Checking the archives and as I recall, I was the only person who responded > to > the OP's OP. All the response did - since supposedly it was calling on "IMS > experts" - was to mention that the IMS-L list was the place to find the > greatest concentration of IMS experts - I expect. > > I assume you didn't mean this solitary post was funny - or maybe you did! > > No not those responses. > John > > In an earlier post or two you mentioned that "post recall" was a lost > cause. > What your list of reasons did *not* cover was the possibility that there > had > already been responses here in the IBM-MAIN list with the OP quoted in full > as > in fact there was one where it was - in all its shameful glory - whatever > that > was! > > - > > As others have noted, I wouldn't have bothered with this thread at all > except > that it seems to have been spinning along for such a long time. Of course, > now that I am paying attention, I was able to see a reason to participate > and > spin it out even further: > > Does the question of the morality of removing posts extend to removing the > responses to a removed post in which the removed post is quoted in full? > > Chris Mason > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:56:05 -0700, Sam Siegel <s...@pscsi.net> wrote: > > >Agree ... some of the responses to the OP's post were funny in a way. > > > >On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > > > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> Not directly relevant to the morality issue but FWIW it occurs to me > that > >> the OP would have been in much better shape if he had written Darren > >> privately. I was not even aware of the post until this brouhaha erupted, > >> and > >> then out of curiosity I went back and read it. Others are probably in > the > >> same boat. > >> > >> Charles > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On > >> Behalf > >> Of Sam Siegel > >> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:56 PM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > >> Subject: Re: Deleting post > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > No, John said "no action that is *a fortiori ineffectual* can be > >> immoral." > >> > (Emphasis added.) In other words, if the action has little or no > >> > effect, what's the harm? Darren has not erased the post from history, > >> > only from a single archive. > >> > > >> > Charles > >> > > >> > >> As a general statement (which is what John seems to be making) it does > not > >> take into account magnitude and nature of action. In the specific case > of > >> Darren deleting the post the magnitude is low is and it is also of an > >> uneventful nature. One can make the argument an fortiori ineffectual > >> attempt to rob someone (mild example here) is still immoral even if it > was > >> ineffectual. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
