Who owns what

Pleasurably delete that which you own.


  1. item 20166
  2. high horse


Seth says
seth of group seth 2016-02-26 16:43:06 [item 20166#46968]
Well all of that is fine and i agree.   But you just changed the subject and are being oblivious to my concern.  None of the examples you are talking about in your epistle here bear on my concern.

Here is the dilema the way i see it … here is a real situation exaggerated so that you that might see what concerns me here.     Suppose you diligently worked on a opus in your own studio for years.   You invited a person into your studio  to view it.

Now suppose that person walks up to your masterpiece and scribbles something on it in.   Then he goes, oh shucks, i want that deleted … so he proceeds to cut his scribbling out of your canvas destroying the canvass.   Now certainly that person is being immoral … but does he have that right just because it was his scribbling?   Are we to create a system that, when faced with that dilemma, we enforces the right of a visitor in a home over the rights of the home owner.  A man should be king in his castle … there his right should soverign. 

It is a moral dilema.  Please think about that dilema and no other.

Poe of group da 2016-02-26 18:31:09 [item 20166#46975]
I don’t understand how this delema is set up.

If you invite him in by giving him the password, then he as equal rights to you on all thoughts. That is the nature of membership groups. Don’t give out the password to people you don’t want to be in that situation with. And if someone screws you that you trusted, there is no help for it.

If you invite him in by making it an open group, then he can’t take control of your thoughts, he can only create his own. And those he should be able to delete if he chooses.

If you got the group from someone else, then you and that someone should have an agreement about the thoughts. There could be a protocol to batch transfer ownership of thoughts based on the owner of the thoughts being the initiator of it. That would be easy to make.

Comments should be subject to these same rules and when they are atomized they will be. The only issue right now is that, since a thread can contain comments by multiple people, there is a small delema. It is an undesirable situation, but if one person in the thread needs his comment deleted for his own important reason, which cannot be rightly judged by others, only him, that should be morally more important than the comments by others. We will strive to not have this happen, but until it can be fixed, that is the right moral choice. It protects the innocent.

I am not seeing how someone can walk in and take over any part of a thought canvas, scribble on it, and delete it, unless they are an equal group member … and that is how membered groups work. At the moment, membered groups don’t even have owners, they are equally shared space and I have heard lots of arguments, by both you and mark, since I have been here, why that is best for that type of group. In all other groups, the group owner has final say, even delete power, over thoughts by others, and others only have power over their own.
well if you can quote continue a thread, the way the system works now, you own that thead and can delete it entirely.   here i will go test that in one of your groups,  like group da … yep worked as i knew it would … see http://www.fastblogit.com/item/20031#46043 

i guess you know that there is a solution that satisfies not only our desire to allow a person to withdraw their own work, but also does not permit them to delete others.   Let the person delete any thread that they own … just like you want … but cycle through all the comments in the thread and delete only his.

Holmes says
MR of group mark 2016-03-03 08:36:20 [item 20166#47739]
I don’t get why the above 2 landed here.
seth of group seth 2016-03-03 10:12:21 [item 20166#47800]
Well,  did you not intentionally post your comment to “Who owns what” ?
MR of group mark 2016-03-03 10:16:28 [item 20166#47802]
IDK – I didn’t think I was posting at the end of that list. The concordance thingy is much more useful than a list of links . A list of links is like a tag cloud without the order by count. Anyway , thanks for responding. yes
seth of group seth 2016-03-03 10:19:34 [item 20166#47803]
i look at !contents as a super simple way to build a table of contents.  as such, i find it ultimately useful.   you are going to need to make your case for a !concordance separately and independently. 
Poe of group da 2016-03-03 10:20:50 [item 20166#47804]
? And get Obama to fund it too please!
MR of group mark 2016-03-03 10:25:16 [item 20166#47805]
I’ve thrown it out into the cosmic ooze. Let Darwin deal with it now. The customer, when you get one, will eat it by the law of selective spending or not. Rebooting …..
Why do customers always eat things in your verse? Is there some problem with eating there?