General Chat

So ... I'm waiting for a reply as to what rule my post on this board broke.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Actually, I'm waiting for a reply to tell me which POST of mine was deleted.

The standard email now seems to identify neither the post that was deleted nor the reason why it's deleted.

Hey, that's progress from the previous régime, eh?

They didn't give reasons, but at least they identified the post.

Now, we get this:
______________________________________________________________

It has been brought to our attention that the nature of this posting breaches
the Message Board guidelines and terms and conditions of our website
and the item has now been removed from Genes Reunited.

Continuing to create content of this nature may result in your eventual
removal from the site.
______________________________________________________________

with NO information about WHICH POST broke a rule, let alone WHICH RULE it broke.

So smart it hurts, this is.

Nothing much changes does it Rose? Such a shame there are some very petty persons on here and the 'management' are still getting it wrong ;-)

I have been in contact with a fairly new poster who has had three posts removed since the weekend

One was on living rellies.....No personal info at all not even a name

One on suggestions .....Again nothing wrong with the post

and another which I was told was started 30th April and now gone

The poster has been told that they can repost on the same boards if they want to????


If there was nothing wrong why remove it?

jax

I've received a weird and wonderful explanation for the removal of my Kate Middleton post. Two-pronged. Apparently one may not publish facetious "assumptions" about the health of public persons in the UK lest one suffer the wrath of the law; I very much doubt that this was the nature of the complaint actually made. And it was "offensive". I love that second one. All the assorted bigotry one sees on this board, all the quite insulting things said about politicians and others on this baord, and it's "offensive" to say something mildly disparaging about a public person not present here.

Let us all be careful not to mention the little princesses' hats now.

But if anybody wants to send me an email address, I do have a quite entertaining photo essay on that last ...

Maybe these removal of posts etc are due to the probs we are having, GR have apologised about the Page 1 problem....although l don't think they have mentioned the removals, its a thought though!!

jude

The removal of my tips threads were nothing to do with any site problems, they just disappeared. The powers that be said that is the sort of thread that we like, please feel free to post it again. I don't keep copies normally; I have re-done some but not all. Makes one wonder what is the point (rhetorically).

When I reported one for too much personal info re being in prison what he looked like age name ect it was request review for an hour or so then back on.

Shall not bother anymore

jax

How is it "offensive" to suggest someone may have a 'disease' based on what you can see ?

I used to watch the old pope John Paul ii, long before it was publicised that he had Parkinsons...and , because of my personal knowledge of the symptoms, 'assumed' he had it... not an 'offensive' assumption in any way.

Had I posted a thread saying I noticed he had "the shakes, the rather blank expression that comes with PD, the hesitation of speech " would that have been reported I wonder?

It concerns me that someone who may be suffering from anorexia, may be reluctant to speak of it because it is something that is somehow impolite or may be offensive to mention it.

Jax I saw that post also, and was about to report but got there later than you evidently lol.

I wonder what the reason given for deleting Fairy's post was? No names were mentioned, just a query as to whether, if ones child had commited murders, one would still visit or disown him/her...a suitably vague and acceptable topic to think about I would have thought.