# self-deleted posts: not really deleted



## Bonjules

Moderator Note:  This post has been copied from its original location here.

Hola,
It just happened to me that a forer@ published
(without my permission, obviously) part of a post
I had entirely deleted myself. I had done so because
the same person had posted just before mine went out
and I felt my post was not appropriate any more, given the new situation.
The forer@ was able to do that due to the instant e-mail
notification.
I guess we can not always expect that other forer@s will
respect our wishes in what we want to publish and what not. Aside from the fact that in this instance this was used to put me in a bad light, this does not seem a good
situation to me. Maybe there could be a short delay before the E-mails go out so the poster can review the entire picture after the post appears since often intervening posts habe been made ( at least a few minutes would seem reasonable, during which time
he/she could see if the post is still necessary/appropriate).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

There is a rule against posting the contents of private messages, but not against quoting from deleted threads.  In this case the forer@ therefore broke no rules regarding quotations, BUT nevertheless violated the following:



> 24. Always be respectful of other users, the system, and the moderators. We put the system online in good faith. Please use it in good faith.
> 25. Flaming: flaming or personal attacks are not allowed or tolerated. Should anyone use inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions.
> 26. Personal attacks on other members will be removed. ...... The rules of common courtesy and decency shall be applied at all times.



Luckily, most forer@s are a collegial bunch of people and only a couple have ever stooped to this sort of behaviour.

One solution is to report these problems as soon as you notice them.  The moderators will then deal with them in a timely manner.

In cases where a post is deleted AFTER it is quoted, the process is a little more open-ended.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> There is a rule against posting the contents of private messages,



I recently posted publicly something I had said in a PM to a forer@.
Should I not have done this?


----------



## Jana337

maxiogee said:


> I recently posted publicly something I had said in a PM to a forer@.
> Should I not have done this?


You posted what you had written, no problem as long as it didn't violate other rules and decency. 

Jana


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

maxiogee said:


> I recently posted publicly something I had said in a PM to a forer@.
> Should I not have done this?



Actually,



> Rule 31.  Email or PM excerpts of ANY type or length are not allowed on WordReference.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> There is a rule against posting the contents of private messages,





maxiogee said:


> I recently posted publicly something I had said in a PM to a forer@.
> Should I not have done this?





Jana337 said:


> You posted what you had written,* no problem* as long as it didn't violate other rules and decency.
> 
> Jana





Chaska Ñawi said:


> *Actually,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rule 31. Email or PM excerpts of ANY type or length are not allowed on WordReference.
Click to expand...



Can I have an authoritative ruling please?
Am I, or am I not, the 'owner' of my own words and free to repeat them anywhere within the forum?


----------



## Nunty

I understand that I may not post publicly what someone writes me by PM, nor would I want to. But, like Tony, I'm confused by Chaska's citation of Rule 31 in this context. It never would have occurred to me that if I write to someone privately and include a brilliant analysis of the use of serial commas in written English, that I could not later on cut and paste and post it in a thread dealing with serial commas.

In other words, my own words that do not otherwise violate any forum rules: I may not post them publically if they were first sent to someone by PM?


----------



## Jana337

maxiogee said:


> Can I have an authoritative ruling please?
> Am I, or am I not, the 'owner' of my own words and free to repeat them anywhere within the forum?


Yes, you are. I am sorry that rule 31 looks ambiguous (we'll probably reword it) but its purpose is to preclude unauthorized quotations of privately shared texts.

Jana


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Yes, sorry about the confusion.  I also misunderstood.

(I think I'll take a walk out back now, so that I can be outstanding in at least one field.)


----------



## maxiogee

Jana337 said:


> Yes, you are. I am sorry that rule 31 looks ambiguous (we'll probably reword it) but its purpose is to preclude unauthorized quotations of privately shared texts.
> 
> Jana





Chaska Ñawi said:


> Yes, sorry about the confusion.  I also misunderstood.



Thank you both.



> (I think I'll take a walk out back now, so that I can be outstanding in at least one field.)


You can come in now, we've finished talking about you, and your dinner's getting cold.


----------



## Nunty

Thanks, Jana.

Chaska, I'm sure you are outstanding in any field of which you are in the middle


----------

