6

This question has been closed twice. The OP responded to many, many comments at about the time of the first closure and edited her question so that it is clear (at least to me) what she is asking.

A moderator said that the comments had been moved to chat. But they haven't been; they are all still there, cluttering up the question.

It isn't the best question on the site, but the questioner is trying, and if the (now irrelevant) comments are removed someone may be interested enough to give a worthwhile answer.

| |
  • As it stands, no one can answer the question at all; it is closed. The roomba will delete it as "ClosedAbandoned" in a week or two unless OP edits it to clarify how the idea she's expressing differs from standard ID or otherwise adds critical detail people asked for. I've pinged her in response to her most recent comment to ask to help clarify this. Personally, I can't see what she's looking for other than an "alternative term for ID which doesn't carry its historical stigma", which seems to me to be a doomed quest. – Dan Bron Dec 29 '16 at 3:26
  • @Dan Bron I may be too naïve. – ab2 Dec 29 '16 at 3:32
  • I don't know, we can re-open the Q if you prefer; I do want to do the OP a good turn l, because, as you say, she has acted in such good faith. The flip side is this is just another turn on the euphemism treadmill, isn't it? – Dan Bron Dec 29 '16 at 3:37
  • My druthers are to clean out the comments (which are a great barrier to anyone tackling the question), edit her question to boldface the intelligent design//creationism disclaimer and see what happens. If it goes pear-shaped again, close it again and quickly delete it. I just have a memory of my looking at a waterfall for several hours, many decades ago, wondering about the many trajectories of the streams and drops. No, I didn't independently invent chaos theory as a result. (But, as I said, I am probably too naïve.) – ab2 Dec 29 '16 at 3:49
  • I'm happy to clean out the comments, so long as the disclaimer is clear (boldface) as you said, and the difference between ID and what she's seeking is laid out. I'd vote to reopen that. – Dan Bron Dec 29 '16 at 3:52
  • @Dan Bron See my edit. Maybe far too much. Maybe I shouldn't have done it. If she really wants a gossamer veil for ID, she is not going to be happy, because I opened the door to the multiverse. You have better judgment than I; do as you will. – ab2 Dec 29 '16 at 4:07
  • Ah hell why not. Let's make this the universe where the question is reopened. I VtRO. – Dan Bron Dec 29 '16 at 4:09
  • I suspect that the moderator merely forgot to delete the comments (the "move" the system provides is actually a "copy"). It happens. I'm still not convinced that the question is not adequately answered by "Intelligent Design" though: the OP should have explained why that is not the right answer. Currently the question is not sufficiently clear -- and those who think it is should be able to make it clear to those of us who can't see it. – Andrew Leach Dec 29 '16 at 10:05
  • 4
    Delete this comment if you want but I would like to go on record saying that if an OP is asking for another way to say something that is amazing and incredible beyond description, this group of highly imaginative people could surely overcome their jadedness long enough to give it a try! Yeesh! – Kristina Lopez Dec 29 '16 at 23:27
11

There wasn't a glitch. The moderator (me) did not say that the comments had been moved to chat. The request was that further conversation take place in chat. When such a request is made, the comments so far are always copied to chat to provide context. The originals are then often, but not necessarily, purged. In this case they were left standing.

| |
  • 1
    When I saw "...this conversation has been moved to chat", I didn't interpret it as a mere request to go to chat. Now I understand the code. As for my feeling about the question, given the prolonged silence of the OP, I now think I should have left it to die – ab2 Dec 31 '16 at 18:38
9

When a moderator moves comments to chat, he has the option to purge the comments at the same time (other than the "these were moved to chat" comment). This is a box that must be explicitly checked. Most likely, the moderator who handled this one thought he had checked that box but didn't, or misclicked, or something like that.

Moderators can still delete those comments one at a time. A meta post (like this one) or a flag on the post is the best way to request that.

| |
  • 1
    I suppose it's possible that the moderator wanted to let the comments stand, but opened the chat as an option for the discussion to continue. – J.R. Dec 30 '16 at 10:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .