[Coco] Mr Bjork please don't leave the communiity on theaccount of one disgruntled member!

[Robert Gault]

Paul Fitch wrote:
> I could see where Steve was coming from.  On the one hand, why post to a
> site that seems to "have it in" for him.  A lot of time and effort can go
> into properly responding to a question, and then to see that effort "wasted"
> when the post evaporates can be very upsetting.  Not that I think Roger has
> anything to do with it beyond having too much on his plate and not being
> sufficiently god-like in his troubleshooting ability to figure out why some
> posts just won't show up.
> 
> Steves initial point was valid.  Until the site was "fixed", why post on it?
> 
 ><snip>

This is over-exaggeration in the extreme. Consider the length of time 
that Roger's site has been up and running against the number of hacks.

There aren't any legitimate posts that evaporate as soon as they are 
posted and nothing is wasted if the missing message was read during the 
time it was posted. Heck, most sites remove old posts to an archive 
section after about a year.

The real question is why does anyone post on these sites. If it is done 
to help others or receive help, then whether a site is hacked and 
messages lost is irrelevant. You just post the answer/question again.