Yet another interesting question Bob, along with some great replies.
It got me thinking about my own profile, which I haven't looked at or altered for some time, probably because it doesn't change very much and those things that have changed have little or nothing to do with stomas.
I have always presumed that people who are interested in past posts can access them through the individual's profile, They would be date stamped, which would give an indication when that person was last active on the site.
Personally , I don't belong to any other online community, so I am not familiar with how people behave in these settings. I also do not know the meaning of terms like 'wingnuts'.
Another thing that has occurred to me about this post is that when, recently, I wondered if my contributions would come to an end, I asked my wife if she could write a short post to explain my predicament. Sometimes there is not the opportunity to get someone else to do this for us and the communication would end abruptly. I apologise in advance if this ever happens in my case.
As for the photos: This subject has arisen on a couple of occasions in the past and I have attempted to reply as to why I have not put on any photos of myself. Basically, I 'feel' that I don't want to for personal reasons and I have never felt the urge to explain myself IN ANY DEPTH on that level. ( not that many people would be interested and, if they are, it is all written down in the many hundreds of rhyming verses I have compiled over the years - again, it has little or nothing to do with stomas).
I often wonder how many photos of people on their profiles are actually 'real', fantasy or simply false. As we can never be sure about these things online, then it seems a bit pointless for me to concern myself as to whether an individual has or has not put up a photo of themselves. I must content myself with corresponding on a literary level and hope that fellow correspondents are communicating in an honest and genuine way. For the most part I have found this to be so. However, there have been odd occasions when I have responded to posts, only to discover that the original poster was deemed to be some sort of scammer. Obviously, I am grateful to those who are more computer/ online savvi, than me for drawing this to my attention. It should be said that my response in these circumstances has been to re-read what I have written to check if my own responses were appropriate. My logic is that, although the person to whom I am replying might be a scammer, there is probably a wider audience out there who are interested in the correspondence and they are just as important as the people who actually write respond by writing down their thoughts.
Surely, we all just give and get what we can from sites like this, without too many preconceptions about what it 'ought' to be.
Just a thought!
PS: In my case, as with many others on here, the name I use 'Bill Withers', is a pseudonym, a 'pen-name' which is based on the premise that it is (bill) the price you pay, to be with-us. If, for some reason, I stopped corresponding without informing you all as to the reason. Then it might be very difficult to find out why. Unless someone wrote to my publisher, who would no doubt deal with the correspondence in an appropriate manner.