Subject:
|
Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:58:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
260 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 08:10:24PM +0000, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> However, this is a side issue on the semantics of a slippery word. The
> real issue, to paraphrase, is why people are asked to cancel a post if
> it violates the ToS. In a nutshell: rules are rules, and LUGNET can
> choose to enforce the published rules, or not.
That's almost the issue. I think the issue is that the admins say it's
'asking' when in fact it's 'forcing'. Yes, you can choose not to cancel
your post, and leave LUGNET forever, or you can give in. It's like
saying "I'm not robbing you, I'm just pointing this gun at you, and you
choose to give me your wallet". Yes, it's a hyperbole, but I think it's
apt.
I would much rather the admins just go ahead and remove posts they find
objectionable. Then, the original poster can actually choose if they
want to repost or not.
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking myself, actually. But how do we solve the legal liability problem? No other site seems to care about it as much, but part of why this policy is the way it is, (IIRC from the discussions back (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) It's your choice to accept LUGNET's rules as censorship. It's also my choice to disagree with that interpretation. It is what it is. - snip - (...) There has never been any intent to lie, and I don't see where it is a lie. The most direct (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
