To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 258
257  |  259
Subject: 
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:33:00 GMT
Viewed: 
4747 times
  
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes:
1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
post feedback?

What do you think?

2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
imply the communication is private?

You could infer that.

3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?

That would be a stretch.

--Todd

I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind.

Scott A



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
 
(...) What do you think? (...) You could infer that. (...) That would be a stretch. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)

17 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR