 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Kelly McKiernan
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Dan Boger
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Ray Sanders
| | | | | | | (...) Perhaps rather than removing (or editing) the posts, the posts containing potentially offensive verbage should be quarantined. That is, insert a warning page in front of the post indicating that the moderators have determined that it might (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET —Derek Raycraft
| | | | | (...) I have no immediate problem with lugnet's rules. And for that manor I have no problem with the implementation of censorship here. I only object to the claim that it's not censorship. (...) Well the admins, mostly Larry, have stated repetedly (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | | |
