|
|
 | | Censorship (was Re: Bye, bye LUGNET)
|
| Forgot to answer this portion in previous post... (...) I think we'd all agree the current process is inherently inefficient and completely human-driven, and appears somewhat arbitrary. Nobody is arguing that something far better needs to be (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The admins are in the business of issuing value judgments, so I contend that any decision that they make can spark shouts of favoritism which is why this should be, at the very least, marginalized as a factor in a judgment if not disregarded (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) All day I've been trying to remember something--this reminds me of a movie I saw years ago-- (URL) - or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion Basically there were these 'not quite thugs' that would 'not quite intimidate' people into paying them (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [ snip ] (...) Not really - I think I understand pretty well your argument about language, and have no problem with it. (...) It's difficult to judge things like this accurately when the entire sequence of events isn't presented fully. Willy's (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I see your point, but I would not want to filter this one, for obvious reasons. (...) You don't need a foolproof language filter, nor can it be made 100% foolproof either, IMHO. When you take out the 'foolproof' requirement, this sort of (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
|
