|
|
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Taking no sides here, as I do not know the person, but Chris, with all due respect, your post is insulting to me. I use this word as I please and I do not feel less intelligent because of it. "Maybe you should study a little"? What are you, (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) As much as I dislike the condemnation of single words without context, given the society in which we live, there are certain words to which this applies. (...) Larry's email is not indicative of a zero-tolerance approach to the issue. On the (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) The policy itself is not intended to "cease offensive content" - see the following post for a more detailed explanation. (URL) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I thought maybe it was a either a "term of art" or a non-American English usage with which I'm not familiar. I still don't really get the point of its usage. (...) There is an important difference (at least important to Todd). It is at least (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) [snip] (...) The goal behind the new policy is that we modify people's behavior so that some people don't get offended and leave, but the policy and its implementation is making people leave. Is this a good thing? Kevin (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
