|
|
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Your interpretation. If the >'s were still in the post, and I didn't do any editing at all, and the entire post appeared with mine, then where does that get us. Furthermore, you are ignoring the greater issue where we say "Profanity bad! Must (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) One message from Larry is "all hell"? Tempest/teapot. Mountain/molehill. Though AFTER your post, a pale rider on a pale horse trotted by followed by with his entourage, which I suppose qualifies. :-) (...) I must say that I regard the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This post was a violation of the ToS, regardless of where it was posted, even if only to admin.general (URL) it occured after he was warned that he needed to comply with the ToS or else. Hope that clears up your confusion. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) True but irrelevant. You quoted, which was your choice. Therefore it was your action, your transgression. All else is smoke. (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Well, I was responding to the phrasing in (URL) this post> in which you wrote If you refuse to acknowledge that the ToS applies to you (a la Marchetti), then you will be suspended until you acknowledge it. I inferred from this (perhaps (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) And you very well know as a libertarian that one is not responsible for other people's actions. If someone sprays grafitti on a wall, yet I take a picture of that, I am not responsible for the grafitti. Just as if I quote a person who has (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) IMHO, I think the policy is fine. IMHO again, I think the problem that keeps popping up has to do with the (enforcement) mechanism. Seperate the policy from the mechanism. Examine each seperately. Look for alternative ways of enforcing the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I agree that one can write Carlin's 7 words on the internet(s--for Dubya fans out there). That said, if I was the owner of a website and this website allowed other pepople to post stuff, and one of my rules was that no 'foul language' can be (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) He said the H-word! He said the H-word! Pick up the stones! (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) LOL, this is so cultural. I have had a lot of contact with youth from the Swedish equivalent to Assemblies of God. They would never ever take the Name in vain or mention the opposite of Heaven if they aren't talking about that final (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) ...and I thought I was a cynic! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Shame on you. (Re: Bye, bye LUGNET & hello world.... )
|
| (...) Essentially, that sounds like a highly subjective judgment. This thread makes it apparent that a number of members have concerns about the Admins' judgment in this area. I think we would be prudent to reconsider our whole approach to this (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) Wait, wait! Where's the "I love LUGNET" post. Bring it on...*that* will make all the bad things go away... -Tim (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) Hear, hear. And perhaps that would cut down on the 'censorship whiners.' LUGNET is privately owned, it is NOT the public square. I really wish people would get over themselves. Anyways, it's not like I read in-depth enough for this to effect (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect. Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip would be taken care of most of the time. I (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) I second that, Jason. Lugnet is one of the last forums on the 'net where admins don't moderate posts directly. Fortunately, direct editing hasn't been needed often. But in some cases, it was needed. Ofcourse, asking the poster to do it himself (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) A chat site that my wife used to use had a similar profanity replacement program, it replaced the words with amusing alternative that sometime gave a clue to the original word. However, with a bit of testing it was obvious that: A: There were (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) if/when? Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins. I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I wrong in this assumption? M (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
| | | | | Forced voluntary self-censorship?
|
| So its not censorship but "voluntary" self-censorship backed up by force? In short, this is like a gouvernment that says: "Oh, we are not going to torture you. AI is against this, and we need the good image. But we won't release you from prison (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
|
