 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) I think they'd fall under abusive. But mentioning them explicitly might be a good idea. Richard, have you seen/read/discovered something disturbing? --Todd (26 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) [snip] (...) I think "abusive, ... defamatory, ... profane, or indecent" covers it very well without bringing direct attention to "Racist" or "Sexist". I fully understand the intent, but I would be astonished to find (...) (26 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) We have plenty of other reasons to abuse you, no need to worry on that score. :-) Seriously, I think more general statements are better. In line with my Libertarian philosophy, I tend not to favor specific prohibitions of things that common (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) from (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) spam (...) from (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) As Ed McMahon would say: "Hi-O!" (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) Auctions yes, but spam and flame-wars? Read news.admin.net-abuse...il,usenet] , or (and this one is by rumor alone) soc.support-fat-acceptance. The last one has recently been taking their flamefests and trolls into news.groups, which I (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
