To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 1541
1540  |  1542
Subject: 
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Mon, 3 May 1999 20:37:22 GMT
Viewed: 
4820 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley) writes:
> > Richard Franks <richard@__no_spam_please_im_veggie__spider.com> wrote:
> > > > that you do not:
> > > > 5.  Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,
> > > >        defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent
> > > >        information of any kind, including without limitation any
> > > >        transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would
> > > >        constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or
> > > >        otherwise violate any local, state, national, or international
> > > >        law.
> > > 
> > > There isn't a mention of any racist or sexist (eg homophobic)
> > > limitations. Like everything else, the chances of any of this arising
> > > remain small, but does anyone else think they deserve a specific
> > > mention?

[snip]
> I think they'd fall under abusive.  But mentioning them explicitly might be
> a good idea.

[snip]
> --Todd

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 discriminatory
postings around here.  Even on RTL, that lucious newsgroup of auctions, spam
and flame wars, I was never abused because of my sexual orientation.  Far from
it.



Message has 1 Reply:
  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 (...) (27 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (27 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR