Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 03:46:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{mattdm@}ihatespam{mattdm.org}
|
Viewed:
|
233 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> Needs to be done in such a way that nothing remains of the post itself at
> all except the anchors so it's clear that no editorial control was being
> done, it was just a nuke.
I'm pretty sure removing things like this is editorial control, wholesale or
not.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) Prolly. But removing the whole thing is "less" control than excising words but leaving the rest. Or so I seem to recall Prodigy's lawyer telling me about 15 years ago when I first started looking into this topic. And "less" control, especially (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) This is so far from editorial control that light from editorial control takes ten million years just to reach here. The reaons were purely _legal_ and by specific request from TLC. Editorial control would be if TLC requested removal of, say, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Pruning not good for the trees
|
| I just went and looked at the 2001 set info tree and with all the cancels, that tree is dust. The tree view for me showed a bunch of disconnected posts with no hierarchy at all. Is that an inevitable outcome of wholesale cancellation or is there a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
