 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I understand that you're acting in good faith and make no accusations against you. However, since this information was apparently available to the public before being posted to LUGnet, I have a hard time seeing how it's not editorial. It's (...) (26 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, (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure removing things like this is editorial control, wholesale or not. (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
