 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) That's how I see it, ya. --Todd (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Except, of course, that TLC wouldn't have had permissions to cancel the articles if they were posted to Usenet. I suppose they could rogue cancel them but they'd get into a real storm if they did that just because of what the articles (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) I'm going to start by saying that I fully understand the Lugnet admins actions in this case. It's far better for the relationship with LEGO to move quickly and do what they request, and *then* follow up to see if it was right or not. But at (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Well, hmm, I guess you have a good point. It depends on who you consider to have done editing when you raise the question of editorial control. For example, I certainly do not think that I exercised any editorial control -- not by any stretch (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
|
(...) Hmmm...that's alarming...that shouldn't be happening. Are you SURE? What's the URL of a thread display, for example, that's not threading properly? I ask because of the way lugnet newsgroup canceling works -- when an article is canceled, it (...) (26 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
