 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) excise (...) fashion. (...) requirement. (...) It doesn't. Enforcing the T&Cs is exercising editorial control. I've said this a bunch of times, I think almost all of us want you to do it, so it's not about whether you should do so or not, it's (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) That is in fact what happens here. Everything passes through unimpeded. However, if, after the fact, something has to be removed for legal reasons, how is that considered having exercised editorial control? (That is a facetious question.) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Errr...That should read "That is not a facetious question." --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) This may be a dead horse, but I'm just reading this thread now. I think part of the muddiness is that Larry is talking from the side of how the law will be applied. A word can have a very different meaning in court than in Webster's (or (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
