 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) That's not the point. What are you saying? That because someone can legally get married at age 16, adult content on LUGNET should be made viewable by a 7 year old? Because a 17 year old knows about same-sex relationships, a 10 year old should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) I think it has always been thusly (that one could lie about their age). (...) I don't follow what you mean. The objectionable content would be masked from underage viewing. JOHN (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Of course not. All I'm saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be "kid-friendly", steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is getting too adult-oriented in certain areas. (...) Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) The point is, Chris, is that that decision should be up to the parents to decide, not you. If Todd wants LUGNET to be for everyone, it must cater to the lowest common denominator, and that is about a 7 year old. (...) Good stuff???? Are you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
|
(...) Fine. Now we know your position on the subject. Some, however, may want to take a different position WRT to parents who are deciding whether to allow their kids to use LUGNET. (...) As I have said before: clarity. You have stated your view. I, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
