 | | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) I think you're right -- removing it may be best, and I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. It doesn't get used often, and it would do just as well to give an email link there. As to its purpose/intention, it just happened to be an easy thing to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind. Scott A (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that the contents won't normally be revealed... (...) I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication. I think (despite some comments by others (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) What do you think? (...) You could infer that. (...) That would be a stretch. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
|
(...) I had a look at the feedback page: (URL) Questions: 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to post feedback? 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least imply the communication (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Spam alert!
|
|
(...) my (...) while (...) Unfortunately, such people are unlikely to take any notice of such conditions. And any legal action against them is probably doomed to failure, and will certainly be expensive. The best two solutions are probably: 1. Never (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Spam alert!
|
|
(...) That's pretty sick. Is there any way Todd could add a terms of use for the LUGNET website for everyone -- members, non-members who post, and people who neither post nor are members?? That way he could legally forbid email address harvesting (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.org.au, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: blowharding (was: Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...)
|
|
(...) I just noticed that - and I do recall seeing him posting for at least a few weeks here. He's been very respectful up until now, even on things that he has attacked the most today. Strange. ...perhaps he didn't fill a perscription or something (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: blowharding (was: Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...)
|
|
(...) into (...) <insert voice of moderation> Well, Matthew Moulton has been, IMO and in the apparant majority of opinions, a jerk today. *BUT* If you search back, you'll notice that he's been an infrequent, generally reasonable poster for upwards (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Was M*ndroid ToSsable from Lugnet? When?
|
|
(...) M*ndroid was probably a much clearer case. Matthew Moulton's case is a lot fuzzier, I think. Maybe tomorrow he wakes up and realizes he was having a bad day, and grows up, and apologizes, and stops posting off-topic in .space. Or maybe not. I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Was M*ndroid ToSsable from Lugnet? When?
|
|
I came on the LEGO scene too late to "enjoy" (sic) the subject contributor's "contributions" (sic) to RTL. My question is this, to people that remember his posts, were they, in and of themselves, sufficient to get him ToSsed from Lugnet, were he to (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: skip filter settings?
|
|
(...) that (...) Me too. (URL) Todd has indicated it would be some rather tricky coding. Just ToS him... ++Lar (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: skip filter settings?
|
|
(...) A lovely and elegant idea. I hope it can be done. JohnG, GMLTC LUGNET member #38 (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: No promises when I'll be done, but...
|
|
(...) Given this bit of (rather unsurprising) information, is there any chance of enforcing something in the ToS to make this person go away? If not, is there any chance of adding something to the ToS to make it easier to make people like this go (...) (24 years ago, 17-Oct-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) [...] (...) LOL! Sorry for the wasted bandwith, but this made me spew Dew all over my wife's iMac! (And it's Strawberry....) as evah, John C. (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) KL (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Cool! Welcome to LUGNET, the friendliest place on the internet. Just watch out for certain characters who have unrealistic expectations of how fast TLC can change. If one of them challenges you, my advice is to ignore him or her. So, what's a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Whoops! I meant #15, not #14. (Thanks, Jenn!) (...) You're welcome, and thank you for the quick corrective action. If you could help others become more aware of this, that would be great! --Todd (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: offline building instructions...
|
|
(...) Todd, This is a terrible oversight on my part and I apologize for not having read the Terms of Agreement more clearly. In this and in all future posts, I shall clearly identify myself and my relationship with LEGO. Thank you for pointing out (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
