 | | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) This is too bad. If he's been following LUGNET for this long, he does [most likely] know better. This is exactly the attitude we DON'T need on LUGNET - people flaunting the charters and disrespecting other groups for their financial gain. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
This is a pretty good example of how telling people where to post stuff doesn't do much good. I don't know Ronan myself, but I think he has been around for quite some time. The People listing shows that he has been a lugnet member since 23-Nov-2000. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) I second this wholeheartedly. (...) Too bad its taken this long. It should have been changed a while ago. -Tim (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Market posts and TOS (was Re: Black Cat 5571 + 5563 + 5561)
|
|
(...) There has been talk for ages about changing the TOS to disallow market posts outside the .market hierarchy (presumably they would remain ok in org groups as those groups desire, and shopping tips would remain ok in the .loc groups), and Suz (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
|
(...) I guess his opinion on the matter is different. All posts are not always going to be shunted to the optimal topic header and that's OK. All the moderation, curating, good intentions or FREAKING OUT in the world is going to change that. If it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
|
(...) Um, why? That is, why forward this particular post rather than making a statement along the lines of "hey general readers, there's a discussion that you ought to read and it starts here [cite to head of tree]" ?? Should everyone forward posts (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) One reason someone may want to post about BB sales would be if they are having a set time frame sale or maybe free shipping for a short period of time only. That would not show up in the wanted emails or the search. Julie (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) Which then determines whether people actually read the group (and thus whether it merits existence). After all, I can think of no Earthly reason why anyone would want to read BrickBay sales info (since Dan has done a great job with the search (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Bulk Lego Auctions
|
|
(...) Just what posts belong in .brickshops has been discussed before with no official conclusion: (URL) way I, and some others, interpret the charter of .brickshops is that it is for discusion of brickshops (*mentioned* in the charter) and not for (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) 1. I set follow-ups to admin.general: (URL) Tamara replies to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general: (URL) I replied to Tamara's post without noticing the FUT & I apologise: (URL) James gives me a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
(...) Hmm, me thinks (URL) needs to be updated. Someone using NNTP would not easily be able to find this. This raises an interesting question, how do we keep apprised of changes in the TOS? How does someone coming in fresh find all the TOS (they get (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
See the following posts (URL) under the main header. Rose "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3C1E05A4.970C6D...ing.com... (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
Hmm.. this is interesting. Are you saying that you did not write this: "Ban him. Scott A FUT lugent.admin.general x-posted to .general, as this is an issue which concerns us all... or at least is should." (...) Personally, I think Scott should be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Liquidation World Lego
|
|
(...) Actually I've got a question about that. Is it really against the TOS for these types of requests? I know folks have often asked here for people willing to buy this or that which is on limited distribution. No on the other hand, if you have no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
(...) If you mean this: (URL) don't think you have apologised. (...) You would have no right to do that if that situation did arise. Further, where in the ToU does it say its OK make threats here? What is one to think of you? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Ignore who is involved. A member has broken the rules. He is threatening to do the same again. Either he should be removed, or the rules should be changed. (...) I can't agree with you. Take a look at who continually tries, and often succeeds, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Larry, by your own measure, you are a bare faced liar. Calling me a "liar" without being willing to justify it in any way does nothing but emphasis that point. You are deluded. You need help. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Possibly. It's a very grey area. (OBDisclaimer: I'm only really arguing this to refine my understanding of what the ToU might mean in a fairly grey area.) (...) It is unreasonable to hold Lugnet's ToU to any authority beyond Lugnet, so the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I believe you are incorrect. First, if it's against the spirit of the ToU for a spammer to harvest email addresses against the will of the participants, it's against the spirit of the ToU for an UNspammer to harvest a single email address (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) I refuse to support the banning of one member of Lugnet over a dispute with another member of Lugnet unless both parties are banned together. So I think you should be more careful of the things you are seeking to achieve because you will end (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you're both wrong. I just reveiwed the terms of use, and there is nothing in there about e-mail addresses, except the requirement to have a valid one in your posting ID. So if you still feel that Larry violated your privacy, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Dave sums it up: (URL) did what he did *knowing* it breaks the ToU here. He did what he did *knowing* it was a violation of my privacy rights. He did what he did in his usual belligerent manner: ==+== See, I march to my own metronome, and the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
My My, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... I normally stay out of debate, I don't need anymore crap in my life, though you brought this into the public forum where I do read, and of course, I had to go back and look at the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology.
|
|
(...) Something needs to be done. All of our e-mails are displayed here based on trust. If members here feel they have the right to abuse that trust, what sort of place will this become? This person has taken my details from this forum, and used (...) (23 years ago, 24-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
(...) Arguably it is not. I don't think it's in the letter but it violates the spirit as it's a misuse of an email address. I apologised on forum and I will apologise again here. What I did was wrong, never mind that my motive was to be helpful, and (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
|
|
I wonder if Todd &/or Suz intend that members should use the e-mail addresses of posters in this way? I expect not. Is it even within the TofU? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) We tend to post notices of retail sales in .loc.au, with trading / auctions/ etc going in .org.au (where the charter specifically allows it). (...) I agree. The theme groups should be for discussing things other than trading etc. However the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) I know that the .loc.au crowd enjoys having sale announcements in .loc.au and .org.au (the latter, especially, IIRC), so maybe a blanket restriction from the theme groups (including .general) would be called for. I honestly don't find b-s-t or (...) (23 years ago, 11-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) Offhand. . .exactly two years, (URL) with perhaps increasing resolution over time. And I agree that a clarification of the TOS[1] would still be a good thing. TWS Garrison [1] Personally, I'd prefer a change to ban on all (...) (23 years ago, 10-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Wanted of Harry Potter (Clueless!)
|
|
(...) Could someone please point out the item in the TOS which prohibits non-auction buy/sell/trade posts out of non-market groups? As far as I'm concerned, currently, such posts are allowed. Todd had posted many times that such is allowed, though (...) (23 years ago, 9-Nov-01, to lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Legos role in Anti-terrorism
|
|
(...) I'm assuming she was pleased to hear of LEGO in a rather odd place and pleased to hear that Joseph can participate. (as are many of us I am sure (1) ) I suspect she overlooked the para you cited rather than endorsed it per se. I think your (...) (23 years ago, 4-Nov-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I've got some imperial soldiers for sale again!
|
|
(...) wrto market posting had been discussed to death, but I don't remember seeing them change. I do think this is a good idea, just want to make sure the rules are crisp. Frank (23 years ago, 3-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I miss the old LUGNET...
|
|
Ok, Larry you raise good points and I will keep them in mind for the future. I hope to be respectful to other groups and I will abide by the TOS in the future. Thank you for being straight up with me. I can always trust you to see it as it really (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: I miss the old LUGNET...
|
|
(...) Perhaps whoever the curator for lugnet.newbie is could go through some of the posts there and put together a faq on the topic. General netiquette is a starting point but Things Are Different Here(tm), at least a little bit. (...) I don't think (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: ------( Terms of use for lugnet.com )------
|
|
(...) First of all, since you have posting right here in Lugnet, you already declared that you agreed on this TOS before, and of course you supposed to read it before accepting. If this is not the case, its certainly your own problem. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | A note to jesse long, amongst others
|
|
dude, ive never heard of you before.. im a castlehead and rarely leave that newsgroup, but for somereason i found this message line today and have read it all. here are some thoughts ive had, hopefully they'll help somewhat. 1) 'netiquette' is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Todd, can you please deal with this
|
|
To all who read this, The post I am refering to has foul language and the link should not be followed without you being warned. Todd, Can you please address the situation of the following post: (URL) I feel extremly excessive language has been used (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
(...) Perfectly agreed. -Shiri (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Apology for Jesse Long
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Tim Courtney writes: I'll end my discussion of this by saying I agree (...) Here here. Jake -- Jake McKee AFOL LUGNET Member #211 (23 years ago, 5-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
