 | | Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) 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: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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.) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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.) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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.) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
