LUGNET Terms of Use : 256

Administrative / Terms of Use / 256

255 | 257

Subject:	Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.terms
Date:	Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:59:46 GMT
Viewed:	5657 times

In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes: > 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to > post feedback? What do you think? > 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least > imply the communication is private? You could infer that. > 3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity? That would be a stretch. --Todd

Message has 2 Replies:

		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 (...) (26 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 (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)

Message is in Reply To:

		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 (...) (26 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)

17 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact