To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.termsOpen lugnet.admin.terms in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Terms of Use / 258
257  |  259
Subject: 
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.terms
Date: 
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:33:00 GMT
Viewed: 
5674 times
  
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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

I had hoped for a straight yes or no on each point, but never mind.

Scott A



Message is in Reply To:
  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 (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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR