Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2005 07:32:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8031 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.terms, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
|
|
|
snipped the state I am in
| |
| |
Clarity is paramount,
and I personally would like to know, why make this step if there is no
concrete plan to actually make more “of a presence” or a higher probability
if you so want to choose the wording, in “cracking down” with the ToS, or
ToU, or whatever abbreviation is appropriate?
Hmmmmm does that actually count as two (maybe technically three) questions?
(Like it matters)
|
Happy New Year, Janey...
|
And to you.
| |
Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there!
|
Np, just looking for clarity.
| |
What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more
in accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be
that no time outs are actually given out (that is, the power won’t need to be
used), or at least not more than the average frequency in the past.
|
Yes, I fully understand that wishful thinking, but considering I’m here posting
while fully loaded on New Years, and to quote Mick “You can’t always get what
you want”.......
| |
I personally would love that outcome. It’s sort of what I am hoping for, as I
am assuming that most everyone here is mature, and the mere reminder that we
have a policy that needs to be adhered to (remember, the nature of what we
don’t want to see hasn’t really changed, peopls just “forgot”), and the
awareness that there are now more people available to give out time outs,
will be sufficient.
|
Understood.
| |
But if it’s not, we now *can* act without necessarily needing Todd to be
actually doing the enforcing. And if we need to, we *will* act, make no
mistake. But I’d rather we didn’t *need* to act.
|
As I expected.
| |
Does that help clear it up?
|
Yes, it does, thanks.
| |
PS, in what HAS to be an ironic twist, you spelt “smokeables” wrong :-)
|
LOL, the shape I am in, you are lucky I spelt my name right.
Janey “Going down for the count, Red Brick”
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Happy New Year, Janey... Sorry if my answer was a bit cryptic there! What I am trying to say is that if the new policy means that people act more in accordance with the ToS than they have in the recent past, it may well be that no time outs (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jan-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
