| |
"Tony Priestman" <Tony@you-rang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i0kNjnAEwEx4EwWM@you-rang.demon.co.uk...
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Todd Lehman (<Fr0zCv.Mqy@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 00:14:55
>
> > In lugnet.admin.council, Tony Priestman writes:
> > > > Tony: Could you elaborate on that? In what way (where is the flaw?) • can
> > > > the rules be interpreted in such a way that .castle allows auction • postings?
> > >
> > > By omission. In point 11 of the T&C the phrase is "discussion groups
> > > which do not explicitly welcome them."
> > >
> > > I interpreted this as the individuals participating in the group, as
> > > opposed to the framework within which the group operates.
> >
> > OK, so you're saying that it would be clearer if the above quote • mentioned
> > charters somehow...? For example,
> >
> > ...discussion groups which do not explicitly welcome them in their • charter.
> >
> Exactly.
No. I think it should be left up to the subscribers to that group. This will
be particularly relevant to smaller niche groups. I almost welcomed the post
below from Yossi. Both because I'm interested in these items, and because
his auction listing did contain some information which I was interested in.
I was glad he posted it:
http://www.lugnet.com/duplo/?n=116
Furthermore, I'd argue that this post would be more welcome in lugnet.duplo
than .auction, where most of the readership is in search of Lego
System/Technic. Additionally, I think the same argument exists the clone
groups.
Scott A
|
|
|
|
|
|
