Subject:
|
Re: I swear... (Re: New colors and other info)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Nov 2003 03:23:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2663 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Soren Roberts wrote:
| |
I move that Richard recieve a Golden Stalin award, for excellence in
furthering the cause of useless whining.
Take care,
Soren
|
While I don’t doubt for a second Richard’s ability to defend himself, let’s
have a bit of a rationality check here.
First, for all you keyboard lawyers bleating about a breach of the TOS,
consider this clause:
|
“Bleating”? Okay, Richard, since I was the first to site the Terms of Use (not
“TOS” Terms of Service), did I “bleat”? Feel free to send me email and curse
away. :-)
| |
4. LUGNET and its owners and/or operators do not control or censor content in
discussion groups. The LUGNET discussion group server is provided as a “store
and forward” mechanism “as is” without filters, which means that you may
encounter material which you find offensive. IT IS YOUR SOLE AND INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR OR FILTER CONTENT TO A LEVEL APPROPRIATE TO
YOURSELF AND/OR YOUR FAMILY. If you are under 18 years of age, ask your
parent(s) or guardian(s) for permission and/or supervision before using this
service and make sure they have read and understood this Terms of Use
document.
|
You misunderstand the disclaimer. This is a protection device for Lugnet. This
does not mean that it is okay to violate the Terms of Use, nor does it mean that
those who do aren’t subject to having their posting rights revoked. That is not
up to me, and I do not pretend to have any authority over enforcement. I think
Richard stepped far over the line and I’d encourage a warning, but that’s as far
as I can go with it on my end. The words don’t really bother me - I can
outcurse that sorry and unimaginative invective he used any day of the week.
:-)
Richard does have something to say. Really. He does. I’m just not going to
reward this particular profanity-laced tirade by acknowledging it beyond the
reminder about the Terms of Use.
| |
All the ‘protect the children’ raving is spurious from my reading of this
clause. It is neither Lugnet’s nor the posters responsibility to censor post
content, it is the responsibility of the parent of the child to monitor what
they are reading/accessing on the internet. Certainly self censorship is
common sense and the normal ‘rules’ of polite conversation apply, but
Richard’s post hardly warrants the amount of handwringing that has resulted
from it, and if you have actually read the TOS all I can say is, you were
warned you might read that sort of thing and you accepted that when you
signed on.
|
Again, you confuse “it may happen” with “it’s okay to do it”.
| |
Next, consider the clause that has apparently been breached:
(do not) Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,
defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent information
of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or
encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to
civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national, or
international law.
Certainly Richard’s post could be considered abusive, but only in the sense
that some people consider cussing to be abusive (personally I consider it
more like punctuation), but frankly, Jon deserved it with his snide little
defamotary post that is at least as much a breach of the TOS as the response
it generated, yet there was not a single post chastising him for that (ok I
guess Eric’s could almost count). Apparently only swearing draws out the
choir, and to be blunt, the stream of posts that every little cuss word
generates is far more tiresome that the cussing itself.
|
Shrug. I see a lot of apologists for Lego, the very thing Richard decries. So
should I not be consistent and cite you as an apologist for Richard? Yeah, Jon
got in his nasty little dig (accurate to some degree - just as Rihard’s
complaints about Lego are accurate to some degree) and Richard fired back with
nukes, poison gas, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction in an over-the-top
revenge-strike of Mutually Assured Self-Destruction. He could have fired back
in a way I could have supported. Ah well. He can say he doesn’t care - fine,
it works both ways.
| |
Finally, consider clause 12.
(do not) Stray hopelessly off-topic without moving the discussion to a more
appropriate location. (There is a fair amount of leeway here, since it is
natural for discussions to drift, and moving a discussion can sometimes be
inconvenient or difficult. If in doubt, appeal to common sense.)
I would suggest that Jon’s post is in breach of this clause in addition to
clause 5, arguably as is every post following it (including this one), unless
you count this as ‘other info’.
|
There is a matter of degree. Further, people who relentlessly post about sales
and auctions in theme topics have been warned and even have had posting
privledges suspended in the past.
| |
I guess I’m making a few enemies with this post ..shrug.. My fundamental
point is if someone came into a public forum making comments about me as Jon
did about Richard I’d be inclined to respond in a similar fashion that
Richard did.
|
Richard attracts hostility because he expresses hostility on such an on-going
basis. He is the Angry Young Man personified. Mostly, I put up with it because
he has some interesting things to say at times. But the contempt-factor is
something that Richard usually expresses first (and since he is no doubt proud
of it, I doubt he will contradict me - Richard?).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I swear... (Re: New colors and other info)
|
| (...) I don't think I did. (...) That's not what I'm arguing. I am by no means advocating that it alright for everyone to start posting in that manner. What I'm saying is that when it does happen it's a bit pointless having this parade of posters (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I swear... (Re: New colors and other info)
|
| (...) While I don't doubt for a second Richard's ability to defend himself, let's have a bit of a rationality check here. First, for all you keyboard lawyers bleating about a breach of the TOS, consider this clause: 4. LUGNET and its owners and/or (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
47 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
|
|
|
|
