 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Don't try and turn this into a homophobic issue. Topics WRT to sex are inappropriate for a family-safe site like LUGNET (save off-topic.debate) (...) You can respect the desires of some parents who don't wish their children exposed to these (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) John, I have mixed views on this but I'm pretty sure Ed is a nice guy who would not want to offend anyone and he would make sure all his posts fell within the ToS. So before we talk about what is "family-safe", why not cancel your posts which (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
|
(...) Don't try and turn this into a genophopic issue. Sex is a family-safe topic. The only reason such discussion doesn't belong here is because the owners say so. (...) I'm not willing to reduce myself to the lowest common denominator of thought (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) 1999? Five years ago?? You have got to be kidding. Looks like you dug pretty deep for this one, Scott. Why does it seem you're able to so readily present examples such as this against the likes of John, Lar, [insert person you clash with (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) If intolerance is supposed to be a criteria for cancelling posts, most of the homosexualists' posts would also have to be pulled off as well. It's rather hypocritical to be tolerant (read 'approving') of only those people who are tolerant of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) What does this term mean? (...) Just to be clear, cancelling posts without prior request by the author is exceedingly rare here (it has happened one time in the entire history of the site and that was to avoid legal action and was done when (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) If I get you, you're saying that people can only be considered "tolerant" when they are willing to endure any level of abuse from all comers. Is that right? By placing "tolerant" in a position that no human being can reach, you eliminate the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) No, you didn't get it. What I am saying is that YOU tolerate only those that believe the way you do, and anyone who does not agree with you you automatically place into the homophobic, hateful camp, whether they actually are homophobic or they (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) Ah! So you're merely incorrect. (...) I think you've confused the sides here. You've described yourself pretty perfectly, as far as I can infer. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
|
(...) Nope, I'm dead-on correct. (...) Again, nope. I described you to a tee. I'm not telling anyone they ought to cancel their posts like you have. I am for the debate if you've read these threads. I'm not in favor of censoring the discussion. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Correction to my previous post
|
|
(...) I have to apologize to Chris as I misread the nested message and said he posted to ask the person to remove his posts - Scott Arthur did that. So I was wrong to say he called for it. I will say that Chris probably didn't have a problem with (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
