Re: "Lost that lovin' feelin..."njyoderJune 8 2005, 23:24:27 UTC
See, you might have had a point until you brought intentions into it. The LJ ToS does NOT take into account intentions anyone can and will be suspended for posting information, it doesn't matter what their intentions are as far as LJ Abuse is concerned. In fact, they will do this just for information on the person's NAME, which can't be used to harass--you need actual contact information.
You're also missing the point too, should LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're also citing the wrong rule for that anyway. If it were an issue of harassment, then they would give out a violation for harassment, not a so-called invasion of privacy.
Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.
She gave permission, why would they not arrive at the same conclusion that I did? Do you not understand the concept of 'permission'?
Re: "Lost that lovin' feelin..."decadence1June 8 2005, 23:32:36 UTC
See, you might have had a point until you brought intentions into it.
I'll agree to disagree with you. =)
[S]hould LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're also missing the point too, should LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're also citing the wrong rule for that anyway. If it were an issue of harassment, then they would give out a violation for harassment, not a so-called invasion of privacy.
Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.
She gave permission, why would they not arrive at the same conclusion that I did? Do you not understand the concept of 'permission'?
Reply
I'll agree to disagree with you. =)
[S]hould LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're just being extra-silly now (IMHO).
Ciao.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment