Posts of a sexual nature

Look folks,
I'm not issuing a complaint. Go back and read my OP if you re confused about that. I'm not insulted or offended by sexual language or situations either.

The whole point is this:

The TOS says this specifically:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is:

1. knowingly false and/or defamatory,

2. inaccurate,

3. abusive,

4. vulgar,

5. hateful,

6. harassing,

7. obscene,

8. profane,

9. sexually oriented,

10. threatening,

11. invasive of a person's privacy,

12. or otherwise violative of any law.

I certainly didn't invent this. It's there for anyone to read. I simply asked an honest question about #9. I could also make a strong case with plenty of examples of regular violations of numbers 1-6 as well.

There is no need for anyone to get so defensive, turning the tables toward me. If you can't or won't answer the question that I have posed then simply admit it.

I suspect that I already know the answer. It is this:

That the TOS are a joke. The TOS needs to be modified to remove items 1-6, and 9. Why? Because those items are not actionable violations (in practice), rather they are normal and accepted types of posts here on the SDMB.

That is all.



------------------
Contestant #3

Why do I think this is about numbers 1 thru 6, and not about number 9, dispite the title of this thread?

exposure to lead paint chips as a child? oxygen deprivation during birth? lack of an imagination? heck, I don't really know Slythe!

why do you think as you do?

------------------
Contestant #3

I said this before on the (now closed) thread in the GQ forum: the way point 12 is phrased ("or otherwise violative of any law") suggests that the previous points are relevant only as far as they violate some law.

Holger

yes, and you are still just as incorrect in your interpretation.

------------------
Contestant #3

Well, #3, my interpretation had not yet been discussed on the old thread because it was closed soon after I made the suggestion. But "I'm right, you're all wrong" is not really what I'd call a discussion. (Maybe that sort of contribution should be banned from the board!)

If you don't want answers, why did you ask in the first place? And why did I even bother to reply?

Holger

Moderators and Administraters too cowardly to give an honest shot at an answer?

------------------
Contestant #3

The rule is there so moderators/administrators can enforce it in a selective, subjective manner.

There now. That wasn't so hard, was it?

A question's not really a question
When you know the answer, too.
------
-John Prine

I'll tell you why I haven't bothered to address your question, Connie. Because you didn't post it to get an answer, you posted it to cause trouble. You have proved that you think you know better than anyone else what the rules should be and how they should be enforced, and when anyone tries to explain that things are different you become abusive and start saying nasty things about people instead of addressing the issues. Lessee now, IIRC, although I did not say a nasty word to you personally, because I dared to suggest that you were wrong about the copyright issue, you called me an affirmative action hiree, a butch lawyer (my husband and three kids would be surprised to hear that), suggested that I was lying and that I wasn't an attorney, or that all I do is run errands in the office in which I work, and insinsuated that my life must be so boring that I ought to be suicidal.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there was more. And that doesn't even begin to address the (sarcasm alert) mature manner in which you stalked and abused David.

So, the reason I should bother to respond to your trolling is what?

-Melin

------------------
Phenomenal woman
Bitch Corporate Lawyer
That's me

Melin,

The fact is that you came out of the woodwork to accuse me of copyright violation.
You also tried to use your corporate lawyer job as a means of intimidating me and proclaiming superior knowledge of copyright law. Yes, you pissed me off.

I took great pleasure in shoving the copyright thing back down your pious throat by pointing out that you yourself had violated copyright some 200+ times on these boards.

As a result, you have quietly stopped violating copyright with your signature.

The fact remains that what I posted DID NOT violate copyright law. In fact, it's only copyright infringment if a COURT says it is. I was picked on and I gave it back plus some interest.

At least Nick can admit that enforcement of the bullshit rules are totally subjective. Why don't some of the rest of you stop kidding yourselves.

------------------
Contestant #3

In fact, it's only copyright infringment if a COURT says it is.

Hey, this old lady was knocked off and had all of her expensive possessions stolen. No court knows about it.

Does that mean it isn't murder, theft, B&E, or any of the other crimes committed, just because no court came down and said so?

I'm missing the reasoning on this one. Are you trying to tell us that NOTHING is "wrong" until some court comes down and SPECIFICALLY decides on that one issue?

Do you care to try to explain, or are you going to resort to insulting my job, my site, myself, and whatever else you can find to demean instead?

Actually, I haven't violated copyright, because my use of the quote from the poem constitutes fair use. I used three lines from the entire poem, and am still using two of them, as opposed to the entire thing.

And yeah, I'd say my job puts me in a better position to know more about copyright than the average joe, and you ain't shown yourself to be even that smart.

-Melin

------------------
Phenomenal woman
Bitch Corporate Lawyer
That's me

Warning: rant follows, out of character for me.

Con#3, you still don't get and probably never will. We don't really care two hoots in hell about your interpretation of copyright law.

Our bottom line: we don't want to get sued for copyright infringement. We don't want to run the risk of being sued. We don't want to get even close to that situation.

We don't have the money to fight it in court, and we don't have the money to pay up if we lose. We have therefore determined what position to take on this board to protect ourselves. If you don't like it, I suggest you find a different board.

This is a privately funded board, by the READER; it is not a public forum except to the extent the READER is willing to permit. And the READER shies away from anything that might cost money in legal fees or lawsuits.

That has to do with rules about copyright, pornography, encouraging illegal acts, and the like. You're damn right the rules are fuzzy. That's our stand; we're trying to protect our ass(es), and we (advised by our lawyers) are the best judge of where that protection line should be drawn.

Does that mean that our stance is subjective? You bet. We are under no obligation to set objective standards. We are not a law court and not a government office, required to be fair and even-handed. We do our best to be fair and even-handed, but we make no pretense that we have (or want to have) firm definitions. We use a smell test -- does it smell like it could cause problems? If yes, then we act. If no, then we don't.

If you don't like it, go find another site. The alt.fan.cecil-adams site, for instance, has no sponsors, as I understand it, so no modators and no rules. You'd be much happier there, I'm sure.

Of course, if you wanted to donate a few million dollars to the READER's legal defense fund, then perhaps we'd reconsider some of our positions.

Dex, that was way to polite, coherent, and logical to be a rant. IMHO of course.
"The world is Round. It is not fair. It is just Round." No matter how smart I'm not, I do know better than to swim at night on the Great Barrier Reef.

Hey, Cat, where do you get off calling me names like "polite, coherent, and logical." Sheeesh. You wanna flame me, go to the BBQ Pit where that kinda insult belongs.

Hey, nice to see you coming out from under the table, man.