Also, if someone does a google search on something that is discussed in FFL,
hits may come up to one or more FFL posts. That has helped bring new members to
FFL in the past. Those search hits would be turned off if FFL were in the Adult
category.
"Love will swallow you, eat you up completely, until there is no `you,' only
love."
- Amma
--- On Sat, 6/13/09, Rick Archer <r...@searchsummit.com> wrote:
From: Rick Archer <r...@searchsummit.com>
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize.
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2009, 1:14 PM
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:48 AM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologise.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> Judy,
>
> Since it seems Alex is going to ignore my question,
> I'll put it to you: why should FFLers care if we're
> dumped into an adult rating?
It's been explained several times that if FFL is in
the Adult category, folks won't be able to find the
group with the Find a Yahoo! Group feature, unless
they know to search for "Adult," and then they'll
have 90,721 groups to look through to find us.
If FFL isn't classified as adult, in contrast, they
can do a search for "Transcendental Meditation," and
they'll have to go through only 49 groups.
That's true, and it's also true that when we got classified as "Adult", people
couldn't view FFL on public library computers. It might also be that they were
blocked on some school and university computers. I don't know. I think FFL
works best as an open, easy to find forum with extensive, diverse
participation. It would definitely hurt the group to be slapped with an "Adult"
classification. I don't know where Yahoo draws the line, or who decides. They
probably don't even know what's going on unless someone brings it to their
attention, as happened last time. So we have to decide what's appropriate. It's
a very subjective judgment; not clear-cut. I guess ultimately it's my
responsibility to decide, so I will. Here's my decision:
I say there's little distinction between posting links to porn and posting
actual porn. I don't see how the site Shemp linked to provided any useful
embellishment of his point. We all know or can imagine what porn looks like,
and if we don't, we can find it easily enough ourselves. We don't need FFL to
provide links. We have a pretty broad definition of what is permissible to
post. I don't think banning links to porn is excessively restrictive. As for
colorful language in the things Edg and some others write, we'll let that slide
as long as it's in context and not gratuitive. The same goes for the use of
expletives in the way we address one another. I don't like it, and don't
indulge in it myself, but I think it would be too restrictive to ban it.
So I say there's no need for Alex to apologize, and I appreciate his diligence
and good judgment in deleting Shemp's post. I'll edit the FFL guidelines now to
forbid linking to porn.
Sonia Sotomayor, move over. I want your job.
