--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stan...@...> wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of bob_brigante > > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:03 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex Stanley, correct and apologize. > > > > I usually ignore grupenfuehrer musings, but this is truly ridiculous and > > unnecessary. Nobody at Yahoo is going to think that a URL is the basis for > > an adult rating, and it does sometimes happen that the group needs to post a > > URL linking to an adult site in order to clarify an item under discussion. > > For instance, a poster here cited a "BJ sandwich," a term which was > > misunderstood by readers here and which I did not understand either -- so I > > posted a link to a site which graphically depicted what this term meant. > > Trivial, true, but 99and 44/100ths of what goes on in this list is pure > > tripe, and in any event, layering even more rules on the list will make your > > job as moderator unnecessarily difficult as well as making people afraid of > > stepping over some completely useless and unnecessary lines -- a URL is a > > URL, period and nobody cares unless they are moderating a site intended only > > for children. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > You make good points. My judgment is certainly fallible, and open > > to revision. > > The way I see it, there's someone out there who would love nothing more than > to have FFL shut down or at least shrouded in the obscurity of the adult > groups, so I err on the side of caution. If you do decide to allow people to > post URL's to sexually explicit content, at the very least, people should be > required to post a warning along with the URL. That is a common rule on blogs > and message boards because people often use Internet access at work, and they > don't want porn suddenly appearing on their monitors. Typically, the warning > is in the form of "[link NSFW]", meaning link is not safe for work. Of > course, shemp will probably piss and moan about that rule, too. >
******** Actually, since Shemp is posting during working hours, I don't think he'll beef about that proposed rule, but since the great majority of posters here are not posting from work computers (and they would put themselves at risk just by wasting company time even if they never visited any porn sites), there's no need to make any more rules about posting. The trouble with worrying about what may offend some is that you end up being so politically correct that you can't do anything. You referred to somebody as a "cute sexy young guy" in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/211261 -- what if somebody says you're crossing over a line here? Unless Yahoo officially complains about posts here, a very unlikely event since the provocateur who caused an "adult" classification problem here before was easily dealt with by Rick, the moderators should not be making more and more rules about what is OK to post and what not. I like the shock value of making some posts to shocking links (and I will even use tiny.url to mask the XXX nature of the URL sometimes). This is not an "adult" site, but we're all adults, so let's not get too prissy, eh?
