DFH.... Look at the positive..
It gave several people something to do for a period of time. hehe YMMV.. Marvin On 4/10/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sorry that my language was not as precise as some would like. I > really did not intend to upset so many people. > > The group who received computers from Free Geek has people from age 4 to > age 106 who use the computers. The computer area is not closely monitored. > Most people use the computers respectfully however someone has been using > their computers to go to porn sites and then leaving the site and the > pictures there for the next user of the computer. This is very disturbing > if you are 4 years old (or any age) and you are not expecting this and do > not want to see it. > > If they knew for sure who is doing this, it might be possible to ban > him?her from the community center. > > Thank you for the suggestions. > > I'll try to post again to let you know how things go. > > Peace > DFhubbard > > > >> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 17:55:12 -0700 >> From: Matt McKenzie <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [PLUG] XXX? >> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help, civil and on-topic" >> <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Erik Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Michael Rasmussen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:51PM -0700, Roderick A. Anderson wrote: >>> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> >> > I'm on the Free Geek Grant group. One group wants to be able to >>> stop >>> the >>> >> > access to porn on their grant computers. Any suggestions? >>> >> >>> >> I understood your request but it took several readings. >>> > >>> > WT_? >>> > >>> > "One group wants to be able to stop the access to porn on their grant >>> computers." >>> > >>> > That is a simple declarative sentence. >>> > One only needs to retain four phrases in their short term memory to >>> grok >>> it. >>> > >>> > OK, not as simple as Hemingway. Simplier than Stephanson, Dick, >>> Carroll >>> or LeGuin. >>> > >>> > May the linguists among us flame me if I'm wrong. >>> >>> It is an ambiguous sentence. It could be read to mean blocking access >>> to porn that is *already* on those computers, either from people on >>> the computer, or from the outside world, as well as what he likely >>> meant, blocking people using those computers from accessing porn sites >>> out there on the internet. >> >> >> My $0.02 here. >> >> The confusion, from my perspective at least, was this- >> Is the OP asking for help setting up filtering on computers that they or >> their group owns, that they received from Free Geek, >> or are they asking about setting up filters on ALL computers given out by >> Free Geek, regardless of whether the recipient wants such filters in >> place? >> >> >> This is where the individual rights issue comes up, whether Free Geek has >> the right to set up filters on all the computers it gives out. >> >> This is (or at least should be) separate from the moral issue of XXX on >> the >> internet, but the issue of the rights of the donor (Free Geek) and the >> rights of the recipient of the donated computers, to control what kinds of >> materials can be accessed on said computers, once the donor takes the >> computers to their private home. >> >> This is, and should be, separate from the right of, say, an employer to >> control access to certain materials on the employer's computers at the >> employer's place of business, using the employer's internet connection. >> This type of TOS restriction is common in most workplaces. (Or also >> employee's computers while accessing the employer's internet connection, >> etc) >> >> The OP mentioned being on the Free Geek Grant Group, and since I am not >> involved with Free Geek I don't know what kind of control they exercise >> over >> the computers being given out to individuals and groups, so thus the >> confusion. >> >> In other words, if this is about computers that an individual or group >> owns, >> received from Free Geek but no longer under their control, then they >> should >> be able to setup any kind of filtering they want for their private use. >> However if this is about controlling the access to any kind of material on >> all Free Geek computers after they leave Free Geek, and go into other >> people's private homes, that then crosses the line into censorship by one >> group over another, IMHO. The individual (or group) owner of the computer >> should decide for themselves if they want to filter content, not someone >> else. >> >> Is that clear as mud now? ;) >> >> >> ---------- >> Matt M. >> LinuxKnight >> > > True reconciliation is never cheap, for it is based on forgiveness, which > is costly. Forgiveness in turn depends on repentance, which has to be > based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on > disclosure of the truth. You cannot forgive what you do not know. > Archbishop Tutu > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
