In a message dated 6/13/2009 1:15:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, r...@searchsummit.com writes:
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 _fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto: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. **************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips. (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
