Editor's Blog3 mins ago
Do we have to watch .....
our P & Q's now on this site , or we will be banned ?
I note in the kev100 thread below that the name
ward minter , has been banned , together with all answers .
( wardy ) as he is now known , has definitely posted some controversial views in the past , in the news section .
However was the ban right ?
The front page of the site says that you can ask questions and get answers , no matter how outrageous .
Surely it is better for people to air their views and for others to challenge them , if they dont agree with those views .
What do you think ?
I note in the kev100 thread below that the name
ward minter , has been banned , together with all answers .
( wardy ) as he is now known , has definitely posted some controversial views in the past , in the news section .
However was the ban right ?
The front page of the site says that you can ask questions and get answers , no matter how outrageous .
Surely it is better for people to air their views and for others to challenge them , if they dont agree with those views .
What do you think ?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(wardy) is now )wardy( after another ban
i agree with you in principle but i guess it can't be an easy job deciding what should say on a family site and what should be removed - i wouldn't want to have to edit this place... on a side note i think it is a pity that all wardy's (and all his previous names) post have been removed as he often provided very useful factual information within the law section where debate is generally kept to a minimum - sad to throw out the good stuff with the bad
i agree with you in principle but i guess it can't be an easy job deciding what should say on a family site and what should be removed - i wouldn't want to have to edit this place... on a side note i think it is a pity that all wardy's (and all his previous names) post have been removed as he often provided very useful factual information within the law section where debate is generally kept to a minimum - sad to throw out the good stuff with the bad
Bad choice of wording for the front page since they contain a gross ambiguity in meaning.
I presume the use of 'outrageous' was meant to convey 'extremely unusual or unconventional' as opposed to 'grossly offensive to decency or morality' which in and of itself is a contravention of the Site Rules for posting.
I presume the use of 'outrageous' was meant to convey 'extremely unusual or unconventional' as opposed to 'grossly offensive to decency or morality' which in and of itself is a contravention of the Site Rules for posting.
1 to 3 of 3
