RE: "Awaiting approval"

RE: "Awaiting approval" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

EvilGenie -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 7:13:32 AM)
Is something goofy going on or is it just me? Many of Aswad's posts are just blank and where people have quoted someone it is just a thin white line with no quote. Huh??????? Merry and Happy Whatever All! P.S. Thank you for the rockin' Ramadan though Ramadan is in the fall. The winter holiday nearest to Christmas was last week; Eid ul-Adha. We celebrate them all; the Eids, Ramadan and Christmas and your well wishes are much appreciated! [:)]

Owner59 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 8:08:37 AM)
I can see them,fine.I think it`s you ,hon. Do you have him blocked?

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 9:48:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I've been warned 4 times by Mod 6, 2 times by Mod 7, once by Mod 2 a long time ago and 5 times by Mod 11. I think Mod 6 has a crush on me! She's very nice! Well golly, no wonder everyone loves you?

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 9:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kc692 quote: ORIGINAL: angelic ~fr~ The person behind Mod 11 changes. Some have been a kick in the butt and some have been tempermental. Again, where in the hell did yuou get your all knowing crystal ball(to use Mod 11's phrase)??? Mod 11 is Mod 11(that is why there are different numbers, dearie, even a rocket scientist can tell that). I'm sure they are glad you are calling them a kick in the butt and temperamental, and basically calling them different people. I don't know where you get your info, but I would definitely get a new source, everything you have touted to know on this thread has been purely ludicrous. Different transgressions call for different actions. Even if you are basing your personal "knowledge" on the fact you have had different attitudes from Mod 11(which is what I'm suspecting) like other people, 11 is a human and therefore will not react as a robot. Maybe they decided to give you a break, or maybe your mess up was worse one time than another. I do know that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about, but I would return that crystal ball if I were you, I don't think it works worth a shit. Is moderator 11 your BFF????

MzMia -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:02:15 AM)
Sweetie, you got mail.

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:10:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Unless you believe that CM is in fact run and owned by the government of the United States or receives funding from the government to run a d/s bdsm board (which would be quite humorous), they can in fact refuse service to whomever they chose legally. If what you say is true than private business would be able to refuse service to people on account of their race, religion or viewpoint. To my knowlege there or laws that govern even in private business and corporations. Companies do not get to arbitrarily make things up and put it in a contract and expect it to be enforcable if it is not legal to do so. Legally terms of service can not be that broad that they can arbitrarily be at the descretiotn of the "enforcer". The judge would say "this is a grey area that needs to be outlined in your TOS". They get away with it because no one has bothered to take them to court. Or have they? I am not going to pretend that I know id they have been taken to court or not. My question is best directed at a layer. Perhaps someone from the ACLU could answer this better than I. Any lawyers here?

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:19:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 If what you say is true than private business would be able to refuse service to people on account of their race, religion or viewpoint. Yes, and laws were specifically written to provided those rights, often after long and contentious battles in the courts. Additionally, lets not forget that many members on here are not from the US and are writing from other countries, where the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is not seen as some sort of fundamental right. It is the government who cannot restrict your speech, but it may be restricted in other ways by private entities (as has been pointed out over and over and over again).

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:22:49 AM)
Yes, there are lawyers here; in fact, there are lawyers advising Collarme. Many of the things that the moderators are forced to suppress are statements that could get Collarme in legal trouble. The law works in both directions, you know. I really think people who aren't satisfied with the way the boards are monitored should just leave and make trouble on some other site instead. Or go make their own site. Really, all the complaining is tiresome, and we've covered this from every conceivable angle. The site isn't out to make money. The volunteers aren't paid. But they're also not required to pay for the bandwidth so that people can say whatever stupid thing they want. In fact, they're legally required to PREVENT people from saying whatever stupid thing they want; otherwise they'll get in trouble themselves. What aspect of any of this do you think is unfair? quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Companies do not get to arbitrarily make things up and put it in a contract and expect it to be enforcable if it is not legal to do so. Legally terms of service can not be that broad that they can arbitrarily be at the descretiotn of the "enforcer". The judge would say "this is a grey area that needs to be outlined in your TOS". They get away with it because no one has bothered to take them to court. Or have they? I am not going to pretend that I know id they have been taken to court or not. My question is best directed at a layer. Perhaps someone from the ACLU could answer this better than I. Any lawyers here?

BruisedHick -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:28:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Court thingy... Well, there are a few possibilities: If you take them to court, the judge may very well rule that their TOS needs to change. They may also rule that their rules go on a "good faith" premise, much like many laws out there. Similarily, a bar does not have to define what constitutes rowdy behaviour to throw a guy out, they just do it. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the act was discriminitory. At the end of the day, I see the Mods enforcing the rules mostly in the interest of the wider community here. They're not dismissing anyone based race, gender, or religion, they generally see a post, remove it (often before all too many people see it) and warn the person. After a few infractions, the people either learn or get an "awaiting approval" sign. You don't agree, take them to court... see what happens. Yours, benji

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 10:34:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BruisedHick quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Court thingy... Well, there are a few possibilities: If you take them to court, the judge may very well rule that their TOS needs to change. They may also rule that their rules go on a "good faith" premise, much like many laws out there. Similarily, a bar does not have to define what constitutes rowdy behaviour to throw a guy out, they just do it. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the act was discriminitory. At the end of the day, I see the Mods enforcing the rules mostly in the interest of the wider community here. They're not dismissing anyone based race, gender, or religion, they generally see a post, remove it (often before all too many people see it) and warn the person. After a few infractions, the people either learn or get an "awaiting approval" sign. You don't agree, take them to court... see what happens. Yours, benji This is not about ME taking anyone to court. This is regards to Laurell3 saying that because they were a private entity they could do whatever they wanted and laws did not apply. I am not sure that this is true?

thornhappy -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 11:39:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY From memory, since not all the emails have been saved, I think I've likely received at least 10 "warning" emails due to things I've posted on the forums. Anyone else care to comment? Firm Yep, late to the thread. Trying to view this site at my parents' would be..uh..strange. And they only have dialup. I was warned, politely, once. And when I saw the reason, I went "doh!". thornhappy

ownedgirlie -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 2:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Unless you believe that CM is in fact run and owned by the government of the United States or receives funding from the government to run a d/s bdsm board (which would be quite humorous), they can in fact refuse service to whomever they chose legally. If what you say is true than private business would be able to refuse service to people on account of their race, religion or viewpoint. To my knowlege there or laws that govern even in private business and corporations. Companies do not get to arbitrarily make things up and put it in a contract and expect it to be enforcable if it is not legal to do so. Legally terms of service can not be that broad that they can arbitrarily be at the descretiotn of the "enforcer". The judge would say "this is a grey area that needs to be outlined in your TOS". They get away with it because no one has bothered to take them to court. Or have they? I am not going to pretend that I know id they have been taken to court or not. My question is best directed at a layer. Perhaps someone from the ACLU could answer this better than I. Any lawyers here? There are State and Federal laws that require businesses to not descriminate on the basis of race, creed, or gender. However, have you looked at the fine print on some restaurant menus? "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That pretty much means outside of those State & Federal laws, they can toss anyone out that they feel is being inappropriate. I worked for a restaurant owner who utilized that right whenever he saw fit. Someone getting too beligerant in the bar? Bye bye. Someone being offensive to one of the waitresses? Bye bye. No need to pay for your meal, but we would like you to leave and not return, please. CollarMe pretty much has that right, too. It's written in the guidelines. They get to define what's offensive and wht is not. It's a subjective point of view, and the owners get to arm their Moderators with the autonomy to decide what meets the criteria and what does not. This is the best Moderated discussion board I've visited. It's refreshing to go to a place that isn't full of people hollaring at each other. I enjoy the positive environment and that's what keeps me coming back. As such, I'm willing to live with the occasional "unfairness" that people might perceive they are getting, even if it is me personally receiving it.

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 3:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Unless you believe that CM is in fact run and owned by the government of the United States or receives funding from the government to run a d/s bdsm board (which would be quite humorous), they can in fact refuse service to whomever they chose legally. If what you say is true than private business would be able to refuse service to people on account of their race, religion or viewpoint. To my knowlege there or laws that govern even in private business and corporations. Companies do not get to arbitrarily make things up and put it in a contract and expect it to be enforcable if it is not legal to do so. Legally terms of service can not be that broad that they can arbitrarily be at the descretiotn of the "enforcer". The judge would say "this is a grey area that needs to be outlined in your TOS". They get away with it because no one has bothered to take them to court. Or have they? I am not going to pretend that I know id they have been taken to court or not. My question is best directed at a layer. Perhaps someone from the ACLU could answer this better than I. Any lawyers here? There are State and Federal laws that require businesses to not descriminate on the basis of race, creed, or gender. However, have you looked at the fine print on some restaurant menus? "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." That pretty much means outside of those State & Federal laws, they can toss anyone out that they feel is being inappropriate. I worked for a restaurant owner who utilized that right whenever he saw fit. Someone getting too beligerant in the bar? Bye bye. Someone being offensive to one of the waitresses? Bye bye. No need to pay for your meal, but we would like you to leave and not return, please. CollarMe pretty much has that right, too. It's written in the guidelines. They get to define what's offensive and wht is not. It's a subjective point of view, and the owners get to arm their Moderators with the autonomy to decide what meets the criteria and what does not. This is the best Moderated discussion board I've visited. It's refreshing to go to a place that isn't full of people hollaring at each other. I enjoy the positive environment and that's what keeps me coming back. As such, I'm willing to live with the occasional "unfairness" that people might perceive they are getting, even if it is me personally receiving it. FINALLY! Someone answering my question in an intelligent way without attacking my need to question and desire to understand. I may not agree with the opinions but I respect everyone and their opinions. Ownedgirlie,You are so cool. [:)]

ownedgirlie -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 3:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Ownedgirlie,You are so cool. [:)] Ha - Thanks! Tell all your friends! [:D]

lusciouslips19 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 3:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Ownedgirlie,You are so cool. [:)] Ha - Thanks! Tell all your friends! [:D] HA! what friends?[8D]

kc692 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 3:58:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: kc692 quote: ORIGINAL: angelic ~fr~ The person behind Mod 11 changes. Some have been a kick in the butt and some have been tempermental. Again, where in the hell did yuou get your all knowing crystal ball(to use Mod 11's phrase)??? Mod 11 is Mod 11(that is why there are different numbers, dearie, even a rocket scientist can tell that). I'm sure they are glad you are calling them a kick in the butt and temperamental, and basically calling them different people. I don't know where you get your info, but I would definitely get a new source, everything you have touted to know on this thread has been purely ludicrous. Different transgressions call for different actions. Even if you are basing your personal "knowledge" on the fact you have had different attitudes from Mod 11(which is what I'm suspecting) like other people, 11 is a human and therefore will not react as a robot. Maybe they decided to give you a break, or maybe your mess up was worse one time than another. I do know that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about, but I would return that crystal ball if I were you, I don't think it works worth a shit. Is moderator 11 your BFF???? Why would you like to know? If she was, you jealous?[;)] Seriously, I don't think the Mods are like that, I do think that what they do are awesome and worth kudos, and it's Christmas, please put your claws away. edited to add; I tend to take affront at snarky, hell sometimes I take affront at my own posts for the same reason after I read them but have already posted[;)]. shrugs...thank you for caring though!

kc692 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 4:02:11 PM)
It's Christmas and I'm trying to turn over a new leaf,,,, edited to add: well, maybe not yet,,,,I hope you told her all you think so that I can feel spechul?????[;)] Merry Christmas MzMia, I hope you have a wonderful holiday!!!!!! Would be nice if we could start from the beginning, I have liked some of your posts, we shall see...... I just, like you, call it like I see, it, right or wrong.[;)]

kc692 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 4:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Unless you believe that CM is in fact run and owned by the government of the United States or receives funding from the government to run a d/s bdsm board (which would be quite humorous), they can in fact refuse service to whomever they chose legally. If what you say is true than private business would be able to refuse service to people on account of their race, religion or viewpoint. To my knowlege there or laws that govern even in private business and corporations. Companies do not get to arbitrarily make things up and put it in a contract and expect it to be enforcable if it is not legal to do so. Legally terms of service can not be that broad that they can arbitrarily be at the descretiotn of the "enforcer". The judge would say "this is a grey area that needs to be outlined in your TOS". They get away with it because no one has bothered to take them to court. Or have they? I am not going to pretend that I know id they have been taken to court or not. My question is best directed at a layer. Perhaps someone from the ACLU could answer this better than I. Any lawyers here? I am not a lawyer but I am involved in housing. Race and religion are protected classes as is familial status, along with two other statuses. Lifestyle activities is not on the list. You are also basing service on people paying for such.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 4:27:42 PM)
I’m an amateur lawyer: I have a stop watch for when people ask me questions. I had a funny conversation with a friend the other day about his roof but he wasn’t laughing when I billed him $500, people they just don’t understand my new hobby.[8\|]

laurell3 -> RE: "Awaiting approval" (12/25/2007 6:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: BruisedHick quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Court thingy... Well, there are a few possibilities: If you take them to court, the judge may very well rule that their TOS needs to change. They may also rule that their rules go on a "good faith" premise, much like many laws out there. Similarily, a bar does not have to define what constitutes rowdy behaviour to throw a guy out, they just do it. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the act was discriminitory. At the end of the day, I see the Mods enforcing the rules mostly in the interest of the wider community here. They're not dismissing anyone based race, gender, or religion, they generally see a post, remove it (often before all too many people see it) and warn the person. After a few infractions, the people either learn or get an "awaiting approval" sign. You don't agree, take them to court... see what happens. Yours, benji This is not about ME taking anyone to court. This is regards to Laurell3 saying that because they were a private entity they could do whatever they wanted and laws did not apply. I am not sure that this is true? Laurell3 didn't say that at all, what she did say is that the first amendment does not apply to private entities unless they receive government funding and even then sometimes not. I would be hard pressed to believe CM gets government grants or funding to run a bdsm board.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125