the mods "clone" standpoint

[bob]

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.



Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

I hope such a post does not exist. If we can't _discuss_ clones here, you won't see me posting here at all. CCC was created to discuss such issues, where the technical expertise necessary is readily available.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.



Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

They don't have the power to do so....if they're elected,their task will be to moderate the forum not to own it....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Martin,

clarification:

one candidate posted this about censorship which is self explanatory -

take note of the phrase "have-never-allowed".

"My last moderation term in this forum would have _never_ allowed the discussion, links, or results of a possible clone program."

Chris posted:

6. Allow freedom of expression within the scope of my interpretation of the Charter.

Graham is silent on censorship.

thanks for correcting my previous post.

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.

Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Martin,

clarification:

one candidate posted this about censorship which is self explanatory -

take note of the phrase "have-never-allowed".

"My last moderation term in this forum would have _never_ allowed the discussion, links, or results of a possible clone program."

Chris posted:

6. Allow freedom of expression within the scope of my interpretation of the Charter.

Graham is silent on censorship.

thanks for correcting my previous post.

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.

Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

Hmmm,interesting....so he intends to modify the charter according to his understandings,eh
Will see about that....
Dr.D

[Rolf]

If we can't _discuss_ clones here, you won't see me posting here at all. CCC was created to discuss such issues, where the technical expertise necessary is readily available.

Perhaps we have the problem that the guys with expertise refuse to investigate and maintain that the "clone" is innocent until proven guilty by experts. Somehow that is what happened with the anons and their Rolito. Who become heroes although they are crooks.

I am making tremendous progress in understanding certain strangeness in CC.

a) the double bind with Rolito -> experts can keep alive a clone by refusing to examine its nature, so that the offense against the robbed author continues. A blackmail comedy.

b) the GPL institution that is trying to control and barre certain tech from proliferation but by publishing it all the way with the grotesque consequence that who takes something from that pool, he must declare _everything_ of his code as GPL too.

Looks gaga to me.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

If we can't _discuss_ clones here, you won't see me posting here at all. CCC was created to discuss such issues, where the technical expertise necessary is readily available.

Perhaps we have the problem that the guys with expertise refuse to investigate and maintain that the "clone" is innocent until proven guilty by experts. Somehow that is what happened with the anons and their Rolito. Who become heroes although they are crooks.

I am making tremendous progress in understanding certain strangeness in CC.

a) the double bind with Rolito -> experts can keep alive a clone by refusing to examine its nature, so that the offense against the robbed author continues. A blackmail comedy.

b) the GPL institution that is trying to control and barre certain tech from proliferation but by publishing it all the way with the grotesque consequence that who takes something from that pool, he must declare _everything_ of his code as GPL too.

Looks gaga to me.

You're a real barmy Rolfy....why doesn't your master man up and come here to show us a convincing evidence regarding his so called stolen source code
bow bow regards,
Dr.D

[mariaclara]

Let's get it on !!!

it's time to see who's the Man

You're a real barmy Rolfy....why doesn't your master man up and come here to show us a convincing evidence regarding his so called stolen source code
bow bow regards,
Dr.D

[bob]

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.



Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

They don't have the power to do so....if they're elected,their task will be to moderate the forum not to own it....
Dr.D

I would hope this applies to all moderators. But in the past, it has not. we have had cases of posts being edited to meet the standards moderators imagined, and such. If we can't discuss cloning, cloning issues, and supposedly cloned programs here, then I don't see much use for "here". Most of the actual authors have long since been run off by the nonsensical stuff that goes on. What's one or two more?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I'm a bit confused.

In This thread, marie claire says:

Question Graham, Peter and Chris said they will not allow "clone" discussions.

Could someone please point me to the source of that info please.

Reading further in that thread i understand that the reason for not allowing clone discussions (whatever that means) is because of their questionalbe legal status.

Now here is my point: Nowhere in the charter can i find that you are not allowed to talk about questionable illegal entities. It's the post in itself which cannot to be of questionable legal status.


Now i understand why the moderators would like to moderate these usually very heated discussions, but claiming that these discussions - in themselves - are of questionable legal status is the wrong way to go in my opinion.



Have I missed something here?

EDIT: Typos

They don't have the power to do so....if they're elected,their task will be to moderate the forum not to own it....
Dr.D

I would hope this applies to all moderators. But in the past, it has not. we have had cases of posts being edited to meet the standards moderators imagined, and such. If we can't discuss cloning, cloning issues, and supposedly cloned programs here, then I don't see much use for "here". Most of the actual authors have long since been run off by the nonsensical stuff that goes on. What's one or two more?

Agreed Bob....
Dr.D

[Rolf]

If we can't _discuss_ clones here, you won't see me posting here at all. CCC was created to discuss such issues, where the technical expertise necessary is readily available.

Perhaps we have the problem that the guys with expertise refuse to investigate and maintain that the "clone" is innocent until proven guilty by experts. Somehow that is what happened with the anons and their Rolito. Who become heroes although they are crooks.

I am making tremendous progress in understanding certain strangeness in CC.

a) the double bind with Rolito -> experts can keep alive a clone by refusing to examine its nature, so that the offense against the robbed author continues. A blackmail comedy.

b) the GPL institution that is trying to control and barre certain tech from proliferation but by publishing it all the way with the grotesque consequence that who takes something from that pool, he must declare _everything_ of his code as GPL too.

Looks gaga to me.

You're a real barmy Rolfy....why doesn't your master man up and come here to show us a convincing evidence regarding his so called stolen source code
bow bow regards,
Dr.D

My man is man enough to exist under his real name while others like Depp are existing under pseudo because they fear the light of the public... why, because of inborn evil intentions.