|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2016 12:45:14 GMT
snip... How that fits into the scenario of the responsibility of a site owner for comments made within discussion groups is probably something else. Another is that it is the opinion of the poster, but for that to work the post would have to explicitly say that. A note in the rules or elsewhere on the site will not carry any weigh. Would a permanent ‘signature’ postscript, to the effect that the content is the author’s opinion alone, have the desired effect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 12:56:11 GMT
Signatures are not visible on the mobile version so I think you would have to manually paste it it into every post liable to cause a 'problem' otherwise some people can claim not to have seen it (I always use a phone and never see a signature on here or CWDF)
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 13:01:33 GMT
Another is that it is the opinion of the poster, but for that to work the post would have to explicitly say that. A note in the rules or elsewhere on the site will not carry any weigh. Would a permanent ‘signature’ postscript, to the effect that the content is the author’s opinion alone, have the desired effect? I think it would depend on whether it could be construed as being separate from the post or not e.g. In the latter it could be debatable as to whether it was a catchall or part of the post. These are my opinion and thoughts etc These are my opinion and thoughts etc
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 13:08:46 GMT
deleted
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 13:31:48 GMT
Nigel,
In my opinion a signature would not do as in some modes it does no appear to be visible, it appears at the bottom of the page. More important any change to the signature applies to apparently all post past and present.
I have a signature of the type I think you are suggesting and I think you will see it is on past and present posts.
Just have to get into the habit of typing it where needed.
G
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2016 17:15:02 GMT
Blah blah These are my opinion and thoughts etc Trying to get signature to work to see where on page it is. No luck The signature is visible to me, both on phone connection AND laptop. [Mind you, I had better check that the phone is using the mobile version - I certainly thought it was.] I do not see that it matters for this to be attached to every post you make - it will be equally true in all cases, surely. Otherwise, I cannot really see any problem anyway, if the site owner is given notification of a period in which to take material down. Time enough to take action then.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 16, 2016 17:51:20 GMT
Blah blah These are my opinion and thoughts etc Trying to get signature to work to see where on page it is. No luck The signature is visible to me, both on phone connection AND laptop. [Mind you, I had better check that the phone is using the mobile version - I certainly thought it was.] I do not see that it matters for this to be attached to every post you make - it will be equally true in all cases, surely. Otherwise, I cannot really see any problem anyway, if the site owner is given notification of a period in which to take material down. Time enough to take action then. I see where you are trying to go, but am sure that it would not work that way if the otherside is who I think it might be. The complainant will have a copy of the post or posts and if it is inappropriate then they can demand removal, to start playing around just because a take down arrives is too late. To my mind the signature line is too far below the bottom of the post. The disclaimer needs to be individual to each post it would I suggest be unreasonable to claim every post that you post is just you opinion and thoughts. It depends on how much on the edge you expect to be. I can now take the signature off my profile
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 19, 2016 15:06:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 19, 2016 16:50:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 21, 2016 13:51:46 GMT
Thanks Nigel a lot of reading when needed
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 19:46:36 GMT
DHutch (http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=150) has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Following ongoing discussion and significant review, this thread is going to remain closed.
Myself and the site staff do not wish to prevent members talking about current activity between waterways organisations such as CRT and canal users, however I also do not feel it is appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against such organisations. Members need to consider what they are posting and effect of doing so. We have not been contact directly by CRT or Shoesmiths. There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement.
Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the site rules.
---------------------------
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:56:42 GMT
DHutch (http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=150) has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Following ongoing discussion and significant review, this thread is going to remain closed. Myself and the site staff do not wish to prevent members talking about current activity between waterways organisations such as CRT and canal users, however I also do not feel it is appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against such organisations. Members need to consider what they are posting and effect of doing so. We have not been contact directly by CRT or Shoesmiths. There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement. Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the site rules. --------------------------- The guy is an arsehole. Simples.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 25, 2016 19:57:16 GMT
DHutch (http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=150) has just posted a reply to a topic that you have subscribed to titled "Boater Sues C&RT for Section 8". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Following ongoing discussion and significant review, this thread is going to remain closed. Myself and the site staff do not wish to prevent members talking about current activity between waterways organisations such as CRT and canal users, however I also do not feel it is appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against such organisations. Members need to consider what they are posting and effect of doing so. We have not been contact directly by CRT or Shoesmiths. There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement. Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the site rules. --------------------------- I note no mention of legal advice
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 19:59:24 GMT
It was PaulG2, if I recall correctly, who posted somewhere else regarding so-called anti-CaRT campaigns, that these should properly be campaigns FOR the proper management of CaRT, rather than diatribes against the organisation as an entity entrusted with our priceless national asset.
That is surely, what Tony, I, and others have been doing – in fact, a lot of what I have been promoting, in everything I have written, is more and more properly focussed enforcement of the law, instead of the power-hungry, pointless, and costly throwing around of weight for the sake of it.
To view the “Boater Sues C&RT” thread as a purely ant-CaRT campaign is to blindly follow the specious argumentation of Mr Stoner at Leigh’s last hearing. There is something deeply ironic in the fact that Dan & Co are giving the lie to the decision Chief Master Marsh made on this very same accusation.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 20:06:45 GMT
I note no mention of legal advice Indeed not. Moreover - I note the curious wording emphasising that neither CaRT nor Shoosmiths have DIRECTLY contacted him, which raises rather obvious suspicions. How does one reconcile the assertion that there is no ban on discussing CaRT enforcement, with the statement of a ban on discussing caRT enforcement regarding Leigh and the lightship? The distinction is too profound for the likes of me.
|
|