Obama backing away from another pledge.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Still trying to perfect that voigt kampf scale are we?

[Peikko 1,575]

Hehehe, I see VW is perfecting her 'baiting' technique. Ah, the joys of VJ OT.

Now, what's Mr Shooter going to contribute to today's entertainment...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I follow the rationale applied to the TOS here - I would be perfectly OK to imply that a certain someone isn't exactly who they claim to be, and is instead engaging in a George Costanza-esque fantasy in which they are a fabulously wealthy, tenured university professor (when they are, in fact, a low-paid desk jockey).

I can get away with this because:

1) I am not naming the person directly

2) I am forbidden by the TOS to reveal the source of the information in question - because it would require me to reference content on another website.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

to OP, ohhh noes! that means that politicians promise what they cannot achieve! Obama, you are one of a kind!!

OMG! the horror! my eyes have been covered by a veil all this time! I've been reborn

Edited May 12, 2009 by TävôLuDô

[The_Dude 1,142]

If I follow the rationale applied to the TOS here - I would be perfectly OK to imply that a certain someone isn't exactly who they claim to be, and is instead engaging in a George Costanza-esque fantasy in which they are a fabulously wealthy, tenured university professor (when they are, in fact, a low-paid desk jockey).

I can get away with this because:

1) I am not naming the person directly

2) I am forbidden by the TOS to reveal the source of the information in question - because it would require me to reference content on another website.

But do PM's fall within the parameters of this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I follow the rationale applied to the TOS here - I would be perfectly OK to imply that a certain someone isn't exactly who they claim to be, and is instead engaging in a George Costanza-esque fantasy in which they are a fabulously wealthy, tenured university professor (when they are, in fact, a low-paid desk jockey).

I can get away with this because:

1) I am not naming the person directly

2) I am forbidden by the TOS to reveal the source of the information in question - because it would require me to reference content on another website.

But do PM's fall within the parameters of this?

I'm sure they do, in theory.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If I follow the rationale applied to the TOS here - I would be perfectly OK to imply that a certain someone isn't exactly who they claim to be, and is instead engaging in a George Costanza-esque fantasy in which they are a fabulously wealthy, tenured university professor (when they are, in fact, a low-paid desk jockey).

I can get away with this because:

1) I am not naming the person directly

2) I am forbidden by the TOS to reveal the source of the information in question - because it would require me to reference content on another website.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do all the mods have access to my PM's? *furiously starts deleting all the dodgy ones - brb*

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Do all the mods have access to my PM's? *furiously starts deleting all the dodgy ones - brb*

Delete the dirty ones Ewok sent you.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If I follow the rationale applied to the TOS here - I would be perfectly OK to imply that a certain someone isn't exactly who they claim to be, and is instead engaging in a George Costanza-esque fantasy in which they are a fabulously wealthy, tenured university professor (when they are, in fact, a low-paid desk jockey).

I can get away with this because:

1) I am not naming the person directly

2) I am forbidden by the TOS to reveal the source of the information in question - because it would require me to reference content on another website.

But do PM's fall within the parameters of this?

I'm sure they do, in theory.

I don't see how they would be. They aren't public, they are private messages.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do all the mods have access to my PM's? *furiously starts deleting all the dodgy ones - brb*

Delete the dirty ones Ewok sent you.

I can't do that! Those ones are sacred

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see how they would be. They aren't public, they are private messages.

Correct. But as there's no burden of proof and explicitly referencing 3rd party content (in the form of direct links or cut and paste) is strictly against the TOS - vague implications suggestive of something, somewhere (perhaps) would appear to not meet that standard.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Do all the mods have access to my PM's? *furiously starts deleting all the dodgy ones - brb*

Cleo said dodgy

[Peikko 1,575]

Just for you Len

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Just for you Len

aaaawww thankssss..... how very "gay" of you