Thanks Linda, I understood that "porn" was an example, but if a board member used it (or anyone else.) It is inflammatory, and could cloud the real issue. So you are saying under the new proposal that if we have something the NC deems "inappropriate" that we are delinked and then given two weeks to comply with what the NC considers "appropriate", or be removed from the project? The word "inappropriate" is what I am having problems understanding. If wording in rules are plain and specific, then it leaves no room for mis-understandings. (can't seem to get past my family therapy training-) <grin> You over looked one of my questions, so I will ask this question again, regarding whether the archives falls under USGenweb By-laws. Are the archives under the same rules and regulations as the rest of us? I have been hearing all kinds of rumors and since I am new to the project, I am not sure where the "appropriate" place would be to ask this question, so will ask it here. I also get "lost" when messages are "snipped", so maybe I am not just not understanding all of this????? Best Regards, Dodie Browning -----Original Message----- From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> To: VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com <VAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, May 12, 2000 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [VAGEN-L] Proposal > >> I would *not* vote for the proposal the way it is worded. The new proposal >> is arbitrary and so is the previous one. IMO when too much power is given >> to one person, it can easily become a dictatorship. If "porn" is the >> issue, then why not word the proposal as such, so people do not >> misunderstand? The way the proposal is worded would make me afraid to post >> anything on my website, because an NC who didn't like something I had >> posted, or thought it was "inappropriate" could lock me out of my own page >> and take it over with no warning. "Inappropriate" is too arbitrary- and >> leaves the interpretation open to subjective opinions and whims. >> Best Regards, >> Dodie Browning >> CC-Tazewell County >> > >Oh.. I should have clarified your last paragraph, too. The proposal >would not give the nc or AB power to "lock" anyone out of their pages. > >Linda >