From: alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca 
  
 Charles wrote: 
  
  
 > 
 > I think putting a "prohibition" is good because it sugests behavior and 
 > the normal people will abide. Of course the trolls and vandals will 
 > ignore it. The question is how best to word the "prohibition". I am not 
 > sure about "not permitted" because it does sound somewhat odd when you 
 > can't actually enforce it in an unmoderated group. It might be better 
 > to say "not welcome" or "not allowed". But probably as others suggested 
 > "inappropriate" would be better wording. I do think it would be 
 > interesting to put "not permitted" and see if those who promised to 
 > enforce the prohibitions actually did so. It could be seen as a test. 
  
 I've failed to bring up an important point clearly enough.  When 
 it comes to complaints to ISP's, re-mailer policy and spammers, 
 it is genuinely useful to have prohibited behaviour spelled out 
 such that it is not subject to interpretation.  I'm not claiming 
 that compliance or enforcement is universally applied, but it is 
 in some quarters. 
  
 Cheers, 
 Alan 
  
  
 -- 
 -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: 
 -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm 
 -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)