What rules am I breaking not adhering to your three options? Please post me the link.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum. Ok.....turn off the dramatics.
Judging by some of your posts you need to put that into practice more often.
I took offense to both of these comments therefore you are in option 4:
disagreeing + insulting the thread starter.
None of that makes sense.
None of that makes sense
to you.
I'll try and explain what happen here. Sometimes in threads, you can be talking about different topics with different people at the same time. For example this thread is all about the deleting of one post that has not been replied to. I got my answer in the first reply by
@Eric Lyon, but
@equity78 then replied about something specific to the E.U. directive that I mentioned, which then lead me to reply to him specifically, which can be done by quoting the individual, in this case, if you scroll up I quoted his post and replied to his comment.
Specifically E.U. brought a legal challenge to Google and won after 2 years. The "Right to be Forgotten" is a directive that certain data can be removed from Google's indexing, which I used as an analogy for my case in the first post.
@equity78 confirmed that it would probably take a legal challenge at NamePros at the very least for something similar to occur here. i.e.. if someone wanted one or more of their posts deleted.
The internet has been around for 30 odd years. I implied by the "Times are changing" comment that the E.U. are putting their foot down, reforming the rules which govern websites and search engines alike. Governments have ever more power to control their citizens' internet in their jurisdictions. If websites do not move with the times, follow the rules of law in those particular jurisdictions, its certainly possible they can be blocked. It's those websites that "adapt, survive".
Now if E.U. brought a law into effect very similar to the "Right to be Forgotten" which governs all forums. After a number of years, it's certainly possible that a forum could be blocked in the E.U. for not following E.U. law.
Would NP then agree to the jurisdiction's laws of that particular member? Who knows? May be they would be happy not operating in E.U. at all. I would hope it's not the latter as that would be a massive blow to the world's best domaining forum and I for one "certainly want to NP to survive".
#3 - This can be easily solved by carefully thinking before you post. Judging by some of your posts you need to put that into practice more often.
#3 - I wonder if the big bully of Google said that to E.U. in the school playground? Did you think E.U. shed a tear, nope they just kept on pushing hard for 2 years.
lol.....what the heck are you talking about?
As I said before the E.U. fought for the right to have certain data removed from Google. Google laughed in their faces and said no. Google might even have said further childish comments like what you said above to me. I used the analogy of a school playground, Google the bully and E.U the little kid. After 2 years the little kid had the last laugh and won the legal challenge.
Don't worry. I'm done posting here. I'm not trying to argue.
Maybe I was being sarcastic here and there but definitely not argumentative. I understand now you don't want to hear from people who disagree.
Good luck with your request.
I don't mind disagreement. What I dislike is childish insults and thread derailment.
Anything else?
Let us know. I'm standing by eagerly to address your issues.
