The comments under the question "Are bratz dolls a bad influence on young girls?" have been removed. There is a record of it on paper by the way, a user printed it, so it is not gone forever. Are you aware of this?

Comments

• Can you tell me what categoryso that I can follow it there too?

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 9th, 2009

Comments

• Thanks responding. Would you let me know how to get to my older list of questions?

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 5th, 2009

• On your view my profile and activity page, click the Q&A tab, make sure only the question box is ticked and they should be displayed there.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 5th, 2009

• Thank you for answering. What would be an example of unsuitable? Point me to an example of where they have done that.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 5th, 2009

• If let's say someone used a swear word, I can imagine any site taking out some of the letters in the middle or just use asterisks etc. If it was the admin who did that there would have been an indication of that.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 5th, 2009

• If you go to a gym, let's say, the administrators wouldn't take whatever you placed in the gym, and act like they didn't do it, they would warn you that the item is not allowed, ....call the police etc. They would make sure everyone learns about it as well.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 5th, 2009

• So, I don't think it is the admins who did it because it doesn't make them look good. It would be tampering with evidence. It would be plain and simple lying. And you are assuming AB would do that? I am saying I don't think so.
  
  I had to divide the comment into 4 because every time it looks longish it wouldn't post.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 5th, 2009

• http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/15
  This is AB's Terms and Conditions, this may answer some of your questions, otherwise try sending an email to answerbag and ask them. They do remove comments or segments without telling anyone if they feel it is in violation of their terms.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 5th, 2009

• Can you give me a cut and paste of the part of Terms and Conditions where it says that please?
  Re. writing them directly, I don't see them answering each person's question. I think they probably find it more efficient to answer it in an answerblog or something like that, in order to cover more ground.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 7th, 2009

• You asked about the removal of comments,
  
  8. MONITORING OF SERVICE CONTENT; RESOLUTION OF USER DISPUTES
  
  a. No Duty to Monitor. We are under no obligation to restrict or monitor the Service or any Content in any way. ANSWERBAG DOES NOT REGULARLY MONITOR THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF CONTENT. However, we reserve the right to modify or remove any Content at any time. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or Content expressed or made available by third parties, including other users, are those of the respective author(s) and not of Answerbag. Answerbag neither endorses nor is responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice, information, or statement made on the Service.
  
  This addresses that. You can use the feedback button at the bottom of the page if you have a problem with a specific page or item. You can try emailing them if you still have trouble or accessing them through the blog pages. They are under no obligation to respond.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 7th, 2009

• I can respond to that, but not if you are commited to finding the act of removing defensible. It would be a waste of time.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 8th, 2009

• It is defensible, it is their website and they can do as they please. You will find all websites reserve the right to remove comments that they feel are not suitable.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 8th, 2009

• -Noone would say it is okay if someone takes what belongs to them, and hiding the fact that they took it.
  
  There is something wrong with this picture. Anyone can do any despicable thing and get a lawyer to say "it is defensible", so you are not being helpful to the site if that is your goal. You doing the opposite, you are making look crooked, or a big bully.
  
  -You are not addressing the possibility of it being a security issue.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 9th, 2009

• They do not hide the fact as I showed you in their terms they state that they reserve the right to remove without notice anything they choose. For someone else to break into their database to remove it would mean that many others would find the same thing happening and they would quickly find the problem. It is not despicable for the website to remove comments that they find are against their terms of conduct. Take newspapers, they reserve the right to edit or refuse to print anything they want as well. If they didn't do this they run the risk of being sued.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 9th, 2009

• 1) When I wrote about hiding it, I meant that there is no sign of the comments in question having been there in the first place. It is only accidentally that someone found out it was removed.
  2) Re. your "...it would mean that many others would find the same thing happening and they would quickly find the problem", It could be the only one or one of the first ones removed, and some people may not check postings and it may take a long time to find it it. let's not forget, for most people this a past time.
  To be continued...

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 10th, 2009

• No one is going to get confused there is a clear difference. between the following 2 things:
  
  -On the one hand, removing something and pretending that is was never there, is something that you are insisting AB is doing.
  
  -On the other, there is making sure everything is transparent that no one can accuse anyone of stealing. "This is unsuitable, and we are penalizing this person, we are showing the rest of you what is unsuitable, so don't try it".
  To be continued...

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 10th, 2009

• Being governed by "If it doesn't belong to me don't take it, and I don't point at others i e., newspaper editors ( who edit grammar etc., not substantive items, and if they do they are wrong, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.) who may or may not have done questionable things, and use them as justification for doing the wrong thing.
  To be continued...

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 10th, 2009

• If you remove something from existence you are removing your own ability to show others the unsuitability. It doesn't even make sense from a technical stand point. It is ridiculous. And obviously the person who supposedly posted something unsuitable can't show a third party that he/she was wronly accused.
  
  -Does "Terms of Agreement" mean "If I post on my entrace of my store a notice that says "I may/will steal from you", that means it is a legal or ethical thing to do?
  
  Yesterday, I tried to post this in one shot but it didn't post.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 10th, 2009

• BTW, re. the newspaper refusing to print has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Nobody can get confused. Refusing to print is one thing, which is fine. Maikng it look like it was never sent, or erasing the print, is another.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 10th, 2009

• 1) That is exactly what removing the comment is, it isn't hiding it.
  2) I have seen where comments have been removed before, that doesn't mean they have someone hacking in to remove them.
  You don't need to show them it was wrongly removed, they reserve the right to remove anything they like so it is never wrong. No, terms of agreement means they you agree to their terms of use of their website. If you didn't like their terms then you shouldn't use their site. It is vastly different from stealing which is a criminal act. Newspapers print retractions often and there are many articles sent to newspapers which do not get printed along with things like letters to the editor which may only have part of the letter printed. They don't say that it is only partly printed what they do say is that they reserve the right to edit your letters to fit their space or remove content unsuitable for their publication. Again, this is the same thing that Answerbag and every other public site does.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 10th, 2009

• To assume that they must leave any comment made on their site even if it is against their terms of agreement is ridiculous, that is why they have terms of agreement.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 10th, 2009

• I forgot on more thing:
  "... Content expressed or made available by third parties, including other users, are those of the respective author(s) and not of Answerbag. Answerbag neither endorses nor is responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice, information, or statement made on the Service." So that disclaimer takes care of the your "...run risk of being sued", excuse.
  I am glad I am not confusable.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 11th, 2009

• Actually, no it doesn't, they would still be responsible if they allowed anything to stay that was against their terms of agreement. That only talks of accuracy and reliability not if a comment is offensive or libelous.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 11th, 2009

• The point is, the terms clearly state they have the right to remove things and since you had to agree to the terms before joining you agreed to allow them to do that.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 11th, 2009

• I already addressed everything above. You kept avoiding them. So I won't repeat them.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 11th, 2009

• I avoided nothing, I answered everythign you stated, but as I said, in the long run none of it matters as you agreed to their terms when joining up.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 11th, 2009

• The following is for other people who might be reading this, not for Gingerminx, since he/she is teaching us is if we want to do something wrong we can just make sure we get the people we are planning to cheat/abuse etc. to sign an agreement ahead of time. Please see below, I need to divide the posting.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 15th, 2009

• 1)Erasing somethng.
  2)Erasing something in such a way it appears that it was never there in the first place. Lying about having erased it which is what Gingerminx is claiming about AB.
  Two different things. See below.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 15th, 2009

• If I own a website and I need to remove something because is liablous, (liablous is only if it is not accurate by the way, if I am not mistaken) I should make sure that the person and all other users know that I have removed it, and I leave all the info about the posting, i.e. the username of the poster, the date and time, and if possible the length of the posting, in a place that it is impossible to avoid as in a column of it's own called let's say "removed".

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 15th, 2009

• AB has not lied about anything, it clearly states in its terms of agreement that it will remove things as it sees fit. I never once claimed that AB lied about anything and by the way, to say I did, is libelous. I think to say AB has cheated and abused you is also libelous.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 15th, 2009

• Even a 10 year will read the above and know that what you haven't been posting is any one of these things:
  "It could be one of those glitches"
  "I don't know the exact comments, I don't know the circsumstances,
  so I can't even guess, ...".
  
  Instead you kept coming back and back associating the disappearance of the comments to the "terms of agreement". So, no, you didn't use the exact words, as opposed to me who just mentioned a possible security issue. You, by the way added the words "...doesn't mean they have someone hacking in to remove them. "I don't know why.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 16th, 2009

• I referred you to their terms of agreement, I never once said they lied, you were the one accusing them of being under handed not me. Perhaps in future you should read things before agreeing to them. Anyway, I have wasted enough of my time trying to help you. Enjoy your life.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 16th, 2009

• Help me? Thank you for the daily dose of comedy.
  The Sept 10/09 9.06PM posting "...doesn't mean they have someone hacking in to remove them." it is not me that that concept occured to, and posted by.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 17th, 2009

• "So, I don't think it is the admins who did it because it doesn't make them look good." Your words, if it is not the admins then it is a hacker. Have fun with it.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 17th, 2009

• "...it doesn't mean they have someone hacking in .." your words. The key word is "have", as in, for eg. "I have someone lock my door for me."
  You said there is "no wrong", which includes everything, and you provided me with the instrument by which they would do anything. "terms of agreement".
  I thought if they didn't remove it just like someone breaks into my house could it be someone hacked in.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 18th, 2009

• "Hacking" means breaking in without permission, they can not, by definition, hack their own site, that is ridiculous. I already talked before about my doubts that someone else broke into the site but obviously you chose to over look it. Frankly the terms of agreement speak for themselves and you just seem determined to not want to take responsibility for agreeing to them when you joined up but wish to blame someone else for your comments going missing, if they were anything like this conversation I can understand why someone would want to remove them. I am done here.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on September 18th, 2009

• The ones who read this from top to bottom, no worries. The only readers of this who can be fooled are the ones who read this on a superficial level, but, considering how many times you have been checkmated, maybe not even them. Of course the people who live by idea of "there is no wrong"...

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 19th, 2009

• By the way I used the "checkmate", because I can't think of another word that is more fitting right now.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 19th, 2009

• I am going to post something here as soon as I can.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 23rd, 2009

• I am just posting to see if this question is going to be listed according to recent activity.

  • Report
  

  by abagy on September 24th, 2009

Comments