- Welcome to PogoCheats Forum.
PogoCheats CommunityDownload Cheats | Club Center | Pogo Help
Pogi Constellations | Anagram Solver
Pogo Daily Checklist
Pogi Constellations | Anagram Solver
Pogo Daily Checklist
Posted by Homer
- September 29, 2003, 07:15:02 PMHey Bball.....Bite me >:(.....My comment about disabilities was a legitimate thought in my mind. It was not intended to be a reason for me to use an auto program. I just happen to have a member of my family with a recent disability and it is extrememly painful for her to move her arms.
Posted by admin
- September 29, 2003, 06:36:05 PMQuote from: Bballplayer on September 29, 2003, 05:57:10 PM
Think you need to pick up a law book and fully understand the doctrines before you just copy a few lines of "rights".
As an example, even the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution has laws that do not provide protection on particular parts of speech. How so? I'm sure you're smart, but the 1st ammendment only provides that Government cannot interfer with your "right" of speech. It does not include private establishments like ISP hosting that can remove a users website if they do not agree with the content they post. This is just ONE example of countless by-laws for the Supreme Law of the Land.
No "right" is protected 100% and every "right" has governing laws.
...
As for the disability issue, I agree with you, but I can understand how someone could think that. Please try to be more polite in the future Bball. No need to say unnessicay things that will make poeple mad. ("The sad thing is, you decided to use a doctrine of law that helps protect those who are truly disabled, and turned it into a pity excuse for yourself.")
But as for the rights, I will look into it more, as I am not a lawyer, and do not know much about law.
What I do know, is that Pogo is in direct violation of our TOS. Not only do they admit it, they refuse to stop.
I assume you have already read this, but if you haven't, it would give you a good idea what I'm talking about.
Quote...these persons comply with our Terms of Service we might consider complying with yours.
That is completely unacceptable. This is a multi-billion dollar company, and they openly violate our TOS. What does that tell you about what kind of company they are?
That may not be illegal, but it is extremely unprofessional, and we will not stand for it.
Posted by Bballplayer
- September 29, 2003, 05:57:10 PMThink you need to pick up a law book and fully understand the doctrines before you just copy a few lines of "rights".
As an example, even the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution has laws that do not provide protection on particular parts of speech. How so? I'm sure you're smart, but the 1st ammendment only provides that Government cannot interfer with your "right" of speech. It does not include private establishments like ISP hosting that can remove a users website if they do not agree with the content they post. This is just ONE example of countless by-laws for the Supreme Law of the Land.
No "right" is protected 100% and every "right" has governing laws.
But I'm not going to lecture on law. Apparently you already know everything because it's already on paper.
And as for the Disability Act? Best read up on that too before you cry that as an excuse too.
P and/or EAA is not responsible to provide all computer systems with software to click a mouse. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Use your head. If there is a user who has a system who can't click a mouse, the system maker and only the system maker would be responsable for equipping the hardware with devices to meet requirements, not P and/or EAA, and noone here. ::) Just as Microsoft has taken responsability to make windows compatable for the Disability Act. I'm sure you're all aware of the accessability folder in your programs menu that has the Windows magnifer, narrator, and on-screen keyboard for users with particular disabilities.
And btw, Computer systems for disabled users are available upon request, including software for voice command for those who cannot use their hands. If a user is out there who cannot click a mouse, they're not going to purchase one with a mouse.
The sad thing is, you decided to use a doctrine of law that helps protect those who are truly disabled, and turned it into a pity excuse for yourself.
Anyways, just my thoughts on the Just A Thought thread. I'm sure I won't be liked for saying all this, but I'm used to it.
As an example, even the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution has laws that do not provide protection on particular parts of speech. How so? I'm sure you're smart, but the 1st ammendment only provides that Government cannot interfer with your "right" of speech. It does not include private establishments like ISP hosting that can remove a users website if they do not agree with the content they post. This is just ONE example of countless by-laws for the Supreme Law of the Land.
No "right" is protected 100% and every "right" has governing laws.
But I'm not going to lecture on law. Apparently you already know everything because it's already on paper.
And as for the Disability Act? Best read up on that too before you cry that as an excuse too.
P and/or EAA is not responsible to provide all computer systems with software to click a mouse. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Use your head. If there is a user who has a system who can't click a mouse, the system maker and only the system maker would be responsable for equipping the hardware with devices to meet requirements, not P and/or EAA, and noone here. ::) Just as Microsoft has taken responsability to make windows compatable for the Disability Act. I'm sure you're all aware of the accessability folder in your programs menu that has the Windows magnifer, narrator, and on-screen keyboard for users with particular disabilities.
And btw, Computer systems for disabled users are available upon request, including software for voice command for those who cannot use their hands. If a user is out there who cannot click a mouse, they're not going to purchase one with a mouse.
The sad thing is, you decided to use a doctrine of law that helps protect those who are truly disabled, and turned it into a pity excuse for yourself.
Anyways, just my thoughts on the Just A Thought thread. I'm sure I won't be liked for saying all this, but I'm used to it.
Posted by Homer
- September 25, 2003, 06:59:06 PMI wasn't even thinking about it in those kinds of terms but you do have a point.
Posted by titansfan
- September 25, 2003, 03:18:34 PMyea bad boys up there :D
Posted by admin
- September 25, 2003, 03:13:07 PMDon't get even me started on what they violate...
They violate their own TOS (Terms of Service) for god's sake!
From EA/P's TOS:
You also understand and agree that the EA.com Rules of Play and the EA.com Privacy Policy, including EA.com's enforcement of those policies, are not intended to confer, and do not confer, any rights or remedies upon any person.
I don't want to get into this again, but they HAVE violated our rights.
Look at b) and d). They have violated both of those in their efforts to shut us down.
They violate their own TOS (Terms of Service) for god's sake!
From EA/P's TOS:
You also understand and agree that the EA.com Rules of Play and the EA.com Privacy Policy, including EA.com's enforcement of those policies, are not intended to confer, and do not confer, any rights or remedies upon any person.
I don't want to get into this again, but they HAVE violated our rights.
QuoteFundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Look at b) and d). They have violated both of those in their efforts to shut us down.
Posted by Homer
- September 25, 2003, 03:07:29 PMI know this is going to sound lame but like I said it's just a thought. Isn't p violating the Americans with Disabilities Act? Not everyone who uses a computer can click a mouse.