Seems like all the people they deleted from the list were all those with an opposing view.
There were 8 signatures who posted abusive comments and spoofed other persons. Should obvious morons attempting to disrupt a petition process be on a list of names when they obviously don't endorse what the petition in question says?
I could of course have asked petitiononline.com to keep the garbage, it wouldn't have mattered much since it naturally would be removed when the list is compiled and handed over. It just looked bad, and some people seem to think that they have to agree with other signatories' "optional comments" in addition to the petition which they're signing.
By deleting those signitures, you complely delete any chance of that happening. Now it looks like 370 people who appose the licence compared to the few thousand or so that think its fair.
Huh? What are you talking about?
Im thinking about making a petition that says "The licenece is fine, keep it the way it is".
Well, Amiga Inc. and their "partners" have apparently aready "consulted" those. Heh. :-P