|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
babozita
|
|
response 132 of 367:
| 
Feb 26 21:28 UTC 1997 |
Sorry, Rob. I misunderstood.
I'm of a different opinion. I refuse to give money to an establishment whose
President has publicly stated that the only way to positively contribute is
to give money. So, for me, giving money to Grex *is* an act of giving my soul.
Then again, I was threatening to give money a long time before I actually
decided never to, so the powers that be probably just think this is more of
my crying wolf. *sigh* I hate that aspect of myself sometimes.
Kerouac, shut up. Even though I've been gone for almost two months, you're
still being an idiot.
There. I've done my Kerouac slam. I'm happy now.
|
olddraco
|
|
response 133 of 367:
|
Feb 27 00:44 UTC 1997 |
Oh boy..I still voted no, I will continue to vote no. People post on here
and expect that someone knows something about the person reading the
posts. Gee is everything on every board entirely legal here? Nope. You've
got minors exposed to explicit sexual material. Ah well, internatioanl
<sp> legalities not withstanding..you should require people to register
on here in some manner.
Flame me..doesn't matter.
|
babozita
|
|
response 134 of 367:
|
Feb 27 00:53 UTC 1997 |
There are no laws concerning the availability of pornography to minors
electronically. Pornography laws currently only apply to print and broadcast
material. The CDA was overturned, remember?
I voted the way that I did because *I* know something about the current user
base.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 367:
|
Feb 27 01:22 UTC 1997 |
what brighn that yo dont trust the current user base? is that what you know?
that if the rest of cyberspace is like the current user base, better to have
newuser to weed out the scum right? sheesh
|
dpc
|
|
response 136 of 367:
|
Feb 27 01:27 UTC 1997 |
I just voted "no" as well. Is this a trend? 8-)
|
scg
|
|
response 137 of 367:
|
Feb 27 06:53 UTC 1997 |
re 134:
The CDA being overturned mean that the laws that apply to the rest of
the world also apply to the Net, rather than having this new even more
restrictive form of censorship. Making the case that the Net is broadcast
media would be difficult, but applying the same standards as applied to print
media would make sense.
|
babozita
|
|
response 138 of 367:
|
Feb 27 14:30 UTC 1997 |
Not really, Steve. In both print media and broadcast media, there is a source
that can be held responsible. If the Free Press publishes something by me,
they've made sure that I've wanted it published, and they're taking the
responsibility for having edited it, etc. In Cyberspace no-one can see you
type. =} There are no checks-countercheck mechanisms, and to install them at
this point would be undue burden on the system.
Kerouac, don't put words into my mouth. And don't assume you know how I voted.
|
valerie
|
|
response 139 of 367:
|
Feb 27 16:17 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
babozita
|
|
response 140 of 367:
|
Feb 27 21:04 UTC 1997 |
You've been president for two months, Valerie. Continue as you've done and
I'll seriously reconsider, as I already have been doing. I'm also waiting for
the vote to pass before submitting membership dues. I don't want to be seen
as becoming a member only to influence a current vote; I don't like people
who do that, and I'm not going to follow suit.
Regardless of the result of the vote, I personally feel that it's an invalid
vote because of overly vague phraseology and lack of real explanation. But,
then again, this is a ditzy little board in the middle of the midwest, it
ain't the U.S. Congress. =} *g* It does bother me that certain people around
here prefer to ignore things rather than explaining why they are or aren't
doing things. I'm glad Madam President isnt following suit.
|
srw
|
|
response 141 of 367:
|
Feb 28 00:16 UTC 1997 |
For the record. Way back there. kerouac said I had voted no on the previous
proposal. He was wrong. i voted yes. He probably wasn't listiening to any of
the many times that I'v said that I prefer the compromise to the
uncompromising proposal. I prefer that one to no unregistered reading.
As A backtalk author, I would also like to point out that Jan and I do not
control how backtalk is used on Grex. The Grex board and members do that.
|
mary
|
|
response 142 of 367:
|
Feb 28 00:36 UTC 1997 |
I trust that our membership either knows the difference between
registered user and validated user or knows how to follow the
directions to this discussion and ask.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 143 of 367:
|
Feb 28 01:51 UTC 1997 |
A summary would be helpful to us erratic users/members/folks.
|
babozita
|
|
response 144 of 367:
|
Feb 28 14:11 UTC 1997 |
Mary, enough people in the previous discussions have gotten the two confused
that your assumption has been proven inaccurate.One can hope you're never in
charge of drafting a vote that actually counts.
|
mary
|
|
response 145 of 367:
|
Feb 28 15:45 UTC 1997 |
This one would be difficult to summarize, Arnold, without
prejudice. I'd suggest you simply take about 15 minutes
and scan item #27 and get a feel for why folks feel the
way they do then come to your own opinion.
Or you could take that same 15 minutes a peel a bunch of
grapes. ;-)
|
richard
|
|
response 146 of 367:
|
Feb 28 16:21 UTC 1997 |
It would take *much* longer than 15 minutes to scan item #27...it has
nearly 600 responses, one of the longer items ever in a coop no doubt.
#144...brighn/babozita, I dont follow you, Mary drafted this vote and it
counts? and you still havent answered my previous query about what
exactly it is you know about our current user base that makes you
distrust cyberusers in general.
|
remmers
|
|
response 147 of 367:
|
Feb 28 16:58 UTC 1997 |
Re #139 and the issue of adding explanatory text: On the motion
to clarify who may run for the board, Valerie wanted me to add
one or two *paragraphs* of explanatory text, after the voting had
started. I thought that would be completely inappropriate and
refused. I did respond to her request but evidently didn't discuss
it with her as much as she would have liked.
I think that adding explanatory text on the content of a motion to
the ballot itself is a really bad idea as it could bias the outcome.
If people want explanations they can come to the discussion item
and see what everybody had to say about it rather than what one
particular person thought was needed in the way of explanation.
I always put a reference to the discussion item on the ballot so
that people know where to look.
In real government elections (as contrasted with ditzy little
midwest bbs boards) that have proposals on the ballot, you just see
the proposals as worded, not what somebody decided should be
added to "explain" them, and for very good reason. If people want
to be informed about an issue, they should read the newspapers
etc. And if they want to become informed on a Grex issue, they
should come to the Coop conference and read the discussion here.
For the benefit of anyone who may have followed the pointer on
the ballot to this item, I'll supply a glossary:
Unregistered user: A person who does not have a Grex account
(i.e. has not run newuser).
Verified user: A person who *does* have a Grex account and who
has also supplied identification in accordance with Grex policy
for obtaining certain kinds of access, such as outgoing telnet.
The current motion has only to do with unregistered users, not
with verified users.
|
tsty
|
|
response 148 of 367:
|
Feb 28 19:26 UTC 1997 |
if adding 'explanatory text' to a ballot proposal - such as the
non-prejudicaial description/definition of the words included - if adding
such a clarifier to a proposal constitutes 'bias(ing) the outcome' then
there is a prejudice in the proposal <which the clarifier removes>.
btw, as far as i know <correction expected if wrong> only the status
of 'member' includes having 'supplied identification in accordance
with grex policy'.
thefore i might conclude that the glossary is only 'close' at this time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 149 of 367:
|
Feb 28 20:24 UTC 1997 |
No, usenet news posting requires verification but not
membership. That's moot at this time since Grex doesn't carry
usenet, but if it ever does again, the policy will apply.
|
babozita
|
|
response 150 of 367:
|
Feb 28 20:52 UTC 1997 |
#147. ThanksJohn, that works.
Kerouac> You're making so many assumptions, child. I said I voted the way I
did because of what I know about the users of Grex. I can't answer your
questions if you're going to make assumptions. As to a vote counting, I meant
in the real world, i.e., an important vote in an important realm. This vote
is trivially idiotic, I've said as much before. Even within the functionings
of Grex, it's an idiotically trivial issue.
|
richard
|
|
response 151 of 367:
|
Feb 28 22:19 UTC 1997 |
#150...okay brighn, leaving all assumptions aside, what is it you know about
users of grex that makes you vote the way youdo?
|
slynne
|
|
response 152 of 367:
|
Feb 28 22:46 UTC 1997 |
I see that Mnet hasnt cornered the market on whineybutts. It is amazing
too because grex's whineybutts arent even the same people as Mnet's
whineybutts. wow.
Anyhow, since I cant figure out a way to piss everyone off with my vote, I
guess I will just have to vote based on my actual opinion of this issue
even though I feel funny voting over something so silly. I honestly am
surprised that people care about this so strongly one way or another. I
would almost consider this to be the kind of issue that the staff could
implement without a stamp of approval from the membership. <<shrug>>
This proposal gets a yes vote from me.
(Just an aside: I didnt realize that so few members voted. I mean I
already feel funny about voting on issues here because I am a member but I
dont log on too often. Should my opinion on things carry more weight that
someone's who logs on every day but who isnt a member? And why would
someone who logs on every day not become a member unless they cant afford
it. Why would they let someone like me have such a large say in policy
issues here?)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 153 of 367:
|
Mar 1 00:23 UTC 1997 |
Slynne, we meet again, and well you have stated my feelings here. I too will
vote yes on this issue. It seems to be a TIATP, considering the easy ways to
disguise one's self in newuser. Anyone posting their thoughts on the Internet
should be aware that the "whole world is watching!". So why the problem with
having some of the world take a look once in a while? I could understand if
someone was a battered spouse, or in the witness protection program (and had
children to protect) or had other good reasons to be super-careful about their
privacy. But, if those were the problems, are there not other solutions, such
as abstinence?
**[Mary - you are so much fun to joust with. Pardon me John, for just a
minute. You said Or you could take that same 15 minutes a peel a bunch of
grapes. ;-)" I respond: Only if I had someone to enjoy them!
|
babozita
|
|
response 154 of 367:
|
Mar 1 00:46 UTC 1997 |
Kerouac> That there are some good users out there and some prime shitheads
who don't respect me -- or anyone except themselves. And some malicious
bastards. And some wonderful people who are fun to disagree with because their
intellects match mine. And others that are fun to tease because they're stupid
and gullible and make dumb assumptions about things. =} And there are people
with short attention spans... that affected my vote, too. Gee, Kerouac, this
is fun, teasing you. Maybe you'll get me to get to my point before the voting
is over. And maybe not. We'll see.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 155 of 367:
|
Mar 1 02:04 UTC 1997 |
I say again: Kerouac stimulates discussion. Agree? No, or maybe, or . . .?
But stiffle? NO. I believe we are misconstruing the essence of Grex.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 156 of 367:
|
Mar 1 02:41 UTC 1997 |
I just voted- still no explanatory text, and as it wasn't there when the vote
started, this vote MUSt be considered invalid! The proposal makes no sense:
"MOTION:
To allow unregistered users to read all Grex conferences
except the Staff conference."
Sure, one could read through here and get the OPINION of what an unregistered
user is, but if there is no definition in the motion, ESPECIALLY in a motion
that is so arrogantly simplistic in it's assuming wording, the wording of that
motion is INVALID. All you can get here in coop is the OPINION of what this
motion means- but the actual motion is so very vague that MY opinion of what
it says is just as valid as Mary's!
|