|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 50 of 367:
| 
Feb 18 18:04 UTC 1997 |
Re 47 - I can see your argument perfectly well. Has it occured
to you that maybe I *disagree* with it? No, of course not, all
sentient beings agree with you all the time... Maybe I don't
*want* any idiot on the Usenet to come by and read something I
posted here without joining, did that occur to you? No, of course not...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 367:
|
Feb 18 20:27 UTC 1997 |
I get the message robh - but I *want* more idiots to stmble across Grex, read
something and think - hey, maybe I'd like to see more of this, and register.
You don't get attention by hiding your light under a basket (newuser).
|
ryan1
|
|
response 52 of 367:
|
Feb 18 20:42 UTC 1997 |
So you are saying people who come to Grex are idiots?
|
jenna
|
|
response 53 of 367:
|
Feb 18 22:42 UTC 1997 |
I just don't want to loose personal/one step removed
control over my words and where they're getting to.
How would one delete an item that was on the web?
Mary's motion isn't specific enough... what avbout old items?
should alll confs be restarted?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 367:
|
Feb 19 07:11 UTC 1997 |
Re #52: the contention can be supported....
Jenna, you can scribble your own responses. The web reading will still be
of the conferences. The point is, the web reading will be of the
conferences as they are, or as they are manipulated in normal fashions.
Also, you have *already* lost personal/one step removed control over what
you have posted - it can already be spread all over the world (and is),
posted elsewhere, etc. I don't understand why you think there is any
privacy on Grex.
|
valerie
|
|
response 55 of 367:
|
Feb 19 16:01 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
jared
|
|
response 56 of 367:
|
Feb 19 16:48 UTC 1997 |
re 55
Thanks.. I'll try those next time.
|
richard
|
|
response 57 of 367:
|
Feb 19 17:12 UTC 1997 |
besides jenna, ou could put a link on your homepage called "the poems of Jenna
Hirschman", which would bring up if clicked, all yourbest poems from
Poetry...wouldnt that be cool?
|
davel
|
|
response 58 of 367:
|
Feb 19 18:00 UTC 1997 |
Richard, you have avocado between your ears. It's quite reasonable, from what
Jenna's said, that she does *not* think that would be cool. If she wants to
post her work on the web she doesn't need to do it that way, for heaven's
sake; but if I understand her she feels that she has a sense of who's likely
to run newuser, explore the conferences, & find poetry - & she's comfortable
posting to those folks, but not with broadcasting to the universe at large.
I don't feel that way, myself, and think that limiting web access is a step
backward for Grex, but Jenna's entitled to feel that way. Some of us think
that it should be taken into consideration.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 59 of 367:
|
Feb 19 19:07 UTC 1997 |
Many of us think that.
|
richard
|
|
response 60 of 367:
|
Feb 19 20:11 UTC 1997 |
robh, it doesnt sound like you *want* to be part of the greater internet
community...I suspect that if you had been a founder, you would have been
opposed to grex going on the 'net in the first place. You want a nice clsoed
community.
re: last post...I know how Jenna feels, I just think that you cant post to
grex and expect that kind of privacy...I think posting to grex is the basic
equivalent of posting to the public domain of the internet. Noone should be
posting here with the idea that this is soje closed segment of the inernet
universe. Because it is not.
|
jenna
|
|
response 61 of 367:
|
Feb 19 23:41 UTC 1997 |
i know exactly what grex is and what feel it has. i've been here 2 years,
almost. I do have a web page with some poems on it. just not all of them.
I've alread BEEN there. I had a webpage with all my poetry onit. One day I
did a websearch for something or other and found a page with oen of my poems
with someone else's name on it. That ended my flirtatin with the web at large.
I don't want that happening again to anything I care about. Someone would have
to go to more trouble to do it here and tough this is not a closed environment
I trust it the way I trust,
say 13 mile and southfield, it's a good neighborhood
even though anyone in the world could come through and shoot me.
the density of assholes is lower.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 367:
|
Feb 19 23:44 UTC 1997 |
Nicely put!
|
dpc
|
|
response 63 of 367:
|
Feb 20 00:39 UTC 1997 |
Speaking of webs, Jenna and I both think that Grex should be surrounded
by its present "semi-permeable membrane."
|
robh
|
|
response 64 of 367:
|
Feb 20 00:50 UTC 1997 |
Re 60 - Au contraire, mon frer. I was all in favor of getting
on the Internetway back when. I still am. What I'm not in favor
of is removing the "semi-permeable membrane".
|
adbarr
|
|
response 65 of 367:
|
Feb 20 02:05 UTC 1997 |
How big are the pores?
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 66 of 367:
|
Feb 20 03:31 UTC 1997 |
Too big. Someone like Richard cans still get in and threaten to copy items
from "closed" conferences and post them in unregistered reader conferences.
|
robh
|
|
response 67 of 367:
|
Feb 20 07:08 UTC 1997 |
Anybody got any Internet-Stridex handy?
|
scg
|
|
response 68 of 367:
|
Feb 20 08:12 UTC 1997 |
I have to admit that I'm beginning to have second thoughts on this. I still
think having completely open reading would be a good thing, but the
deviciveness of this issue really isn't the sort of thing I enjoy. I kind
of feel like it would be a good thing if the issue just went away, and pushing
something like this through probably isn't the way to do that.
Then again, I really do think unregistered reading would be a good thing for
Grex.
|
davel
|
|
response 69 of 367:
|
Feb 20 11:13 UTC 1997 |
What Catriona said.
Re #60: Listen, cucumber brain, Grex *did* exist for some years before it
came to be on the net, & Rob was here. The folks who set up Grex originally
were by no means the only ones offering opinions at that point - which you
could find out easily enough, since it's almost all still on line here.
|
richard
|
|
response 70 of 367:
|
Feb 20 22:54 UTC 1997 |
I'd say if niether mtion passes, the whole debate should be tabled for a few
months...there is not that much hurry that a conclusion is totalluy necessarry
at this time.
|
jenna
|
|
response 71 of 367:
|
Feb 20 23:59 UTC 1997 |
*what was that? did I hear something? maybenot the best idea, but a
HALF decent idea out of richard's mouth? let me just die now, I've had a
religious experience. it was a miracle.*
|
adbarr
|
|
response 72 of 367:
|
Feb 21 00:24 UTC 1997 |
We could compromise and not let anyone read any conferences. No one could be
offended as all would be treated equal in status. We could read books,
instead.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 73 of 367:
|
Feb 21 01:22 UTC 1997 |
books? <gasp!> Heather!
<or heathen....although he might be heather as well...or perhaps just a
cucumber or lawyer or something>
Well, it seems to me that if neither passes, the solution is obvious--no
anonymous access to anything. It is only if both p[ass that we have a
problem.
|
jenna
|
|
response 74 of 367:
|
Feb 21 03:21 UTC 1997 |
no. qwhich is th sutpidity of even voting on the first
even if the first passes, the second is voted on. if the second
passes it superceeds the first, which is bullcrap.
if you ask me. thank you mary remmers.
you annilated the spirit of sportsmanship.
(you've)
|