|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 624 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 612 of 624:
| 
Feb 26 16:22 UTC 1997 |
Not only was the intro-conf & linkages a Good Idea (tm), but
I'd like to know why not one person seems to have twigged to
the idea of a miserable little flag for entries and responses?
Let the authors, the actual users, decide if the text should be
"world readable", and within "90 days", you'll get all the proof
you want - one way or another..
Yeah, it will mean a vast regeneration of the confs.. So what?
Too, it means that the adamantly opposed will be going crazy in
their attempts to "deny" all their old text.. Again, So What?
Add a flag; Add a prompt at entry/save; Add a matched set of
commands to pico/yapp.. Done. Simple. Clean.
|
mta
|
|
response 613 of 624:
|
Feb 26 17:57 UTC 1997 |
Given how GREX saves items, I don't think that's feasible -- but I'm no
expert.
|
valerie
|
|
response 614 of 624:
|
Feb 27 04:21 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
pfv
|
|
response 615 of 624:
|
Feb 27 16:18 UTC 1997 |
Actually, while it means dinking with the source, I don't see
that it's much more complex than say.. "censor" or "scribble".
OTOH, when you have no time, plan or interest - it's impossible -
I agree..
Sorry 'bout that.
|
mta
|
|
response 616 of 624:
|
Feb 28 17:16 UTC 1997 |
The major difference is that expurgate and scribble came with the Picospan
package. What you're suggesting didn't. And as Valerie said, we don't have
the source.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 617 of 624:
|
Mar 1 02:29 UTC 1997 |
You know, re-reading this proposal, it means nothing to the Backtalk debate
at all!
Read it with me now:
"MOTION:
To allow unregistered users to read all Grex conferences
except the Staff conference."
Unregistered, in this wording, HAS NO DEFINITION. It could mean the same as
unverified, it could mean anything. Also, to constitute a "user" of Grex, and
not just a person browsing the web, isn't the distinction therin solely
whether or not someone has taken out an account? This motion says nothing
about excluding the need to run newuser in order to read the conferences!
NOTHING!
Mary, in your rush to be cute, you have made a worthless motion, in more ways
than one!
|
valerie
|
|
response 618 of 624:
|
Mar 1 05:57 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 619 of 624:
|
Mar 1 13:50 UTC 1997 |
I would suggest if you find the wording confusing or worthless
that you vote no. I kind of like the wording myself.
|
danr
|
|
response 620 of 624:
|
Mar 1 15:47 UTC 1997 |
Why shouldn't it have read "users without Grex accounts"? I kind of agree
with Selena on this one.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 621 of 624:
|
Mar 1 18:28 UTC 1997 |
I don't. I voted yes. I fail to see the horribles as real.
|
mary
|
|
response 622 of 624:
|
Mar 1 22:11 UTC 1997 |
Re: #620 Then someone would have come along and thought
that having an account must mean someone who pays money
so this means non-members, right?
It is really hard to make any statement bullet-proof.
Which is why we should encourage anyone who wants to
vote to take a few minutes and understand the issue.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 623 of 624:
|
Mar 2 02:13 UTC 1997 |
Yes, it is hard. But defining terms makes it less so.
|
danr
|
|
response 624 of 624:
|
Mar 4 23:40 UTC 1997 |
re #622: Perhaps, but I still think my wording is less ambiguous. We don't
have "registered" and "unregistered" users, and any time you introduce new
terms into a discussion you add ambiguity and confusion.
|