Phl.	Jan 9 04:27 UTC 2005

#6 of 10: by Dan Cross (cross) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (20:11):
 Well, your shell looks okay.   Joe, did you see anything weird?

#7 of 10: by Joe (gelinas) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (20:31):
 Yes, I do see something weird, and I'm checking on it.


He sees something weird, does he?

So do I.

Yet another likely successful attempt by GreX's staff to withhold information
from GreX's members.

Why does GreX's staff like holding its members so much?

That is, why can't WE, the people who support GreX and who GreX is run for,
know what's happening on GreX?

#9 of 10: by Guy Polis (cyfapunk) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (21:52):
 So what's going on Joe? I can use this OK so its not my password?
 Was my account's status changed in one of the system files?
 I don't think my password was up for expiration. Was someone
 else hacking on the system?

#10 of 10: by Joe (gelinas) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (21:56):
 I'll contact you in e-mail, cyfapunk.

Why are issues that are so important that two staff members and running around
and hilariously bumping into each other (laugh track) in an attempt to deal
with them not so discretely shuffled off into E-mail?

#8 of 10: by Dan Cross (cross) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (21:45):
 Okay, I figured you might, so I didn't investigate further.

And why is this apparently accepted by more than one staff member, suggesting
that it's not a PROBLEM_PERSON problem so much as something that's endemic
to the system?

It baffles the mind, which struggles to come up with some sort of coherent
answer.  The first thing that suggests itself is that perhaps this is an
inherent state of a GreX staff member.  That merely by being a member of
GreX's staff one either must already have or must immedietly aquire a certain
taste for distaaastful secrecy.  One might this this for a while, but it
doesn't last for long.  What mechanism could possibly account for this?  The
only answer is MYSTICAL.  Perhaps some chakrahs somewhere are aligned in such
manner that necessiSTATES such a characteristic.  This too isn't believable
for long, especially not in the Tradition as it is to-day, with its adopted
(and, ironically, unlike in normal adoption, where the relationship is such
that the parent nutures and cares for and creates a mature child, this one
here has the adoptee maturing the adopter) emphasis on what is emirically
knowable.  Thus, one comes to the conclusion that there isn't really a problem
at all.  That we'[re mistaken when we think it's unusual or impossible that
all of GreX's staff loves secrecy.  This doesn't hold for long, and, I think,
the positions become cyclical and we go back to the beginning.

We might find the problem of how this works incomprehensible, but we must
nevertheless look for a way to solve it.

response 2 of 18:

Jan 9 04:37 UTC 2005

#12 of 12: by Joe (gelinas) on Sat, Jan  8, 2005 (23:30):
 I'll work something out.

Yet another reflexive gesture of secrecy.

response 4 of 18:

Jan 10 21:52 UTC 2005

I wouldn't mind at all if they gave out MyDearPassword .

response 6 of 18:

Jan 11 14:41 UTC 2005

Generally there is a reason that things are hidden. Is it a matter of 
staff hiding things or a matter of that same staff respecting the 
privacy of a member? Why should staff tell us every single little 
keystroke they make?

If there was a problem with my account- I would rather it was discussed 
privately with me rather than in front of everyone. As a matter of 
respecting my privacy.

response 8 of 18:

Jan 11 16:57 UTC 2005

Re. 6:  I would expect and hope that they would as much as possible try to
strike the mean between affecting my privacy and maximising openness.  All
I'm saying is that for significant actions, they should by default try to tell
us what's happening.  I'm not saying they have to "tell us every single little
keystroke they make," which is why I stressed how this action was obviously
significant.

response 10 of 18:

Jan 11 19:33 UTC 2005

To eliminate the reflex of secrecy that shouldn't be present in an
organization such as Cyberspace, Inc.

response 12 of 18:

Jan 11 21:19 UTC 2005

Some secrecy is necessary.  We can't be said to have established that, since
we both believed it well before this item's genesis.

What I'm saying is that for SIGNIFICANT ITEMS the act of secrecy should only
be entered into when there is SPECIAL REASON for doing so.  Things related
to SIGNIFICANT ITEMS should by default be made known, even if only in vague,
unspecific terms, as in a preface to a book.  This contrasts with the current
system of keeping things related to SIGNIFICANT ITEMS secret BY DEFAULT, and
only RELEASING information when there is SPECIAL REASON.

Now, the DECONSTRUCTIVE METHODS of Hegel, Derrida, Sartre, Heideigger, etc.,
tell us that secrecy and non-secrecy aren't actually opposites, and that one
is just a special case of the other and vice versa, and that this situation
brings to mind the PARADOXICAL Special Loops elucidated by Hofstadter, but
since we are making a practical distinction, and it appears all practical
distinctions have the same quality, it doesn't seem like we have much choice.

response 14 of 18:

Jan 12 03:43 UTC 2005

re #12- now you're just makin' stuff up. ;)

response 16 of 18:

Jan 15 22:34 UTC 2005

V. insightful and v. much indeed.

response 18 of 18:

May 17 02:15 UTC 2006

TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE