|
Grex > Coop7 > #26: User Verification -- Is It Feasible? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 147 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 125 of 147:
| 
May 13 06:46 UTC 1995 |
I don't get it.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 126 of 147:
|
May 13 19:51 UTC 1995 |
I believe thatthat was a reference to #116/117
|
selena
|
|
response 127 of 147:
|
May 13 22:33 UTC 1995 |
no, I think he's trying to say he's not done yet. Neither am I,
I'm just not as hostile.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 128 of 147:
|
May 13 22:50 UTC 1995 |
I didn't get #124 either.
|
ajax
|
|
response 129 of 147:
|
May 13 23:31 UTC 1995 |
*I* don't get it. I *don't* get it. I don't *get* it. I don't get *it*! ;)
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 130 of 147:
|
May 14 18:57 UTC 1995 |
<James is ROTFL>
|
tsty
|
|
response 131 of 147:
|
May 15 03:50 UTC 1995 |
<G!> lilmo got it. srw, i can see the gentle sarcasm glowing on this screen.
|
srw
|
|
response 132 of 147:
|
May 15 07:15 UTC 1995 |
OK TS. I know you are forcing the issue. I knew that back when I
attempted to clarify that Arnold really wasn't calling you a jerk,
just because he said "the jerks force the issue" and you are forcing
the issue. I knew 124 was responding to 116/117.
I still don't get it.
What is the point of #124? Where is the sarcasm? What does
"The issue is malformed" mean? What is your reference to destination
and direction? Sorry I'm so dense. I need a translator.
|
steve
|
|
response 133 of 147:
|
May 16 17:29 UTC 1995 |
I guess I need one too. (Ah, a problem with s[Tt]eve's?)
If you are forcing the issue, OK. Please state what it is
you want to see changed, or not changed. I'm at a loss here
to understand.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 134 of 147:
|
May 16 21:50 UTC 1995 |
I want to make sure TS, and everyone, I meant the term "jerks"
to apply to people who deliberately attempt to cause results
that are intended to harm others or the system they are using,
or another system. They "force the issue" by mandating counter-
measures in self defense, and as a matter of honor and principle.
By no measure is TS a "jerk". Perhaps a little "tsty" at times,
ok! But not a jerk.
|
selena
|
|
response 135 of 147:
|
May 17 00:30 UTC 1995 |
Well, by being here as long as I have, and being as well known
as I am, for being "anonymous", it really does make it look like I'm one of
these "jerks' that everyone's so hot to keep out.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 136 of 147:
|
May 17 06:47 UTC 1995 |
Not at all. As you well know, you are quite welcome here. No one
has remotely suggested to keep you out.
|
tsty
|
|
response 137 of 147:
|
May 18 01:54 UTC 1995 |
Fine: "If you pay, you play; if you play 'bad' you get zapped; if
you play 'good' you get left the hell alone."
Take her money and leave her alone ..and the next one ... adn the
next one .. and the next one, too.
|
selena
|
|
response 138 of 147:
|
May 19 02:16 UTC 1995 |
Right.. so what's the matter with that?
|
tsty
|
|
response 139 of 147:
|
May 23 16:59 UTC 1995 |
hullo?!
Seeing as how there have been no "thoughts" for the extended period
of a whole week ... I guess it should be presumed that, either, there
are no disagreements with the conceptual base in #137, adn that it
will be so enacted a the next board meeting ... or that there will
be a formal discussion, only at the board meeting, for adoption of
#137, ... or that the breeding ground for objections has been
decimated, or that the gnashing of the gears of dissent against #137
has stripped the objections to toothlessness inthe face of the stream
of discussions above.
In any case, a week's silence is amazing.
|
davel
|
|
response 140 of 147:
|
May 23 17:58 UTC 1995 |
I think it's that no one has anything *new* to say.
|
ajax
|
|
response 141 of 147:
|
May 23 18:44 UTC 1995 |
TS, I'd be surprised if you don't already know this, but it's unlikely
that an item is on the board's agenda if it's not mentioned in the board
agenda item. If #137 is a serious proposal, it needs some clarification,
as Grex already *will* take her money and leave her alone. If you're
suggesting voting rights and net access for cash, I'd spell it out in
item 46, the May board agenda item, for consideration under New Business.
|
steve
|
|
response 142 of 147:
|
May 23 21:30 UTC 1995 |
I have a big problem with #137, now that I've gotten here (finally!).
The problem is, what does one do about the "bad" person, who has just
done something bad, really bad, but of course didn't leave you with
anything to be able to get back to whem with?
The "leave them the hell alone" is all well and nice 'till the
first person abuses it. It isn't reasonable, and that is not a
sustainable policy for any system. Those systems that have that
policy are changing, one by one, 'till there aren't any left.
I'm really sorry to see this too. On a personal note, I too
was one of the people who thought we could do something like this,
back before Grex was on the net. There was also a time when I
thought that we didn't need to come up with the kernel blocks either,
since we could just ask people not to (use telnet, etc), and they
wouldn't. Unforunately--*most* unforunately, I now know better.
There are large enough numbers of *really* *REALLY* slimy people
out there who take delight in fucking up others systems, just for
the sheer joy of know that they have hurt other people. It's sad.
But TS, why don't you make a proposal? Either to the board,
or make it a member ballot initiative. We've been talking about
this for long enough that I think we should, or the people who
have complained about this should step down. I'm getting pretty
tired of saying this over and over again.
|
selena
|
|
response 143 of 147:
|
May 29 06:07 UTC 1995 |
<Selena likes the sound of steve's voice>
This was quiet so long 'cause a little bird told me it'd be better
if I let you guys have a moment's rest here.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 144 of 147:
|
May 31 01:29 UTC 1995 |
Ok, Selena -- you are certainly verified as a user -- now you must be
verified as a . . . ? '
|
selena
|
|
response 145 of 147:
|
May 31 05:25 UTC 1995 |
That's what I'd like to know!
|
adbarr
|
|
response 146 of 147:
|
Jun 1 02:49 UTC 1995 |
back to e-mail
|
lilmo
|
|
response 147 of 147:
|
Jun 21 20:20 UTC 1995 |
did you eventually figure out what the dispute is about, adbarr?
|