response 125 of 367:

Feb 26 12:50 UTC 1997

The vote program is now enabled for voting on this proposal. As
usual, type "vote" from a Unix shell prompt of "!vote" from a
bbs or menu prompt to cast a ballot. Voting will end at the end
of the day (EST) on March 12.

response 127 of 367:

Feb 26 17:57 UTC 1997

Hi. Me again. don'tworry, I'm not going to get on any high horses. I just came
back because I didn't understand the parameters of the ballot and was hoping
this item would explain. It hasn't. I should like to point out that not every
member reads this conference. For this reason, the proposal is overly vague;
some members may confuse "unregistered users" with "unvalidated users". I
would recommend that, if possible, the voting booth (but NOT the motion)
include a brief explanation of the phrase "unregistered user".

Selena, if this passes and you choose to leave, I'll be glad to take Sexuality
back. (For that matter, I'm interested in co-FWing with you again, regardless,
in that conf).

Rob, if YOU choose to leave, you can find me often on 
cal022011.student.utwente.nl
handle: Cheetah Whelp
(free registration, but requires a valid internet adress; a Grex account
qualifies)

As for everyone else, how I've decided to vote on this is not a reflection
on how I feel about anyone or whom it is I trust, or like. I'm not amember,
so my vote doesn't count anyway, but I am voting on principle.
  
The issues are trivial. It's how we treat our friends that matters. My
previous paricipation in these conversations let my friends done, and for that
I apologize.

The issues are always trivial, in both directions.

response 129 of 367:

Feb 26 18:41 UTC 1997

Re 127 - To reiterate yet again, I will *not* be leaving Grex
if the motion passes.  I'll be resigning form the Board and the Staff,
and I will no longer participate in the conferences, but I have
every intention of keeping my account, using it for mail, party,
and other things, and I even intend to continue my membership.
(Giving my money is trivial, giving my soul isn't.)

response 131 of 367:

Feb 26 20:59 UTC 1997

I just cast my second vote.  Again, I voted no.  It's not that I'm against
opening conferences to more readers - I'm voting for the same reasons I
voted no the last time.

Valerie has stated that changes are on the way that will increase the
bandwidth - and that's fine.  I'll be glad to see it when it comes, as
it'll make my life (as well as the lives of others) easier here on Grex.
But even Valerie is "knocking on wood" about the improvements, which casts
a doubt in my mind as to just when (or if) these changes are to take
place.

I've never argued that the conferences are a bad thing - they're one of
the best things about grex.  I may not agree with a lot of things
discussed, but I am thankful that I am given the opportunity to state my
opinion.  It's just that right now I consider the well-being of the system
itself is of a higher priority than any particular portion of it.  As far
as I can tell, mail is hosed right now, in that I cannot receive any mail
sent from outside Grex (I'll post on system problems about that).  It
often takes nearly 10 minutes for my inbox to open through pine (yes, I
know Pine is slow, but it shouldn't be *that* slow) - and I could go on
with more.

As a voting member of Grex, I cannot be asked to add more to that at the
present time.  Ask again when the bandwidth does increase, and I might
reconsider.  

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.

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

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.

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.

response 143 of 367:

Feb 28 01:51 UTC 1997

A summary would be helpful to us erratic users/members/folks.

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. ;-)

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.

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.