|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 226 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 150 of 226:
| 
May 11 19:25 UTC 1995 |
Re #148 Rob, I agree that silly rules should not be imposed - I do not
put password protection in the "silly rule" category. The reasons
for having secure passwords are well known, and they are sound
reasons, in my opinion. I have yet to hear any argument against
the password concept that makes real sense to me, except that
it is an inconvenience. I strongly disagree that #137 implies
everyone should blindly accept other people's rules, nor do I
believe it implies the users/members should not have a strong
voice in the setting of rules. Once the mechanism is in place
to set rules, and the rules are determined however, then I can
choose to play by those rules or not. I am not "forced" to play
if I do not wish to abide by those rules. My alternative is
to lobby for change in the rule I do not like, and I should
be willing to lose gracefully if my proposed change is not
supported. If I am vehement about my position, I can go elsewhere
and not be "forced" to abide by a rule I cannot support.
And, I agree with peacefrog, why is this a big deal? Frankly,
password security should be a given. The debate seems entirely
misdirected, in my opinion. The anonymity question, is a much
much more important problem.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 151 of 226:
|
May 11 21:33 UTC 1995 |
Well, let's see, now.. What exactly happens when one foregoes
changing it? DOES grex ask for a new one, or is that it?
|
ajax
|
|
response 152 of 226:
|
May 11 21:43 UTC 1995 |
>I do not put password protection in the "silly rule" category.
Nor do I...once a year password changes are another matter!
>And, I agree with peacefrog, why is this a big deal?
I dunno if anyone has said it *is* a big deal. I've said several times
it's not to me, as it's too trivial to be worth changing; I just don't
think it's a good rule.
I still think your definition of "forced" is rather forced, but if
you want, we can call this an Optional Password Change policy, since
we have the option of changing a password or not using the account. ;)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 153 of 226:
|
May 11 23:16 UTC 1995 |
Ok, ajax, I want to think about all this. Knowing what I do about
you, I am concerned I am not understanding you - you certainly do
"push the envelope" sir! <adbarr compliments ajax, while being perplexed
about the meaning of all this>.
|
selena
|
|
response 154 of 226:
|
May 12 04:56 UTC 1995 |
<Selena hands adbarr some asprin>
|
rcurl
|
|
response 155 of 226:
|
May 12 07:07 UTC 1995 |
The option to make a proposal and have it voted upon by Grex members,
to establish (or not) a new policy, is available. I presume that those
in the minority would then accept the majority decision.
|
davel
|
|
response 156 of 226:
|
May 12 11:04 UTC 1995 |
Why do you presume that?
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 157 of 226:
|
May 12 16:30 UTC 1995 |
I think it reaches the standards of a big deal when there have been 157
responses to it. Some Agora responses don't even get that big.
|
tsty
|
|
response 158 of 226:
|
May 12 20:13 UTC 1995 |
re #143, #144 ..... yuppers.
|
selena
|
|
response 159 of 226:
|
May 13 22:34 UTC 1995 |
Rane- No, we'd just have to re-debate it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 160 of 226:
|
May 14 17:03 UTC 1995 |
Yes (or no), but it would end in a defining vote.
|
selena
|
|
response 161 of 226:
|
May 14 21:16 UTC 1995 |
No, if the vote went the other way, I'd just have to re-enter it
as a new item, in whatever coop was running, and get the debate going
again.. A vote to the contrary does not change my opinion or shut me
up..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 162 of 226:
|
May 15 06:58 UTC 1995 |
Its not supposed to do that, but it is supposed to settle the question,
at least for a decent interval. This is the "loyal opposition" principle.
|
selena
|
|
response 163 of 226:
|
May 16 12:12 UTC 1995 |
Decent interval = two seconds.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 164 of 226:
|
May 16 22:00 UTC 1995 |
Selena,
I agree with Rane. There must be a way of peaceful rsolution of
arguments or we will all end up in chaos. Once settled, the matter
should be affored a reasonable oportunity to work as planned.
After that, have at it based on evidence. Some individuals will be
hurt and inconvienced while the process is tested. Unfortunately,
there is no such think as total freedom. All "rights" imply duties
and mutual responsibilties. [no such "think" = no such "thing" oops]
|
selena
|
|
response 165 of 226:
|
May 17 00:31 UTC 1995 |
Well, I'm sorry, but it's only going to make me more likely to
be loud about it. I'm only being honest.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 166 of 226:
|
May 17 06:49 UTC 1995 |
That would be contrary to the precepts of civilized discourse - to
shout and scream when you can't get your way. I think that is called
being "childish".
|
selena
|
|
response 167 of 226:
|
May 19 02:17 UTC 1995 |
Well no screaming needed. I won't *not* discuss it in this forum,
though.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 168 of 226:
|
May 19 05:36 UTC 1995 |
OK. Just so you are not LOUD about it.
|
selena
|
|
response 169 of 226:
|
May 19 18:55 UTC 1995 |
Sorry if my terms made you think of me screaming my lungs out.
I just meant I wasn't going to be *quiet*.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 170 of 226:
|
May 19 21:43 UTC 1995 |
sidhe, does this confernce need to be renamed? Somehow we seem
to be hung up on "Forced" - and, to me, the issue is whether to
have passwords at all.
|
selena
|
|
response 171 of 226:
|
May 20 04:31 UTC 1995 |
<Selena'd rather not have just anyone on here as her, if they typed
"selena" at the login>
|
popcorn
|
|
response 172 of 226:
|
May 24 01:52 UTC 1995 |
[Re 170: er, "FORCED Password changes" is an Item, not a Conference;
this Conference is called "co-op". Ya can't rename an Item after
entering it.]
|
adbarr
|
|
response 173 of 226:
|
May 25 04:29 UTC 1995 |
Oh Oh Fluffy! We have to leave town! re 172 - Why? Being from
another (?) system, I do not understand the diference between
"conference" and "item". All "items" seem to be "conferences",
and somehow relate to the general subject of the "conference",
but perhaps this is just another "Unix" thing? Back to the ship!
|
davel
|
|
response 174 of 226:
|
May 25 10:41 UTC 1995 |
It's not Unix, but Picospan. At any time you're in some one particular
conference, which is a collection of items - hopefully with *some* kind
of reason for being collected together. From the main prompt (Ok: by
default) you can do BROWSE to see what items are there, & read items
(& forget them, etc., etc.). Each item also may have a sequential list
of responses, which (it happens) are stored in the same file.
To access a new conference, the command to use is JOIN. To access a
new item, the command is READ.
Does that help? For a list of available conferences, with descriptions
chosen by their fairwitnesses (mostly), use HELP CONF. For a list of
current items in the conference you're in now (coop, though someone could
link this item to another conference & make me a liar) use BROWSE.
|