|
Grex > Coop8 > #131: Nominations for the Board of Directors |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 22 new of 246 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 225 of 246:
| 
Feb 1 07:30 UTC 1997 |
You may *think* that, and perhaps even act on it, but it is patently untrue.
You know very little about your "cyber-community" as individuals, and nothing
about the current anonymous readers. So you are now *unknowingly* broadcasting
your messages to the world - and that all you will do to a slightly larger
world, with web readers visiting too.
|
tsty
|
|
response 226 of 246:
|
Feb 2 10:38 UTC 1997 |
"knowingly broadcasting a message to the world," close to a delusion
of something or other, /sheesh. no particular reflection on the
specific source either.
maybe a headline writer for the london times or the wall street
journal is 'knowingly broadcasting a message to the world,' but
responding to a conference item? oh, please.
apples and oranges? i think not.
what is typed into the vote program is viewable by a severely restricted
set of ppl, conferences ought to be the same.
who is typing into conferences is publically availible, the vote
program ought to be the same.
|
danr
|
|
response 227 of 246:
|
Feb 2 16:31 UTC 1997 |
Maybe "broadcasting to the world" is not the right term for it, but
when you post something to a conference here, you're certainly making
a public statement. And since it's quite easy for nearly anyone with a
computer to also participate in these public discussions, whatever you
say could be widely disseminated.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 228 of 246:
|
Feb 2 19:18 UTC 1997 |
The broadcasting is the same here or in the London Times -the difference is
in who is choosing to read it.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 229 of 246:
|
Feb 4 07:29 UTC 1997 |
There is a fundamental difference between grex conferencing and posting to
a usenet newsgroup. Yes, potentially anyone in the world could end up doing
grex conferencing. I just want them to do so through the "front door" of
registering like any other grexer.
|
remmers
|
|
response 230 of 246:
|
Feb 4 11:49 UTC 1997 |
Eh? Unregistered access would allow only reading, not posting.
Nobody's advocating that people without login id's should be
allowed to post.
|
davel
|
|
response 231 of 246:
|
Feb 4 12:14 UTC 1997 |
I thought kerouac was.
|
robh
|
|
response 232 of 246:
|
Feb 4 15:53 UTC 1997 |
Yep, he was. Consult item 44.
|
remmers
|
|
response 233 of 246:
|
Feb 4 17:10 UTC 1997 |
Forgot about that. Okay, I'll revise my #230 to say: No proposal
to allow unregistered posting is receiving any serious level of
support.
|
richard
|
|
response 234 of 246:
|
Feb 4 22:59 UTC 1997 |
wouldnt be anything wrong with posting, but no cf files...makes it
difficult...
|
richard
|
|
response 235 of 246:
|
Feb 4 23:06 UTC 1997 |
if it could be done without guest access, where a anonymous user would be
prompted after typing "enter" or clicking that icon, for a name and email
address. That would make it posting almost like regular grex. This is really
pretty anonymous too (grex that is)
I guess backtalk would have to creat confs that arent on picospan so it could
control hte environment for that conf or confs, and not have to access any
picospan files. Then itwould be like most other web-based conf'ing setups.
|
tsty
|
|
response 236 of 246:
|
Feb 5 13:36 UTC 1997 |
there would be LOT of trouble with posting ..
GET RICH QUICK ... MAKE MILLIONS $$$$ NOW ... (ETC).
|
remmers
|
|
response 237 of 246:
|
Feb 5 14:03 UTC 1997 |
Yucko, conference spamming. Good point. I agree.
|
richard
|
|
response 238 of 246:
|
Feb 6 19:24 UTC 1997 |
I disagree and the facts backme up..I subscribe to several usenet groups that
are unmonitored and there is very little spamming. Since usenet reaches far
far more people than grex ever will, it clearly indicates that the problem
here is overstated. This place (gex) os too small for most to think spamming
worhthwhile.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 239 of 246:
|
Feb 6 21:57 UTC 1997 |
I read some newsgroups that have been inundated with spamming. It comes and
goes.
|
scott
|
|
response 240 of 246:
|
Feb 7 00:16 UTC 1997 |
Richard, I think those qualify as anecdotes, not facts.
|
robh
|
|
response 241 of 246:
|
Feb 7 03:28 UTC 1997 |
Yes, I'd *love* to know which Usenet Richard is using that doesn't
see lots of spamming. It sure ain't the one I use.
|
davel
|
|
response 242 of 246:
|
Feb 7 11:02 UTC 1997 |
heh.
|
richard
|
|
response 243 of 246:
|
Feb 7 22:14 UTC 1997 |
besides, spamming is what the "forget" command is for...or havey ou forgotten
the "forget"command...it isnot an issue solong as you ca ignore them.
|
dang
|
|
response 244 of 246:
|
Feb 7 23:43 UTC 1997 |
I've never been on a newsgroup that isn't spammed. Even my class newsgroups
are spammed for gods sake!
|
valerie
|
|
response 245 of 246:
|
Feb 8 13:53 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 246 of 246:
|
Feb 9 07:35 UTC 1997 |
yup.
|