response 244 of 367:

Mar 8 00:51 UTC 1997

Unregistered, throughout the discussion, has been used to mean not needing
to go through Newuser and select a personal login and password.  I see
nothing unclear about what the word "unregistered" means or what it
matters how you get connected to the machine.  What we are voting on is
whether unregistered users should be allowed read access to Grex
conferences.

response 248 of 367:

Mar 8 12:02 UTC 1997

It will happen if somebody volunteers to do it. It will not
happen if people just grouse about it not happening but nobody
volunteers to do the work.

response 250 of 367:

Mar 8 13:29 UTC 1997

s/prvote/prvotes

response 252 of 367:

Mar 8 16:41 UTC 1997

MAry is exemplifying well here why I've grown to distrust her so.
She's a political snake, the worst kind.

Mary, *I* know your intentions well enough in drafting the proposal, but it's
clear that other people failed to notice that mention of the Web was absent,
and assumed its presence. Now you're saying it's their fault for not noticing?

I recall some 100 or so posts into a discussion of unregistered users, it
became clear that half the people inthe discussion thought we were talking
about unvalidated users. Don't tell me that people active in a conversation
know what's going on. All right, they should, but don't say "would" (as in
the last line of a few posts back...)

Folks, I think Mary continues to demonstrate that she uses dirty politics and
a softshoe to get her way. Do we not violate her gross violation of netiquette
in posting private mail I had sent her? (Er, 'Do we not remember her...')

That's why I'm torn about this issue. I think the proposal, in the end, is
in the best interest of Grex. But I think that by ratifying it, we're
ratifying dirty pool (Mary's dirty pool).
  
Unfortunately, I also realizt that many of you feel that not ratifying it is
ratifying my previously extortionist techniaues. But I've stopped. When will
Mary?

response 254 of 367:

Mar 8 20:19 UTC 1997

This mis-statement of the proposal's scope by its author is another good
reason to vote NO.  Remember--if you have already voted, you can still
change your vote by running the "vote" program again.

response 256 of 367:

Mar 9 02:24 UTC 1997

how could mary have written her proposal MORE clearly?  it was only one line
long!  **sheesh**

response 258 of 367:

Mar 9 05:40 UTC 1997

I have to agree.  Selena, I think your tirades are uncalled for.

response 260 of 367:

Mar 9 11:36 UTC 1997

mta said it well. If there is such a big problem with the terms "registered"
and "unregistered" user, then why not propose an amendment to the proposal,
or a whole new section of the by-laws that defines those terms. Tell me if
I am wrong: Grex does not verify the vast majority of users, and only does
limited verification of members. If non-member users can easily supply fake
information in going through the process of newuser, then what, really, are
we registering? I fail to see any meaningful difference between registered
and unregistered here. Do you gain anything by knowing that Mickey Mouse, 1234
Pacific Boulevard, Burbank, CA is reading your posts? Mary has demonstrated
her integrity here many times. I oppose any accusations against her honesty
and good-faith. Grex could use more with her wisdom. Grex has always been a
system of open-access, and has fiercely resisted anything that would change
that basic precept. It should continue to do so, and the proposal is an effort
in that direction. There is an old saying: "Don't throw excrement on someone
and then tell them they smell bad!" Relax a little.

response 262 of 367:

Mar 9 17:44 UTC 1997

Well, Mary will be as responsible as anyone else who voted yes.  >8)

I don't hold it against Mary personally - if she hadn't proposed this,
scg would have.  If Steve hadn't, someone else would have.

response 264 of 367:

Mar 9 20:20 UTC 1997

David, shush, you're getting pushy. =}

Misti> That you're the most vehement defender of Mary's honesty... well, I
shan't finish that sentence.
  
Rob> Quite right. And I'd've been more comfortable had it been Steve.

Richard> Cucumber, cucumber, cucumber! CUCUMBER! There I feel better now. =}
How could the proposal have been made more specific? Another line, doofus.
  
And someone else> Ah. Amend the bylaws to clarify definitions? I thought the
beauty of Mary's proposal is its simplicity. So we adopt it (if it passes),
then run through a set of proposals that, taken together, would be as complex
as Valerie's? Pointless, pointless.
  
Mary> How can this backfire for me? I don't care which way the vote goes!
Either way, I win! I have no stake in the vote anymore. So now I can devote
my time, all of it, to slurring you, silly. =} Ain't that fun? =}
  

response 266 of 367:

Mar 10 01:48 UTC 1997

And around and around we go. The arguments are chasing their own tails. Name
calling will not alter that fact. First we don't like the proposal be cause
it is not specific. Now we don't want to be more specific, because it would
be to complicated to understand. Dancing! I wan't to go dancing! Specifically,
I want to go dancing on the head of any pin I can find? Which is it? Not
specific? Too specific, or just too moderately specific, but not what I like?
Pray tell, I will hold my breath. 

response 268 of 367:

Mar 10 15:40 UTC 1997

To whom do you speak, Arnold? And if you're uncomfortable with this
discussion, the command is "forget".