|
Grex > Coop9 > #55: Motion: To allow unregistered reading of all conferences | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 367 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 250 of 367:
| 
Mar 8 13:29 UTC 1997 |
s/prvote/prvotes
|
valerie
|
|
response 251 of 367:
|
Mar 8 13:47 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
babozita
|
|
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?
|
jenna
|
|
response 253 of 367:
|
Mar 8 16:51 UTC 1997 |
Maybe, Mar
|
dpc
|
|
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.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 255 of 367:
|
Mar 9 01:21 UTC 1997 |
Which I heartily reccommend- if you REALLY believe in open access to
grexreading by people who have never seen the newuser interface, then still
vote no on THIS asininely written proposal, and propose something that says
what YOU wanted it to mean, not this nasty bit of dirty pool by Mrs. Remmers.
Sure, I'd much rather that people who haven't set up a grex account be
excluded from reading the conferences, but at least if that idea is to be
voted against, let it be legitimate, not this piece of trash! At least your
opposition, in both the forms of Valerie's first proposal, and cmcgee's, were
written clearly enough so that there was no WAY to mistake what you were
voting against. Give us the same courtesy, will you?
|
richard
|
|
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**
|
mta
|
|
response 257 of 367:
|
Mar 9 05:11 UTC 1997 |
Calling Mary a politic snake and a purveyor of dirty pool is the
most ludicrous thing I've heard in some time. I don't always agree
with Mary, but I've never seen any indication that she's anything less
than scrupulously honest.
Sheesh, guys, this is getting into mud-slinging, you know. Ick.
|
aruba
|
|
response 258 of 367:
|
Mar 9 05:40 UTC 1997 |
I have to agree. Selena, I think your tirades are uncalled for.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 259 of 367:
|
Mar 9 07:08 UTC 1997 |
Perhaps Selena just doesn't have any good arguments against the proposal.
|
adbarr
|
|
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 261 of 367:
|
Mar 9 13:29 UTC 1997 |
A handful of folks have let their enthusiasm for an issue mostly
overwhelm the content of their responses. I have not been taking
any of the comments personally. I understand where they are
coming from.
One word of advice though - when you shift from discussing the merits of
an issue and start focusing on hostile name-calling and character-bashing,
well, you've started a negative campaign, and those can backfire quite
easily.
If this proposal passes, and I'm not sure which way it will go, then it is
neither to my credit or my fault. Lots of people have been following this
issue, are well informed, and will bring their opinions to the outcome.
Whatever happens it will be the results of a majority vote of interested
members.
|
robh
|
|
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.
|
dpc
|
|
response 263 of 367:
|
Mar 9 19:03 UTC 1997 |
Valerie has changed her vote from yes to no. You can too!
|
babozita
|
|
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? =}
|
robh
|
|
response 265 of 367:
|
Mar 9 22:54 UTC 1997 |
Re 263 - Valerie changed her vote? I should ask her why.
|
adbarr
|
|
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.
|
tsty
|
|
response 267 of 367:
|
Mar 10 08:51 UTC 1997 |
<<are you turning blue yet?>>
|
babozita
|
|
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".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 269 of 367:
|
Mar 10 15:56 UTC 1997 |
Discomfort with a discussion should never be a criterion for using
"forget". Both disputation and learning can be "uncomfortable", but that is
no proper cause for abandoning them.
|
babozita
|
|
response 270 of 367:
|
Mar 10 16:03 UTC 1997 |
Whining about a discussion is just cause for "forget", Rane. =}
|
mta
|
|
response 271 of 367:
|
Mar 10 18:48 UTC 1997 |
In many cases I agree with you, Rane. But GREX is a hobby after all, so if
people come here not to learn but to socialize, I see nothing wrong with using
"forget" to avoid uncomfortable conversations. (For that matter, if the
discomfort comes out of a reaction to mudslinging and/or obnoxious behavior,
I don't think *anyone* shoul;d have to deal with it.)
|
babozita
|
|
response 272 of 367:
|
Mar 10 19:33 UTC 1997 |
Except that condemning specificmud slinging is a form of mudslinging...
|
valerie
|
|
response 273 of 367:
|
Mar 10 20:04 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 274 of 367:
|
Mar 10 20:48 UTC 1997 |
But Valerie, if both votes fail than we dont have unregistered reading at
all...you should change your no vote back to a yes, and then vote yes on
colleen's. That way,, whatever happens, we have unregistered reading. If
Mary's vote is ddefeated, there will be a big push to defeat colleen's so the
whole idea is scuttled. You said you supported unregistered reading. If you
do, you would vote for both proposal s. I dont understand your vote of no
this time
|