response 87 of 106:

Feb 9 23:40 UTC 1997

You might have entered it, Richard, but others responding to it in a "closed"
conference (in this sense) should be able to feel secure that it's not going
to be linked elsewhere; and IMO they shouldn't even have to worry about
whether that header, now scrolled 8 responses off the screen, said "linked
item".  I oppose having *any* conferences closed to anonymous reading, myself,
but if we're going to do it, and do it for the kinds of reasons people have
raised for doing it, it's really obnoxious to think of requiring participants
to keep track on an item-by-item basis.  It's not "your own item" in a sense
that gives you an unlimited right to handle *other* people's responses.  May
I suggest that you learn to use the extract command, or cut-&-paste at your
end, if you object to typing your own text in?  I really doubt anyone else
would object to your copying your own text - at least, object on the grounds
that it was first posted in a restricted conference.

response 89 of 106:

Feb 10 01:18 UTC 1997

I agree with davel on all counts in resp:87

response 91 of 106:

Feb 10 04:24 UTC 1997

  So here I am again, off in left field. Sorry about that.

   The solution could be to put a small line at the very bottom of the
conference opening screen <this is a closed conference and is not intended
for reading by unregistered users> 

   This way there can be no misunderstanding, that <n> is a closed conf.


  I of course, oppose any restriction of what can and what cannot be read.

response 93 of 106:

Feb 10 15:52 UTC 1997

#87...clearly iwould announce beforehand whether I was going to link orhave
linked an item from a closedconf.

response 95 of 106:

Feb 11 18:17 UTC 1997

Yeah #94.  I can't believe that richard thinks starting an item gives you
"ownership" of other people's responses.  

<Catriona ponders the implications:  Everyone who starts an item could then
keep richard from posting to that item.  What a concept!>

response 97 of 106:

Feb 26 16:16 UTC 1997

welllllllllllll. letters to the editor of a newspaper/magazine/etc are
considered the property of the newspaper/magazine.....  i do NOT like
the apparent parallel, however, even if #0 were an editorial.

response 99 of 106:

Feb 27 16:35 UTC 1997

        I mentioned adding a user-settable flag to picospan items/
        responses in the other conf/Backtalk debate..

        It seems there is no source accessible, which in itself is silly.
        However, here is yet another method that would leave it up to
        the user:

        Convince backtalk to look at the entry title and test the first
        (or last) of the string for a keyword such as "NOTWORLD" or 
        something akin to it. This would imply that the ITEM-author retains
        complete control of his ITEM, and responses take on the same
        state, but this is _STILL_ preferable to losing complete editorial
        control or having to add what you folks are calling "Conf-Police".

        Personally, I rarely spend the time waiting for picospan to run
        and then accept my responses on grex, but if I wanted to post to
        Usenet, I'd post to Usenet - this is NOT "UseNet Junior" and it's
        just not sensible of the PTB to take such a decision upon themselves.

        I seriously suggest you think over any and all methods to invest
        the controls needed with the authors, before you swamp yer admin
        or alienate your users. I still think you could use the the interim
        idea of a Intro.cf which held all the world-readable entries, but
        tain't my problem - work it out...

response 101 of 106:

Feb 28 11:19 UTC 1997

congratulations to void and arthurp!

response 103 of 106:

Mar 2 12:02 UTC 1997

In Usenet, all of the items are world/read/write. Posting to usenet is 
not anythinbg anyone can limit. Pete is making it seem that this change 
would make us like that. 

WIth this change posting is still limited to People with Grex accounts. 
It is only reading that people could do without an account. You may find 
that objectionable, but it is nothing like Usenet.

In fact I don't see anything in #99 that explains *why* Pete thinks this 
would make us like Usenet.

response 105 of 106:

Mar 6 05:45 UTC 1997

Sorry, Pete. I guess I still do see a big difference between what we're 
proposing and Usenet. If it turned us into anything like that, I'd (1) 
be very surprised, and (2) argue for dropping the facility.

No, I don't believe for a moment that newuser is too intimidating to 
most people. I think it is simply more trouble than it is perceived as 
being worth, and I think the idea of having an account (with all that 
entails, like remembering a password) offers a resistance level. Like 
the activation energy of a chemical reaction. You need a push to get 
over the hump.

The Grex Members will do whatever they want. I am only trying to explain 
why I think it is in Grex's best interest to allow unregistered users to 
see the conferences. Perhaps with luck I may be able to influence an 
undecided voter to agree with me. I don't expect to convince someone who 
already disagrees.