--WebTV-Mail-1386406999-12542 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
The screening option has been turned off on the "co-v" (Virus Legislation) email list and utilities. I agree that open access to information about registered users and a listing of who votes on what are the only safeguards needed to encourage one-person-one-vote and (perhaps) for viron membership confirmation when weighing the votes to ascertain what they imply about actions which might be taken with regard to the main virus list (or "church").
The main problem seems to be willingness to participate. Only myself and Dan showed any interest in subscribing. Subscriptions can still be made by sending a blank email to co-v-subscribe@egroups.com ... can't be any easier at this point (though it would be nice if the voting tools were already part of the virus list since virus IS listed in the egroup database...).
List information can be found at:
http://www.egroups.com/group/co-v/info.html
(as well, subscriptions to the list can be handled from this url).
As a comment: Perhaps (at first), interested members can use the voting list to gauge interest on proposed ideas before presenting them to the group (with supporting statistics). THAT WAY, the logistics of such an apparatus isn't given undue importance... if what is voted on isn't enacted (since the tool is used ONLY to encourage participation and gauge interest).
I encourage everyone to participate in this test. The information gained from participation can be used for OR AGAINST later implementation of this or similar adjuncts to the virus list. As such, participation doesn't imply agreement with the idea. As well, it is important (for some of us with less computer experience) to learn HOW to use such utilities ... in preparation for the day when they may be useful in one way or another. NOT participating merely shows a lack of commitment to list and personal development (or else signals personality conflict... an idea which Dan doesn't see as being important one way or another-- and I would very much like to agree with Dan on this observation).
Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
--WebTV-Mail-1386406999-12542 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.96) by postoffice-133.bryant.webtv.net; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT)Return-Path: <owner-virus@lucifer.com>
mailsorter-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (8.9.3/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id LAA01993; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA19620 for virus-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 12:07:28 -0600X-Sender: dplante@mail.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:06:07 -0700
virus:Virian council and process)
In-Reply-To: <21815-377646B8-20192@postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
References: <Dan Plante <dplante@home.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <19990627180725.HPHS16597.mail.rdc1.bc.home.com@cs347838-a>
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
At 10:43 AM 27/06/99 -0500 Brett Robertson wrote:
>Though I wonder if your are trying to start up a flame war... ok, I get
>your point (The position of monitor may not SEEM like such a good idea
>if a person feels likely to be discriminated against by the one who has
>such "control"?!?! ).
Actually, Brett, I was attempting to use that as one example of the more generic drawback to having any type of "screening" option intextricably built-in to the system (see my latest response to The Hermit, if it goes through this time; I've cut it into two parts, maybe it was too long for some point in the mail transport system).
>I already covered this, though: EX. I am not a person who inspires
>cooperation on this list
Yep, and I yet I would fight to the death (of my memes) against any sort of new system that had even the LATENT CAPACITY to screen you out, buddy.
>(but am planning to turn the operation of the
>voting over to someone else). And I said UPFRONT that it was
>monitored...
Yes, but not my point, of course.
>Anyway, for those who think with their brain rather then their brawn it
>should be obvious that we need some way to monitor who is eligible to
>vote and to limit posts to legislative issues.
Not obvious to me.
>Other's had suggested as
>much and I simply implemented those suggestions (ex. the person who
>votes should at least post an introductory post to the list/ maybe those
>recruited to vote should be introduced by an active group member/ ... be
>provided a public key).
I object to this in theory, and fail to see how it could matter to something like CoV in practice.
>If there are personality probs. on this list (seems to be);
Not from where I sit; it's just humanity doing its dance....I figure it's only a problem if someone gets hurt or killed ;-)
>then no
>voting mechanism will work. This isn't a problem with the setup of the
>voting mechanism but with the group dynamics.
I think you overestimate the "effect" that has has on the rest of the list members, Brett. Water off a duck's back, and all that. It's just words. Relax and enjoy it.
Dan
--WebTV-Mail-1386406999-12542--