"RFC Chat" is fun, but it has no rules about posting anonymously"

"nancree" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

I hate to tell you, yes, they can.

Quoted message said:

Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
is a wonderful thing.

It's rude to sit there and just listen. Creepy, for that matter. And, yes,
the people who 'own' the chat can boot you.

nancy

nancree said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
another person, they lose their priviledges.

It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
contribute to conversation is fine.

Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
one knows who they are.

Quoted message said:

Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
is a wonderful thing.

See above.

Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

: a group of persons having informal and usually close social
relations

Sheldon Eviction

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

: a group of persons having informal and usually close social
relations

Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

nancy

Nancy Young said:

Sheldon said:

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

: a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations

Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Sheldon said:

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

<translated> chickenshit ;-)

A.C. said:

Sheldon said:

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

<translated> chickenshit ;-)

Thing is, Sheldon's been in the channel a few times. He was friendly
and polite. He'd be more than welcome to join us if he continued to
be the gentleman he was in the past.

Carol
--
Wash away the gray to respond.

nancree said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

Jill

Quoted message said:

Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
is a wonderful thing.
Nancree

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an alias
sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent the
possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself up, I
receive more than my share of ridicule here.

Nah, getting kicked is very, very rare, I can only think of one
instance. Fact is, it's a fun place to hang out and no, it's not a
clique and everyone is welcome.

I just saw something on the front page of the newspaper that made
me think of you. So and so of thistown, packing for their annual
winter trip to Florida. Snowbirds. Anyway, I hope their house has
a good alarm system.

nancy

Sheldon said:

Nancy Young said:

Sheldon said:

Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.

Merriam Webster

gang

> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
> relations

Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.
You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
you were Penmart01/Penmart10 🙂

Jill

jmcquown said:

Sheldon said:

Nancy Young said:

"Sheldon" wrote:
>
> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>
> Merriam Webster
>
> gang
>
>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>> relations
>
> Sheldon Eviction

(laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.

You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
ago.

Quoted message said:

You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
you were Penmart01/Penmart10 🙂

Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
return.

Sheldon Interrogated

"jmcquown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nancree said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just

new

Quoted message said:

to you.

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

Jill

Yep, it's not an open forum. It's owned, operated and moderated. You can
get kicked out. It's not Usenet!

kili

Sheldon said:

jmcquown said:

Sheldon said:

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>
>> Merriam Webster
>>
>> gang
>>
>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>> relations
>>
>> Sheldon Eviction
>
> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set
myself
up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that
I've learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds
visiting Cuba. Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three
years ago.

You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
ago.

Quoted message said:

You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make
you prove you were Penmart01/Penmart10 🙂

Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
return.

Sheldon Interrogated

We just didn't believe it was really you! You seem to have a lot of
impersonators. This should be flattering to you 🙂 And you're right, time
does fly... more like 5 years. Dang, has it been that long?!

Jill

jmcquown said:

nancree said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.

Quoted message said:

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
chat in public.

A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.

I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
one of them is me. <G>

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.

Sheldon Bewarned

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sheldon said:

jmcquown said:

Sheldon said:

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, <r.f.c.d-m> rec.food.cooking.dictatorship-moderated.
>>
>> Merriam Webster
>>
>> gang
>>
>>> a group of persons having informal and usually close social
>>> relations
>>
>> Sheldon Eviction
>
> (laugh) Sheldon, did you get yourself kicked?

Nope. 'Cause I haven't been, and it's not my style to perform an
alias sneak. But considering some of those I've been told frequent
the possibility is more than a mere threat... not about to set myself
up, I receive more than my share of ridicule here. And now that I've
learned who dictates da-rulz I'd stand far better odds visiting Cuba.
Imagine... how would I protect myself.

Sheldon Condom

Oh hush, Sheldon! You showed up in the rfc chat room about three years ago.

You hush, that wasn't the same chat room and was more like five years
ago.

Quoted message said:

You can't deny it because I asked you all about your cats to make you prove
you were Penmart01/Penmart10 🙂

Which proves what I said in my previous post... and why I didn't say
much, why I didn't stay but a few minutes, and why I decided never to
return.

Sheldon Interrogated

I'm betting you don't like to do chat so much because you have less time
to think about your answers. ;-)

I'd do it more, just have not had time lately.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sheldon said:

jmcquown said:

nancree said:

Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.

Quoted message said:

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
chat in public.

A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.

I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
one of them is me. <G>

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.

Sheldon Bewarned

I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)

As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC, just "live"
and faster as opposed to the delayed posting times.

Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)

<smooch>
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sheldon said:

jmcquown said:

nancree wrote:
> Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.

As a matter of fact, the rfc channel IS owned and operated and run
separately from this newgroup. It's just a perk that Crash and Carol have
offered. And it's been around for YEARS... this isn't a new thing, just new
to you.

It is new. This presnt edition is to my knowledge at least the third
version/ressurection of the rfc chat... may be more.

Quoted message said:

Some people are IRC channel operators and there *are* rules. Just because
you haven't registered on mIRC and use the java applet is no excuse to not
identify yourself. It's rude to sit there and not be identified.

It's more rude to interrogate... and far, FAR more rude to discuss the
chat in public.

A person does indeed have the right to anonymity... for a chat to exist
privacy must be respected... rfc wouldn't exist otherwise. To those
who find that concept offends their nosiness then fix the mechanics of
the chat to enable individuals to ignore individuals. And chat members
need to cease and desist from participating in any chat threads here at
rfc, otherwise it just goes to prove that YOU cannot be trusted.

I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
one of them is me. <G>

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.

Sheldon Bewarned

I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)

As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.

Well, then just announce when you're there[period]

Quoted message said:

I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC

It's ADMITTEDLY not (see above)... can't have it both ways.

Quoted message said:

Just my 2 cents Shel' dear! :-)

<smooch>

Kish mier en toochis aka Smooch my ass.. and while yer down there...

Sheldon Crack

One time on Usenet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think this is the very first time I have to agree with Nancree... and
whatever occurs concerning the rfc chat should never ever, NOT EVER be
posted here, certainly not who visits, when, who's there presently, and
what's discussed and by whom... keep it to a private email list... not
that I trust more than maybe two rfc'ers won't share my email... and
one of them is me. <G>

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas... but not so with rfc yenta chat.

Sheldon Bewarned

Sheldon, give it a rest -- you're no Jack Schidt!

Quoted message said:

I would never never NEVER share a private e-mail here!
It's just.......... rude. And I try very hard not to be that way. ;-)

As for discussing who is over on the chat line, I never minded that.
I've always felt that it was sort of an extension of RFC, just "live"
and faster as opposed to the delayed posting times.

Several years ago, I helped maintain a Netiquette site -- AFAIK, there
are no rules against discussing IRC outside of that forum. Heck, some
channels post entire sessions for those who missed out. There's no
expectation of privacy with IRC and anyone who thinks there should be
might want to try private web message boards instead...

--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, Trollop, novice cook ~

S'mee said:

AFAIK, there are no rules against discussing IRC outside of that forum. Heck, some
channels post entire sessions for those who missed out.

There's no expectation of privacy with IRC and anyone who thinks there should be
might want to try private web message boards instead...

No, just don't participate.

Thank you for your concurrance.

Sheldon