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.
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

"nancree" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

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

On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "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.

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.

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" wrote in message
oups.com...

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 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

Sheldon wrote:

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 ;-)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:44:46 -0500, "A.C." wrote:

Sheldon wrote:

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 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.

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

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" wrote

Nancy Young wrote:

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

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
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.

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" wrote in message
...
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.

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 wrote:
jmcquown wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
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.

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 wrote:
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.

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