Justice Watch "New Registration Policy" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... New Registration Policy, Dunvegan, 16:27:27, 8/16/2001 Sounds good to me..., LurkerXIV, 16:33:16, 8/16/2001, (#1) Dun, JR, 16:38:12, 8/16/2001, (#2) I think, Florida, 16:52:39, 8/16/2001, (#3) Across the board, Watching you, 17:01:44, 8/16/2001, (#4) yes, Maggie, 18:23:03, 8/16/2001, (#5) WTG Dun, Gemini, 18:29:04, 8/16/2001, (#6) Real, Hoot, 19:19:53, 8/16/2001, (#8) Real Name is a MUST..., szundi, 19:18:03, 8/16/2001, (#7) But......., Phantom, 20:04:52, 8/16/2001, (#9) Real Names, Ellique, 20:38:31, 8/16/2001, (#12) Real Names, szundi, 20:20:05, 8/16/2001, (#10) Actually, although there exists verification..., Dunvegan, 20:35:36, 8/16/2001, (#11) Charging a "token" contribution., Ellique, 20:53:00, 8/16/2001, (#16) I agree Dun, JR, 20:50:04, 8/16/2001, (#14) real names, austingirl, 20:46:56, 8/16/2001, (#13) So, am I to deduce that, v_p, 20:50:19, 8/16/2001, (#15) Dear v_p, Chris, 20:00:41, 8/19/2001, (#84) Numerical order, Ellique, 21:01:11, 8/16/2001, (#18) Ellique, JR, 20:56:52, 8/16/2001, (#17) Poor "L", JR, 21:09:31, 8/16/2001, (#19) yes, real e-dress and names, Shee, 21:27:20, 8/16/2001, (#20) Shee, JR, 21:35:31, 8/16/2001, (#21) Absolutely, Morgan, 22:26:38, 8/16/2001, (#22) Must confesss...., Charley, 07:18:27, 8/17/2001, (#23) Ditto on names..., janab, 07:28:46, 8/17/2001, (#24) Dunvegan, fran, 09:39:59, 8/17/2001, (#26) what the heck?, fly, 09:30:54, 8/17/2001, (#25) well fly,, Shee, 09:45:26, 8/17/2001, (#28) Raising hand..., CensusGrrl, 09:45:20, 8/17/2001, (#27) We have seen Dun's name,, Ev, 10:05:11, 8/17/2001, (#29) fly, janab, 10:14:22, 8/17/2001, (#30) name games, fly, 10:50:53, 8/17/2001, (#32) Fly, Morgan, 10:45:55, 8/17/2001, (#31) Me too?, Phantom, 10:59:15, 8/17/2001, (#34) Morgan, fly, 10:54:26, 8/17/2001, (#33) Phantom, JR, 11:11:07, 8/17/2001, (#35) Fly isn't altogether wrong, Watching you, 11:27:09, 8/17/2001, (#38) Fly, Morgan, 11:26:48, 8/17/2001, (#37) Upon reading your ideas regarding registration:, Dunvegan, 11:24:57, 8/17/2001, (#36) final comment, fly, 16:02:25, 8/17/2001, (#39) Fly, Morgan, 16:47:05, 8/17/2001, (#40) Fly, Gemini, 17:59:26, 8/17/2001, (#41) FLY, JR, 18:02:19, 8/17/2001, (#42) Dunvegan, hergus, 22:18:08, 8/17/2001, (#43) The "Real Name" policy is an INTERIM pol..., Dunvegan, 23:34:21, 8/17/2001, (#45) What's that saying...., Phantom, 23:14:41, 8/17/2001, (#44) Dun, Gemini, 23:47:16, 8/17/2001, (#46) Gem, hergus, 00:06:32, 8/18/2001, (#47) Gem is right, JR, 01:09:16, 8/18/2001, (#48) Just a quick one here, Watching you, 05:57:49, 8/18/2001, (#49) My thoughts, starry, 06:08:13, 8/18/2001, (#50) Keep it honest, Kelly, 07:43:13, 8/18/2001, (#51) A thought, darby, 08:29:05, 8/18/2001, (#52) that's exactly the point , starry, 08:54:17, 8/18/2001, (#53) email addys, Scully, 09:15:31, 8/18/2001, (#55) starry, darby, 09:01:03, 8/18/2001, (#54) Point of Info, szundi, 09:24:30, 8/18/2001, (#56) I know, Watching you, 09:28:48, 8/18/2001, (#57) there are times, starry, 09:45:42, 8/18/2001, (#58) Dunvegan,, Florida, 10:29:14, 8/18/2001, (#59) Excellent points, all., Dunvegan, 11:07:23, 8/18/2001, (#60) Dunnie, starry, 11:29:37, 8/18/2001, (#62) Szundi, 1000Sparks, 11:25:32, 8/18/2001, (#61) I'd be mad at my, Watching you, 11:38:14, 8/18/2001, (#64) Don Paugh, hergus, 19:17:53, 8/18/2001, (#70) Sparks,, LurkerXIV, 11:35:22, 8/18/2001, (#63) LurkerISLXXLWEKJLKJWEKIIIIIII, 1000Sparks, 12:20:52, 8/18/2001, (#66) That, Lurker..., Dunvegan, 12:16:45, 8/18/2001, (#65) That's true, Sparky, Watching you, 13:30:50, 8/18/2001, (#67) Gave this some thought, JR, 18:11:42, 8/18/2001, (#68) JR, hergus, 19:20:59, 8/18/2001, (#71) JR, Kelly, 19:05:26, 8/18/2001, (#69) Kelly, JR, 19:22:54, 8/18/2001, (#72) Dunvegan, Ally, 07:28:54, 8/19/2001, (#73) Dunvegan,, zoomama, 14:45:16, 8/19/2001, (#74) Outing Dunvegan, Dunvegan, 16:50:47, 8/19/2001, (#76) Ally, Kelly, 16:05:06, 8/19/2001, (#75) I'm not actually a "vegan"..., Dunvegan, 18:54:00, 8/19/2001, (#82) Kelly, JR, 16:52:27, 8/19/2001, (#77) Vegans, darby, 17:16:27, 8/19/2001, (#78) Ha, ha!, Ally, 18:08:32, 8/19/2001, (#79) thank you all, Kelly, 21:14:19, 8/19/2001, (#86) followup, fly, 18:25:13, 8/19/2001, (#80) Yes, yea, and OH yes, fly..., Dunvegan, 18:48:30, 8/19/2001, (#81) Dunvegan, Gemini, 19:00:09, 8/19/2001, (#83) yup, Geno, 21:07:24, 8/19/2001, (#85) (c) Internet Privacy, JR, 21:39:07, 8/19/2001, (#87) Duvegan, fly, 07:41:13, 8/20/2001, (#88) Well, fly...thank you...I'm all about JW..., Dunvegan, 11:09:59, 8/20/2001, (#91) Clarification (as if it matters), Chris, 10:55:05, 8/20/2001, (#89) Guilty as charged, JR, 11:02:39, 8/20/2001, (#90) Bite me registraion process, China, 11:32:30, 8/20/2001, (#92) Pedro asked that I post this, JR, 11:40:04, 8/20/2001, (#93) Dunvegan@JusticeforJonBenet.org, Dunvegan, 12:05:18, 8/20/2001, (#96) All I can say is,, gaiabetsy, 11:45:34, 8/20/2001, (#94) I think the point being here, JR, 11:59:58, 8/20/2001, (#95) Whatever..., shadow, 12:33:30, 8/20/2001, (#98) dunvegan, fly, 12:31:03, 8/20/2001, (#97) (c) Shadow, JR, 12:36:36, 8/20/2001, (#99) Well, if Chir and Dun, Watching you, 12:50:42, 8/20/2001, (#100) (c) WY, JR, 12:57:59, 8/20/2001, (#101) ................................................................... "New Registration Policy" Posted by Dunvegan on 16:27:27 8/16/2001 I am asking new registrants to sign in with their real names and a verifiable e-mail address (no Hotmail, Yahoo!, or other "free-mail" service addresses.) The privacy policy to protect identities is also posted at the registration screen. The new policy, posted at the registration screen, is as follows: Justice Watch Discussions To Register: please read the instructions, and then complete the following form. (*) indicates required field. Justice Watch Discussion Forum requires that your use your real name when registering (see Privacy Notice below.) Web-based and free e-mail accounts (Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not permitted. Privacy Notice: Your real name, username, and email are held in strict confidence and not disclosed to any third parties, sold, or used for anything other than Justice Watch Discussion Forum registration, unless you specifically authorize such disclosure via written permission to the Webmaster. Let me explain why I've instigated this measure. Since August 6th, I've received registration requests for Justice Watch accounts that have included username/"hat" entries that use the names of the members of the Ramsey family as both their "hat" and their first and last names, users that are well know to other forums registering with their "hat" and using the same "hat" information entered in the "Firstname" and "Lastname" fields, and requests for completely anonymous membership. All but about 6 of the activated users subscribed to Justice Watch before August 6th, 2001 were registered with "real names." If you were already a member in good standing as of August 6th, your account has been "grand fathered" in, real name or no, and you remain a member in good standing. I chose to prefer not to activate users that wish to register anonymously. However, if the current member base feels that this is an unproductive policy, I will change this policy and allow these types of registration. Although there is no investigatory inquiry into whether a user is signing up with their actual real life name, or an alias, I still prefer not to register people entirely anonymously. This policy is adopted solely to discourage frivolous and misleading user/username situations. If you all could please take a look at the new requirements, and let me know your thinking about this new measure, I would appreciate it. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Sounds good to me..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 16:33:32 8/16/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:33:32, 8/16/2001 ...and will keep a lot of the crazies out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Dun" Posted by JR on 16:38:12 8/16/2001 Personally, I would require real names for every poster new or old but I am a tough task master. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "I think" Posted by Florida on 16:52:39 8/16/2001 it is entirely appropriate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Across the board" Posted by Watching you on 17:01:44 8/16/2001 what's good for one is good for all, Dun. I used my real name, I think everyone should. Anonymous leaves too much room for shenanigans. The only one who is going to have access to our names is you, so why does anyone need to be anonymous. Hey, you, out of the closet. Right now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "yes" Posted by Maggie on 18:23:03 8/16/2001 Real names = accountability [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "WTG Dun" Posted by Gemini on 18:29:04 8/16/2001 Don't let the goof-offs mess with ya. Stick to your guns. From what I understand, because of the way AOL (shudder) is set up, there's no way to totally guard against multi-hats, but it sounds like you have a good plan, otherwise. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Real" Posted by Hoot on 19:19:53 8/16/2001 Real & real, old and new, no exceptions period. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Real Name is a MUST..." Posted by szundi on 19:18:03 8/16/2001 ....for old as well as new members. Please do not allow ANY anonymous posters to register (as was done in the past). Anyone who was a moderator knows that this happened and knows those posters. In all fairness, if you require one poster's real name, then you should require all poster's real names. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "But......." Posted by Phantom on 20:04:52 8/16/2001 how would you know if someone used their real name or not????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Real Names" Posted by Ellique on 20:38:31 8/16/2001 JR: If folks contribute, as very well they should, I would hope that their personal checks don't have bogus names on them. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this forum and not contributing, at least a little. But what the heck, As I have said, all people don't think as I do. Surprise, Surprise!!!!!! as Gomer says. Ha Ha When the PBS stations do their fund raising thing, I contribute. Not a great big amount but maybe a $100.00. I love my PBS stations down here and I have a choice of Georgia, South, Carolina, and Florida. Would you believe that South Carolina's is the best in these Parts. (SCETV) They have won many National awards, right up there with WBGH in Boston. Just thought I would throw that in. Ha Ha Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Real Names" Posted by szundi on 20:20:05 8/16/2001 Dunvegan has been around the Internet a long time---she probably knows a way to verify this. I get e-mail all the time advertising companies that can get all sorts of info on a person. Perhaps, we need to register by snail mail and get our signatures notarized. Other suggestions? szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Actually, although there exists verification..." Posted by Dunvegan on 20:35:36 8/16/2001 ...methods, I'm not at all proposing any verification beyond simple critical reason, and a verifiable and working, non-free, e-mail address. I just think Justice Watch should refuse membership to those who attempt to register with a highly-suspect first and last name (e.g., a name that is a Ramsey family name..."Donald Duck", or claim that their fanciful "hat" is their real name.) And, actually, that should be enough. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Charging a "token" contribution." Posted by Ellique on 20:53:00 8/16/2001 Really I see nothing wrong with making registrants wait a few days before giving them posting rights and at the same tim ask them for for "token" gift of say, $10.00 to be paid only with their personal check. Now if people don't have personal check books, that in itself, should tell us something. On the downside, it might make people think that the $10.00 sign -up gift granted them "lifetime membership" and that ain't so, is it? Love, Ellique PS: Ha Ha... "Charging a token contribution". I didn't type that did I? Talk about your garden variety oxymoron !!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "I agree Dun" Posted by JR on 20:50:04 8/16/2001 Ellique, Don't know about you but my checks say "Carmen Miranda" at such and such address. The banks always find me though. ;-\ So..Dun gets to know who the great Lique is eh...Dun, what's it worth to you? Just kidding "L." Sorry was out taking pictures and posting them in my "Life Album." Trying to catch the lightning but about the time I was ready, it stopped. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "real names" Posted by austingirl on 20:46:56 8/16/2001 I think real names should be required. Anonymous registrations should not be accepted. IMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "So, am I to deduce that" Posted by v_p on 20:50:19 8/16/2001 in the past this was an accepted practice... to accept Donald Duck and Pam Paugh without question? Splains a lot Lucy... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Dear v_p" Posted by Chris on 20:00:41 8/19/2001 nope. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Numerical order" Posted by Ellique on 21:01:11 8/16/2001 Is there any dang way to put a post # when we post so the "brains" of the forum software would know exactly where the post should fall. I couldn't get my posts in numerical order if my life depended on it. I know, I know JR, but your instructions flew right over my head re what I should do to prevent posting out of order. Maybe someday but it better be soon 'cause I ain't getting younger. Ha Ha. Love, Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Ellique" Posted by JR on 20:56:52 8/16/2001 People without checks can always use paypal and have to verify some personal info there. By the way, there are "valid" reasons some don't have them. I agree with the "token contribution" even if Dun only uses it to take Mr. Dun to dinner once in a blue moon. Afterall, he has to share their time to us now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Poor "L"" Posted by JR on 21:09:31 8/16/2001 Hotmail and JW both try to convince him he's senile. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "yes, real e-dress and names" Posted by Shee on 21:27:20 8/16/2001 but let's not go to the other extreme, I have always used my real name, but I do not use checks or credit...so what does that say about me.....we pay in cash...ooooppss no debt....that must make us bad old hippies.....no, it simply is that we have a different, and quite lean, financial style. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Shee" Posted by JR on 21:35:31 8/16/2001 I was so glad when ATM cards came out and you could use them almost anywhere. I hate writing checks and seldom do unless I can't use my card. However, it really ticks me off when I can only use it for $X per day. As long as I have money in my account, who the "L" is the bank to tell me how much I can spend in a day? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Absolutely" Posted by Morgan on 23:13:25 8/16/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:13:25, 8/16/2001 No exceptions! Noone should recieve special treatment. If a poster was allowed to register without giving their real name and email addy, then they should now be required to do so. The rules should apply equally to all. I agree with Szundi's suggestion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Must confesss...." Posted by Charley on 07:20:51 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:20:51, 8/17/2001 I go by Charley....short for Charlene. I was named after my Dad whose name was Charles. We were both called Big Charlie (My Dad) and little Charley (ME) Then people would get us confused and when talking about us, people wouldn't know which Charley they were talking about....Soon I got Charley-Anne. My middle name is Leanne. My email and telephone number is my middle name. Does that classify as real name? Am I confusing you? LOL. My Dad passed away when I was only 11. All my friends still call me Charley or Charley Anne in honor of my Daddy! I have never pretended to be of the male species....like someone from the swamp has! Hope this is all right with JW'er. No deception intended! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Ditto on names..." Posted by janab on 07:28:46 8/17/2001 I don't think it's fair to require all new posters and the vast majority of old posters to use real names and allow 6 posters to get away with being anonymous. That seems blatantly unfair. If anyone has a problem with ONLY the web mistress having their real name and e-mail address, then perhaps they should be posting somewhere else. Their reasons for such secrecy can only be nefarious. Hmmm? Who could they be? Anyway, I don't like the idea of token contributions. How many times has Jameson been taken to task by posters here for "charging" for membership? I think it would be pretty two-faced to do that now. I have made contributions in the past and I will do so in the future, but I think that ought to be left up to the individual poster (depending upon their financial situation, the amount of time they spend here and whether they post or just read). . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Dunvegan" Posted by fran on 09:39:59 8/17/2001 I have been registered at JW since day one, and whatever you decide is ok with me. Just one request. Please send out emails if I need to re-register, because I sometimes go for weeks without checking in. Now, everyone is probably say who the heck is fran???? I don't post very often. Never have. But for some reason I will never be able to walk away from JonBenet. There is always hope that we will find out who did what to this baby, and justice will be done. Just for the record, I still believe P's "good for it", with Burke being my solid second choice. JAR was the molester. John - is an idiot - helped in the cover-up. Patsy wrote the ransom note. Side note: In the beginning Jams was a 'he'. What's his name (Foster?) was getting too close - walla ... the 'she' Jams was born. Everyone who was at BNF in the beginning knows the unbelievable sexual fantasies that came out of his mouth. Not to mention his inside info that only someone close to the family or crime would know. Ruthie was always right about him. Sure miss her..... Sorry to get so off topic. Maybe that's why I don't post much. I tend to go on and on because I have such strong feeling about this case. Later. Anybody watching FOX? Speak of the devil, Jams may finally get her 15 minutes of fame. FOX just announced the a person by the name of Jameson has sent in DNA samples from a man she believes should be fully investigated in the death of JB. That they should analyse this material and see if it matches the unknown DNA found on JonBenet. Wonder how Jams got close enough to this person to obtain a DNA sameple. Did she follow him around until he spit or did she have to 'do it' the hard way? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "what the heck?" Posted by fly on 09:30:54 8/17/2001 How many times have JW-ers blasted jameson for requiring payment, names, etc.? Plenty, and yet now some of you want exactly the same thing? I can't believe it. Dun - I trust you as much as I trust anybody that I don't know face to face, and I had no problem giving you a real, non-hotmail email address. But I will exit JW if more information than that is required. My absence, of course, would be pretty inconsequential (and probably welcomed by some), so my comment isn't meant as a threat - just as a point of information. You have every right to set whatever rules you think are best, but providing information beyond what I've provided is something I am not willing to do. To those calling for verification a la jameson - What is really to be gained by this? What does it really matter if somebody gets a couple of hats, rather than one, thanks to multiple "real" email addresses? Seems to me that the content of the post is what is important, not who is behind it. Have the past registration requirements really allowed havoc to prevail due to an influx of multihatted undesireables? I don't think so. Our biggest troubles have come from well-established members, not "invaders," "trolls," or "spies." And although Dunvegan has done nothing to make me think that she would misuse my personal information, I've seen things change, and slips occur, and the consequences that followed. For myself, I do not choose to intentionally open myself up for those sorts of hassles, no matter how small I perceive the risk today, when I don't see any strong need to anybody to know my identity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "well fly," Posted by Shee on 09:45:26 8/17/2001 I am as libertarian as they get, [ although I have real problems over death penalty for guys like the killer of Jimmie Ryce] so I dont want to have to require a dna sample and social history to express ones self here, however, to register as a true bona fide individual is a seemingly innocuous request. I dont think the 'blind' registrants are necessarily nefarious in purpose, it just seemed like the right 'netticatte' then and now we desire a change. That is not worth loosing a comrade, it is a building tool. We have disagreed, and indeed you have found you disbelieve or hold my views in disdain, none the less I value your input and I consider your statements and gain insight into my feelings or expressions. Your place here is valuable to me, giving your name to Dunvegan is all we ask. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Raising hand..." Posted by CensusGrrl on 09:45:20 8/17/2001 Guess I'm one of those six. All the way back to J-7 I never gave out my real name. Not even to the couple of people I exchanged Beanie Babies with here. I think fly has a major point I totally agree with. Despite that if Dun needs my real name as the price of being a member I'll give it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "We have seen Dun's name," Posted by Ev on 10:05:11 8/17/2001 so what's the big deal in providing ours? I trust that none of my confidential information will go anywhere in this manner. Speaking of information, we had a P.O. Box to send donations to Chris. Dun, may we have an address of sorts from you for contributions if we wish to do so? By the way, Ev is my real name. I have nothing to hide. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "fly" Posted by janab on 10:14:22 8/17/2001 What if I posted a really long, well-thought out post with all kinds of relevant case points in it, and somewhere in that post I mentioned the name John Doe? Could you, without having provided your real name to Dunvegan, hit the alert button and request that the post be removed because it had your real name in it? How is Dunvegan supposed to know that that is your real name if you've never provided your real name? It could be that you just didn't like other things in my post and you want it removed for that reason? What if a few months later, I make another long, good post and it contains the name Joe Smith? Could you again have Dunvegan remove the post and say that your real name is Joe Smith? Dunvegan might say, "But you said two months ago that your real name was John Doe and I removed a post based on that. Now, you want me to believe that your real name is Joe Smith and remove another post?" And you say, "Yes, my real name is Joe Smith. Remove the post because that dastardly janab has posted my real name and that's against the House Rules." How is Dunvegan supposed to know what to believe if you've never provided your real name? Just curious. I'd personally miss you a lot if you weren't around!! . janab [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "name games" Posted by fly on 10:50:53 8/17/2001 Ev - I have nothing to hide, either, but I don't think my name is anybody's business as long as I'm not doing something illegal or immoral - which I'm not. I don't even have multiple hats, nor will I. I just don't agree with the idea of requiring verifiable names. Dunvegan made the decision to share her name. Nobody forced her to do so. If you want to reveal your name to Dunvegan, or email buddies, or to JW in general, that's fine. I choose not to because that is not something I think is wise - even when I have no tangible reason to distrust Dunvegan. janab - If somebody simply mentions a name, without linking it (directly, or through "hints" that are pretty obvious) to a hat, there's nothing to complain about, IMO. If linking occurs, then my policy (if I were moderator) would be to ask that the information be deleted without requiring the accuracy of the name be verified. It wouldn't matter to me if somebody did this for more than one name - obviously one of the names was inaccurate (unless it is an alias), but if the person doesn't want even erroneous info out there, that's reasonable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 10:45:55 8/17/2001 If your trust in the ability of the Webmistress to keep your real name and addy confidential is so low, then you can't expect fellow posters to trust that your participation on this forum is to further the pursuit of truth and justice in this case. Trust needs to flow both ways. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Me too?" Posted by Phantom on 10:59:15 8/17/2001 I don't remember if I even registered with my real name either. Did I? All I remember is "Phantom" and "password". Just wondering, how did everyone else use their real names? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Morgan" Posted by fly on 10:54:26 8/17/2001 If posters here don't want to trust me, that's their decision. For myself, the fact that you would provide Dunvegan (or even the entire membership of JW) your personal information doesn't even come close to influencing how much I trust you, compared to what I have observed you do on the forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Phantom" Posted by JR on 11:11:07 8/17/2001 Not me - I just use my initials but people know who I am because I like to decide when and where to give out that knowledge. One can't be blind-sided that way. Dun has my real name either way. If you don't trust your webmaster (mistress in this case?) why would you want to be on their forum? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Fly isn't altogether wrong" Posted by Watching you on 11:27:09 8/17/2001 there could come a time when Dunvegan might either have to flush our personal information down the toilet or turn it over by order of a court. I don't blame Fly at all for the feelings submitted here. I'm not all that concerned about those things, but I understand why Fly is. As far as trust goes, Fly is one of the only ones on this forum I would trust, and it is ludicrous to associate Fly's unwillingness to "trust" (since the issue really isn't trust at all but perhaps circumstances beyond the webmistress's control) with anyone trusting Fly's posts on this forum. I hope Fly does not leave, because when everything is falling apart around us, Fly remains the voice of reason and intelligence. The only other way I know of, Fly, is to assume a pseudonym like some authors do. As long as that pseudonym is associated with your hat and you are responsible for what is posted under that hat and pseudonym, I really don't see the harm. How about it, Dun? I know it's not what you want, but Fly is one of the pillars of this forum. Perhaps if one feels as strongly as Fly does about this and has proved trustworthiness in the past, and since you do not ask for addresses or phone numbers as means of identification, what about a suitable pseudonym? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 11:26:48 8/17/2001 So you don't give your name to your bank, or when you pay your bills, or registering your kid for school, etc? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Upon reading your ideas regarding registration:" Posted by Dunvegan on 11:24:57 8/17/2001 First of all, thank you for taking the time to consider this issue and give me your thoughts. The main reason to ask for input regarding registraion is that I felt that changes made to Justice Watch should be brought to the attention of the existing membership, and submitted for discussion. As the registration function is something a member with an authorized account would seldom, if ever, see...I wanted to make certain that this new protocol was well known to the forum habituates. After August 6th, I received a number of odd requests for registration that looked like this (just an example, not an actual submission): Username: UglyDuckling Firstname: Ugly Lastname: Duckling Email: ugduk@hotmail.com I have to ask the registrant to re-register, and provide a real e-mail address. Then, say for illustrative purposes, I'd get something like this back: Username: UglyDuckling Firstname: Ugly Lastname: Duckling Email: ugduky@juno.com I just don't think it's completely appropriate registration, especially after I took the time to review the current membership list, and noted the extremely high percentage of existing members willing to give more complete, and most probably, more accurate information in the name fields. Those fields do ask for Firstname and Lastname; not "what I wish mom would have named me," or "here's an obvious alias: deal with it." Not to mention the moral and legal situations brought into play from usernames that were profane, or used well known case names (including members of the Ramsey family,) or just split up a username and entering that into the Firstname and Lastname fields. Unless, their name is actually "Ugly Duckling"...or some such. In which case they may the issue up directly with me via private e-mail. If their argument holds water, I'll err on the side of expansiveness (remember the real name "Peek-a-Boo Street, the Olympic champion?) Sometimes real names are legitimately unusual. As for the six members that existed prior to August 6th: several must only lurk or are entirely inactive, as I personally cannot remember ever seeing their posts. The other couple do post on occasion, but I believe that they are well known on this board by all posters to a certain extent, and, by their own admissions and the personal information they have given here during their time on the board, there is no extremely compelling reason for removing them upon my assuming ownership of Justice Watch. Asking for, at least what appears to be, a real first and last name is rather traditional conduct. Internet discussion boards allow everything from anonymous registration to fully-verified information to post. Justice Watch is right in the middle of this continuum. So far, I'm been navigating this issue by my own lights...but the input is extremely important. For the time being, I'm going to keep it where it is: a request for a "real" first and last name; and a verifiable non-free-mail address. And let's all watch and see how this works. But, I'm open to changes going forward, and we can certainly re-visit this at any time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "final comment" Posted by fly on 16:02:25 8/17/2001 Dunvegan - I just want to explain something to Morgan, and then I'll say no more on this issue. Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. You're the one who shoulders the work, so you rightly are the one to make the decision. You did, and will do, what you think is appropriate. I suspect you are coming to fully appreciate the adage so popular among lawyers: Don't ask a question unless you already know the answer (and it's the one you want). Morgan - Simply put, there are some things that by real necessity require true personal information, and some of those things play such an important role in my life, or have such value, that providing my real information is totally acceptable. There are also some contexts that call attention to the pitfalls of providing personal information, and others that do not. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how having my real name is a necessity for running a discussion forum. And although I have thoroughly enjoyed the interactions JW has provided, and I very much hope to be able to continue those interactions, I cannot say that membership in JW is a necessity in my life. Finally, in reality there probably isn't as much risk of providing info to Dunvegan than handing over my credit card to a waiter at a restaurant, but rational or not, the internet is a context in which the downside of distributing information to relative strangers is more apparent, at least to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Fly" Posted by Morgan on 16:47:05 8/17/2001 Like, everyone doesn't have those concerns? Since you, and apparently 5 others don't have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, then, in order to restore some fairness to the rest of the JW posters, Dunvegan should at least inform the community which posters have not provided their real names, as required in the rules. Fly, I appreciate the fact that you admit to being one of the 6. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Fly" Posted by Gemini on 17:59:26 8/17/2001 Don't you dare think about leaving JW! I would be desolate; we would be diminished. I do have to disagree with you, tho, about the importance of multi-hats when it comes to credible discussion. It's easy to say ... not the poster but the post, however ... when one poster has a number of hats to play around with it is possible to lend bogus attention to a particular opinion and spam give and take, so that those with opposing positions give up in disgust or back away from trying to opinionate at all ... thus reducing legitimate debate and exchange to what amounts to a one-sided diatribe. It's happened here before. It sucks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "FLY" Posted by JR on 18:02:19 8/17/2001 If you have hotmail or Yahoo or just feel comy with it could you email me please? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL JR ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Dunvegan" Posted by hergus on 22:18:08 8/17/2001 I'm going to change the subject for a minute. I know quite a few people that registered as new members 3-4 days ago and have not heard anything back, while some who applied the same day are already members. I know you are very busy, but could you give an approximate waiting period for new posters? Could that be posted on some of the other forums so these people don't have to continue wondering if they've been rejected? Also, with new members, what do you think about posters that are already members vouching for the new ones that you don't know but others do. BTW-I agree one attempt at outing and you're out of here. It is a dangerous and usually only happens when people hold a grudge against someone and this forum dedicated to the murder Of JonBenet is not the place for games and vendettas. Besides, the old adage applies here, if you do it once, you'll do it again. If you are that kind of person no rules will stop you, it's morals that are lacking and that usually never changes. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "The "Real Name" policy is an INTERIM pol..." Posted by Dunvegan on 23:40:34 8/17/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:40:34, 8/17/2001 And, only an interim policy. This matter as to how to deal with registraion going forwards is up for discussion. Rules are not only made to be changed...but will be when they require it, or if they were based on wrong or uninformed assumptions. That is what we are doing here and now...figuring out together what is right for the Justice Watch community in regards to this matter. Meanwhile I have already "grandfathered" in all members in good standing as of August 6th, 2001. I suppose that it's hard to tell you much about the flood of legitamate and "spurious" registration requests that hit me last week. fly was a Justice Watch member, in good standing, as of August 6th, 2001. fly: I have no intention of asking for your real name. However, I take your point that you may be arguing on the side of full-privacy. And, consumer privacy is at the heart of the ever-growing issue of protections against invasion of privacy, and a private citizen's right to know what happens with his personal data. If someone gives me a false Firstname/Lastname, there's no way I'll really know about their identity...because I have neither the time or inclination to verify each person's name. I don't even want a database of personal information to guard. And, I agree: one never knows who might broker that info for financial or personal gain. I'm actually perfectly willing to go along with "john doe" registrations. But require guidence regarding how the community wishes to handle such new members. I've recently had to ask what will it serve to allow membership to people using (this is a close example, but not the real one) "NedraPaugh" as the username and "Nedra" and "Paugh" as the Firstname, Lastname? Then there was a well-known poster from other fora who insisted that their login should be (another example) "PrettyBudgie" with "Pretty" as Firstname, and "Budgie" as last name. And, they also registering using a juno.com address (Juno offers free trial accounts, along with e-mail.) Should JW approve such registrations? I'm putting this question to all of you. If its OK with Justice Watch, its OK with me. BTW, I got quite a number of the above unusual registrations. This sort of thing confounded me. I almost clicked on "activate"...but, just had to rethink it. And, I brought it here to the forum to do so. I'd like nothing better that to allow anyone who registers to come join Justice Watch and help us to build the expert base of users, or just freely speak at this venue. Anyone. Everybody. Would fully-open registration be reasonable and orderly in such a way as to protect the aims of the forum? Am I just bothering over nothing? I have no way, nor any time to verify that each user registers using their real name. There will be no identity hunts. The ethics of my profession demand that I protect privacy. And, so I shall. One of these efforts to protect privacy is posted at the registration screen. There you shall find a Privacy Notice. Professionally, I always advise clients to not give personal information to anyone that they specifically do not wish to have it...and to consider whether or not those to whom you do decide to entrust with your personal information should be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct. I get your drift, fly...I get your drift. And I prefer not to be the keeper to those kinds of keys...unless they are keys that open doors, rather than lock them. My thought was simply to discourage frivolous registration by users calling themselves by provocative usernames/hats like "Alex Hunter", and then following it up by posting in the next fields, Firstname: Alex, Lastname: Hunter. At least until we hashed out the issues, pro and con, here on the forum. fly: I value your thinking, your sensibilities, and input. I value free speech. If you have any suggestions you can give me in regards to frivolous login , please speak towards those ideas. All of us, myself included are listening. I started this thread because the "real name" policy is an "interim" policy until the membership here comes to a consensus. We're not there yet. Nothing is in concrete. Please, let's try to figure out what is right for Justice Watch together. I'm really here to do what makes the best sense for the community. Again: should I open registration to any and all usernames/hats and to anyone regardless what information they choose to put into their information field? The question remains before the membership. The current "real name" policy is writ in HTML, not stone. Meanwhile, I'll go back out to my peers in the computer security business and gather their opinion on this matter. Could be I'm missing the obvious, or making more of this than I should. Help make the decision that's a decision that is ethical, reasonable, supportive of privacy and free speech, and reasonable to the community. Help me to see where the ethical line is in this matter, because it effects each and every one of you here at Justice Watch. And, again, thank you everyone for your continued participation. This is how we continue in building a beter forum. Leia Amidon "Dunvegan" Edited because I'm falling asleep...and so are my fingers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "What's that saying...." Posted by Phantom on 23:14:41 8/17/2001 The same rule for the lion and the ox is....?????? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Dun" Posted by Gemini on 23:47:16 8/17/2001 Just my input ... I think you need to require a legitimate, server, email address from all members. Otherwise, you're asking for it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Gem" Posted by hergus on 00:06:32 8/18/2001 I agree with you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Gem is right" Posted by JR on 01:09:16 8/18/2001 IMHO you should require the letter's JD or some "symbol" in the "hat" so that those of us who use real names, know we are dealing with those that do not so we know to perhaps (not in Fly's case, however) tread lightly. I for one have no qualms sharing personal information with old friends but I know I will be less likely to hand out my phone number to a member in need, if I know they have registered under a fictitious name. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Just a quick one here" Posted by Watching you on 05:57:49 8/18/2001 I too think real e-mail addys should be a requirement. On the issue of real names, when one thinks about it, there is no way of verifying real names. Lawd knows, I myself have used variations of my own real name in registering at certain forums (not this one) that I didn't consider they needed my real name. Most of them required a real e-mail address, though. I guess requiring real names is not such a good idea considering there is no way to enforce such a rule sans individually calling every one of them which would require a phone number. Jameson does that, and it is quite frankly an intrusion of privacy. Here is a thought. No really over the top names, like Daffy Duck or Rabid Rabbit, Up Yours or Jameson Sucks (although I kind of like that last one, haha). If real name is not going to be used, at least the poster could be honest about it and state s/he is using an alias. By now, the old posters are pretty much known here. New names and new hats may, perhaps, require more scrutiny at first. It usually doesn't take long for true colors to show. If someone is here to disrupt and cause havoc among the established posters, toss their fake names and hats right back out. Those are my thoughts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "My thoughts" Posted by starry on 06:08:13 8/18/2001 I personally would like to see the forum open up to allow people with all thoughts and theories of who killed JonBenét be allowed to register. It gets mighty boring hearing Patsy dun it, or JR dun it,. .... you get my drift. As to the dilemna of real names vs. fake names, I think only a valid email address is enough to ask for. If and when these posters who are guarding their identiy misuse the forum or break house rules, then they can be banned, timed out, or otherwise dealt with. Just because I am an open book and could care less about my name being known, I don't assume that everyone is as open as I am. That's why they make vanilla, chocolate and butterscotch, ya know? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Keep it honest" Posted by Kelly on 07:43:13 8/18/2001 There is no way we can maintain integrity on this forum if we allow people to use names with free e-mail accounts. Honestly, how many hats do you think Jameson posts under? I don't have time to read post after post from what appears to be the different individuals, but on closer look it is most likely the same person posting under several hats. Obviously there are people involved in JonBenet's murder that have alot to lose if they can't sway things one way or the other. That is called spinning, and I don't want them here. We are the forum of record and we have to keep it that way. Chris and Dunvegan and most of us have worked way too hard to let it get out of hand now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "A thought" Posted by darby on 08:41:02 8/18/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:41:02, 8/18/2001 I agree that obviously ridiculous "real" names should not be allowed. However, what happens if someone decides to give DunV a "normal" false name? Suppose I decided to register as, say, Betty Jones? There would be no way for DunV to know that that is not my real name. With this in mind, I think that the name that is given to DunV, real or not, should be the name that cannot be used by any poster if that person is "outed." That's only fair, I should think. Otherwise, how is DunV to know whether or not someone is just "claiming" a name that is not really hers when a poster she doesn't like mentions a name? This will mean that the person who chooses to make up a pseudonym will have the burden of assuming a slight risk for doing so. From there, it's up to those who seek annonymity to refrain from providing clues as to identity. In fly's case, s/he has been so careful that s/he could be anyone, from Dr. Beuf to Rick Moranis to Madonna. Edited to add that I don't think that anyone, old or new, should be allowed to use hotmail, juno, yahoo or any other "junk" email address (which I believe even fly has complied with). What I said applies only in the event that someone give DunV a "real" email address, but not his/her real name. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "that's exactly the point " Posted by starry on 08:54:17 8/18/2001 Darby. Since Dun won't be investigating whether or not the names given are real or not, the only thing she can do is require a real email address to prevent duplicate registrations by those who would register with many yahoo, hotmail accounts with the intentions of flaming and disruption. real email addresses should be required. People need to be accountable in the event of the worst scenarios, but, on initial registration, if they want their identify to remain annoymous, then any name could be made up. It doesn't have to be as wild as Daffy Duck. As you noted Mary Smith could be real or made up. Who knows? Who cares? Only by registering from a real email address can they be traced in the event it would be necessary. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "email addys" Posted by Scully on 09:15:31 8/18/2001 I have been using hotmail and netaddress accounts for several years now for the sole reason that they are easy for me to use, and I never quite understood how to email using my real emal addy. I came accross my actual email address through my cable service some time ago, but the danged address is at least 10 characters long and would be impossible for me to remember unless I set aside time each night in order to memorize it. However, there is an outside chance that I did send my actual email address a few years ago during a re-registration process, but I was living in a different state at the time. Now what do I do? As far as giving out our real names online, I can understand why so many are reluctant to do so. The internet is a spooky place sometimes and it is risky business to post personal information on the net in any way, shape or form. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "starry" Posted by darby on 09:01:03 8/18/2001 I agree with you. I was assuming real email addresses when I posted, though I forgot to say so. I was editing to add that point when you were posting that point. It's a good point. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Point of Info" Posted by szundi on 09:24:30 8/18/2001 WEBTV allows for 6 e-mail addys under one user name. I believe aol allows for more than one. If no real name is required, I can register here with 6 hats--all legitimate webtv addresses and flood the threads with posts from all these 'posters' to influence my point of view. The only way to assure that posters don't do this and waste bandwidth as well as cause major chaos is to require some form of ID (known only to DunV) to keep the playing field level. From the way hats have appeared and disappeared in the past, I guess this practice has been happening and may even be happening now. I know most posters have distinct writing styles and sometimes it can be an easy task to figure out that it is the same person----but sometimes not. Dunvegan: you know all this, I'm sure, but there has to be a way of preventing this from happening. Let's keep trying to figure some method out which will reduce the liklihood of multiple hats/one poster taking control of a topic. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "I know" Posted by Watching you on 09:28:48 8/18/2001 we all have to send Dun our first-born as collateral. um, maybe not, I think I'll keep my first-born for myself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "there are times" Posted by starry on 09:45:42 8/18/2001 when I would gladly send my first born. And my second born. LOL Hey, shouldn't I be getting things done around here? Well, I've made a start..... don't pushhhhhhh [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Dunvegan," Posted by Florida on 10:29:14 8/18/2001 I think it is important to require a real email address. However, I can have 5 email accounts on my @home cable service so how would you be able to tell if I signed up with five different hats? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Excellent points, all." Posted by Dunvegan on 11:07:23 8/18/2001 And well taken. Now, I'd appreciate it if all of your would would help me with these issues one-at-a-time: Registration Topic #1: How to handle a poster registereing with a hat like, for example, "DonPaugh", Firstname: Don, Lastname: Paugh? Remember: this would be the name we would all see when they post. I have such a registration before me which I've momentarily placed in limbo. Suggestions? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Dunnie" Posted by starry on 11:29:37 8/18/2001 You are in a difficult position with something like that. It's probably not the "real" Don Paugh, but with a real email address, with which you could trace their ISP, I would say give them a chance and watch them carefully. I'd also let them know you will be watching them and won't tolerate breaking the house rules lightly. What more can ya do? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Szundi" Posted by 1000Sparks on 11:25:32 8/18/2001 You think you could pick out my writing style amoungst the rest of these people? I think not. My style changes on a regular basis just to mess everyone up. My Real name is Onethrousand and last name Sparks...gotta problem wit that? If so, see my mom. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "I'd be mad at my" Posted by Watching you on 11:38:14 8/18/2001 mom, too, if she named me onethrousand, sparks. Here we go loopty loo... there is one thing you can do, Dun. You know darn well Don Paugh will copy our posts on this private forum and take them back to that code six wingnut. Same with Patsy RAmsey and John Ramsey and JAR... You do not HAVE to let them post here, you know, it is a private forum, afterall. Don Paugh, indeed. Anyone registering with that name is most likely a troll and a trouble maker. I say with a name like that, don't let him in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Don Paugh" Posted by hergus on 19:17:53 8/18/2001 Dun could reply to Don Paugh that the name appears to be bogus and if they really want to register and post at JW they should use a real name or forget it. JMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Sparks," Posted by LurkerXIV on 11:35:22 8/18/2001 This is how we recognize you. We see these on all your posts: -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< -< [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "LurkerISLXXLWEKJLKJWEKIIIIIII" Posted by 1000Sparks on 12:20:52 8/18/2001 I think you are making that up. That is someone else that writes like that. I'm changing my hat and you will never figure me out then. One day you will figure I'm Mary99 and the next day Morgan and the next day hir. Sorry, this is the way it's gotta be to keep my anomiities to myself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "That, Lurker..." Posted by Dunvegan on 12:17:28 8/18/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:17:28, 8/18/2001 ...and the bread crumbs... Edited 'cause it's pre-coffee. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "That's true, Sparky" Posted by Watching you on 13:30:50 8/18/2001 and I don't blame you one bit. We all have to keep our abnormalties to ourselves, it's only right, afterall. I mean, just because you have a wart on your nose and all, you know what I mean? No one needs to know about your abnormalities. Don't you worry none, Sparky. Your secrets are safe behind your computer screen. Unless I tell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Gave this some thought" Posted by JR on 18:11:42 8/18/2001 Many people on low incomes or with budget problems use Juno because it's cheap. Maybe a way around the issue (not hotmail, yahoo etc.) of those with lower cost services could be verified by known posters before they are let in. If they don't have friends or family posting then...oh well. My kids both use juno because they started out on it due to thier dad's penny penching. My daughter can't afford to pay any more than she has to. SHe does pay though and doesn't use the free juno service. My aunt also uses it because they are on a tight (retired) budget. So say my daughter wanted to post here. I could verify with Dun that I know her and will vouch for her being who she says she is. If people vouch for trouble makers then they could post a "tone it down" type message on the forum but if they ignore the problem (and have obviously seen it), they should lose their privalges too. Personally, I think any person who wants to use a Ramsey hat is simply looking for trouble or very naive. IMHO, any "case" name should require a real email address though that's most likely discrimination. Dun, maybe you should let these folks know gently that you think a hat like Paugh or Smit is only going to cause them grief and suggest they chose a different hat? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "JR" Posted by hergus on 19:20:59 8/18/2001 I suggested vouching for people Dun doesn't know last night.....GMTA! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "JR" Posted by Kelly on 19:05:26 8/18/2001 Good reply! Are you JR Ewing???? I don't think anyone should be allowed to post with a name involved with anyone directly involved in the case. How much value would we put in what they said anyway? The thought of people being able to post under a free e-mail address is a good one, only if the person gets a friend or family to validate them. I think anyone that reads our forum feels comfortable enough with at least one other poster to share who they are and their intentions. I wouldn't be here if I didn't put alot of stock in what many of our posters are saying. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Kelly" Posted by JR on 19:22:54 8/18/2001 No, I am not "ewing" but I do Baaahhhh occasionally. ;-) Hegus - GMTA, yes I have noticed that frequently. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Dunvegan" Posted by Ally on 07:28:54 8/19/2001 I am finally in. Thank you!! How about if somebody doesn't use their real name they have to explain their hat, like Dunvegan. I get the VEGAN part because I used to but what is the actual significance of that hat? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Dunvegan," Posted by zoomama on 14:45:16 8/19/2001 FWIW, when you get a name that is the same as any memeber of the Ramsey Family (and extended family) or any of the principals in the justice system from Boulder I think you would be correct in asking them for another name as they will not be permitted to post with those names. Then when or if they choose another name or "hat" then wach them closely for a time and if they prove to be trouble makers then excuse them from the forum. But I feel that anyone should be able to post if they are sincere in wanting JFJBR. Their posts will give them away. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Outing Dunvegan" Posted by Dunvegan on 16:50:47 8/19/2001 My real name is Leia Amidon. My husband's last name is McLeod. I'm a Highlander by marrage. My "hat" is taken from the MacLeod's ancestral castle, on the Isle of Skye, Dunvegan Castle. I also have a domain at http://www.dunvegan-castle.com Dunvegan Castle has been the stronghold of the Chiefs of the Clan MacLeod for nearly 800 years, and has been continuiously inhabited longer than any other family castle in Scotland. Even today, it remains their home. Built on a Rock once surrounded entirely by salt water, it is unique in Scotland as the only house of such antiquity to have retained its family and its roof throughout the centuries, surviving the extremes of feast and famine, the intermittent periods of warring with neighbouring clans, and the immense changes of social, political and economic life through which the Western Highlands and Islands have passed. A sea gate also existed in the castle tower, which enabled the castle to remain supplied if the landward side was under siege. The geographical locale and the castle architecture have combined to make Dunvegan one of the most impenetrable, and defendable castles in all of the British Isles. The motto of Clan MacLeod is "Hold Fast", and throughout the centuries their Chiefs at Dunvegan Castle have endeavoured to do so, and have to this day, succeeded. So...in a round-about way, my hat could easily lead you to find me, and my real name. Leia Amidon-McLeod "Dunvegan" "Hold Fast" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Ally" Posted by Kelly on 16:05:06 8/19/2001 What is "vegan", that you used to do but Dunvegan is still doing??? I have no clue! Is it something Dunvegan is too old to be doing? LOL!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "I'm not actually a "vegan"..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:54:00 8/19/2001 ...but I don't eat "critters or varmits." I do eat cheeses (sparingly.) No milk, however. Fish and shellfish (what's that religion that calls such "sea vegetables?") Um...that's about it. Maybe I'm just a "Dull Vegan"...yeah...that's the ticket.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Kelly" Posted by JR on 16:52:27 8/19/2001 It's a lifestyle/diet? sort of like being a vegitarian. Some vegitarians will eat eggs, foods prepared with, oh let's say, bacon fat and so on and some won't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Vegans" Posted by darby on 17:16:27 8/19/2001 are the strictest of vegetarians. They eat absolutely no animal products: no eggs, no milk, no fish, no meat, no animal oils, no suet, no tripe--you get the picture. I used to be one too, for about a month. Bought all the McDougal books. Now, I'm dun being a vegan. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "Ha, ha!" Posted by Ally on 18:10:05 8/19/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 18:10:05, 8/19/2001 Some sleuth I'm not, Dunvegan's hat couldn't be further from what I was thinking!! Dun, it's very romanic sounding, & so orig. Kelly, nothing sexual I'm sorry to say. Lol!! Exactly right, JR and Darby. I really thought I could do this (vegan), but every time I turned around I discovered I'd screwed up. So now I'm pretty much chicken and fish and fruit and pasta and vegetables. Not all at the same meal. I call that, reformed carnivore. 8-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "thank you all" Posted by Kelly on 21:14:19 8/19/2001 for clearing that up for me. It's no wonder I didn't know what one was! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "followup" Posted by fly on 18:25:13 8/19/2001 Dunvegan - You're facing a situation in which you either have to do a heck of a lot of work and get awfully intrusive, or accept the fact that some troublemakers are going to get in. In your position, I'd be most interested in being able to track and block a person's ability to enter if they proved to be troublemakers. I don't have the technical knowledge to know what info would be required for that, but I doubt that true identities would be necessary. Avoiding multiple hats would be nice, at least dozens of them easily acquired. Legit emails would help with this, and for myself, I think that is a reasonable request - especially if you have some way for those whose internet provider doesn't include email. However, I doubt there's any way other than full verification of identity to avoid multiple hats entirely. Legit emails are about as fakeable as legit names (even getting the actual legit name for a "stolen" legit email) - unless you actually test them. Using them to send the person's initial password helps ensure they are at least the poster's email, rather than one picked off the internet, and probably would help the multiple hat problem. This password reply might accomplish enough to be worth the trouble. Like others, I think you'd be acting appropriately if you disallowed registration with either hats or "real" names of known case figures. To allow somebody to impersonate Don Paugh would be a very bad idea for a human decency view, not a security one. Daffy Duck etc might be disallowed on copyright issues, if you really want to avoid those. But you realize that asking for a "real" name won't phase the serious troublemakers a bit. Morgan - Sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't one of those 5 or 6 folks. Gemini - I generall agree about multiple hats. They can create problems, but those problems can be dealt with a lot easier than setting up mechanisms to completely avoid multiple hats in the first place. I'm not for an unregistered forum a la the original BNF, precisely because there is absolutely no brakes on the speed with which hats can be acquired. But short of the approach jameson takes, I don't think there's any way to avoid the problem entirely. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Yes, yea, and OH yes, fly..." Posted by Dunvegan on 18:48:30 8/19/2001 ...the "real name" is just the first step in maintaining some order. Being the incisive sort you are, you were immediately wised to the real reason for the "real name" convention: 1. No copyright infringement (i.e., Micky Mouse)...I've got enough with lawyers right now investigating the merits of the legal threat leveled against Justice Watch at present. Mikey Mouze is fine. Perhaps, even, Micky Mouse will be all right...but, let me get past this last legal threat before I can say, "Sure, let WY make fun of your name "Betty Boop"...I don't care. 2. Letting someone register as "Don Paugh" (not the real request, but close) is in bad taste. I'd be most obliging to registering any Ramsey family member to Justice Watch...but, I'd like a little more than someone giggling and typing their names into a registration field before I fell for it. It would be unseemly, to say the least. We're discussing law and justice here...but, we're doing so in context of a family tragedy. I have no intention of adding insult to injury to any member of the Ramsey family in this way. 3. I'm looking for ways to make the registration process cover all reasonable basis: protect the forum, and protect privacy. I'll be back on the phone with the EFF and other online free speech advocates starting...geeesh, is it already almost Monday? On Monday. There is good technology to cover this situation. Some of it cost money to purchase, and time to administer (hey, everybody want me to send them their own SecurID fob for two-factor authentication logins? I didn't think so. And, they cost about $60 a piece, not to mention the ACE server, and the full-time administrator.) Some solutions are open source...but, I'm still using Chris' hosting company. And the dc board software. Whatever authentication scheme I come up with has to seamlessly integrate with what exists, or it just won't work, or will break the board, or (as is usual) both. I'm working on it. This is a LEGACY board. I have to work towards a solution. The easiest I could come up with on the "fly" was just ask for a reasonable "Firstname, Lastname" combination. Zero guarentee...but, keeps the most egregious silliness down a titch. And, fly...please don't leave...please stay and help. Heaven's knows, I need all the help I can get. And your help is usually very good, indeed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Dunvegan" Posted by Gemini on 19:00:09 8/19/2001 Have you thought about contacting the "father of the DC software" (David) for some assistance? If he still supports the package, he might be able to make some suggestions. Chris could probably put you in touch. Fly, I don't think there's any possible way to insure against multi-hats. As all sysops in the past have done, Dun will probably just have to watch for trouble makers. The old BNF was the absolute worst. It seems most likely a legit email address will be a real need, even if it's a flawed concept. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "yup" Posted by Geno on 21:07:24 8/19/2001 agree, Fly & Gem. I think all Dunvegan was asking is for the registrants to use good form and accepted practice, i.e. use a legitimate name and a verifiable authentic e-mail address. That seems to me to be a simple matter of respect for the integrity of any "discussion" forum and the board sysop. Administering one of these boards can be the most exasperating and time consuming endeavor anyone could think to undertake. David Choi and Dan Trevino gave this original board way more time than most of us can imagine and Dunvegan will need all the cooperation we can give her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Geno ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "(c) Internet Privacy" Posted by JR on 21:39:07 8/19/2001 For those concerned about tractability and privacy in the Internet, I happened to pick up an older issue of Time magazine at the nursing home tonight. It was the July 2 issue but as I recall it might have been 2000 and not 2001. Sadly, the article said, give it up basically because if you use the Internet you have no privacy. It did make recommendations for slowing folks down hackers et al down, however. Of course there were the usual recommendations such as having firewall software, an encryption certificate (such as one can buy from Verisign, Inc.), emptying your memory cache and so forth but they also recommended some software by www.anonymizer.com called a privacy button. Tracking URL's you visit is actually how hackers and other folks (including web masters) get your personal data and interests as you "surf." This software has a free downlowable version and a "full" version for $49.96 available at www.anonymizer.com. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Duvegan" Posted by fly on 07:41:13 8/20/2001 Dunvegan - I have no intention of leaving JW unless booted off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Well, fly...thank you...I'm all about JW..." Posted by Dunvegan on 11:09:59 8/20/2001 ...and, I think that you will find that I am certainly no "Bootman". I'm doing my level best to be fair and not boot members on hearsay, or for the trivial. Please stay, fly. I'm doing my blessed best to remain fair and thoughtful. And, I'm learning. I am, however, looking to build this forum by consensus...this is why I ask for input as I blindly feel my way forward. The idea is to make this board a place where the members feel that they have some considerable say in how Justice Watch grows and is presented...about why they come here and feel safe...and about suggestions how this forum can help you to make a difference. Justice Watch is for everyone here: It's your meeting place...so far, I'm just the one in overalls (but not Steve Thomas' gardner) who comes in and stacks the chairs, sweeps up, empties the wastebins, and locks the doors at night to keep the vandals out. I hope to grow into a leader and help take this forum where you want it to go. I don't want to be a bouncer, but will do if general concensus requires it, and protecting your interests and privacy warrant it...nor do I want to give up my day job to become a 24/7 volunteer project door bouncer, and spend the rest of my days being advised/confused by legal eagles parsing out the probable outcome of bleeding-edge cyberspace law. I have to work, after all...I'm (unfortunately) not retired, yet. I return ALL inquiries. Sometimes that may take up to 48-hours. On rare occasion, a little longer. But I pledge to answer. That's why I am so grateful for any help you can give me in maintaining both freedom of speech and order in this forum. To recap: It is your forum. Do not ever forget that. CONTACT DUNVEGAN: Write me: Offical E-mal: Dunvegan@JusticeforJonBenet.org; Personal E-mail: lamidon@pacbell.net Official JW matters should go to Dunvegan@JusticeforJonBenet.org For emergency matters/or AOL users with truncated addres fields, use my personal address: lamidon@pacbell.net. This is the primary address I use every day, and always check first (the Dunvegan@JusticeforJonBenet.org address is all re-directed to the pacbell.net account, anyway.) Emergency communications for when I am way-way-way out of town is: leia@palm.net. Call me: Home Office Phone w/Answering Machine--CALL COLLET, if need be: 415-567-7172 - Leave me a message if I'm not here to pick up. Fax me: My eFax number is: 240-201-0779. All faxes sent to this number come directly to my e-mail account. Visit Blackbird (AKA Mr. Dunvegan AKA David) and I at our home: Give us a call if you're ever in the Bay Area, we'd so like to meet you, if you are so inclined to meet us in person. All contact, and the content information above is solely for the use of members of the Justice Watch forum. My preference is that this infomaion is spread no farther afield than is necessary. I hate spam. BTW, this personals information is not for reprint. Thank you fly...I appreciate you hanging in here, both on the wall and flying around gathering thoughts and information, and listening and reporting to JW. To sum up: I am here and listening. I'm available. You are all encouraged to take advantage of that availability. Questions? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dunvegan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Clarification (as if it matters)" Posted by Chris on 10:55:05 8/20/2001 Just a note of clarification... The "questionable" six registrations were "blacked out" before I relinquished control of the forum at the poster's request. Also, I think there were a few that China had let in and because of poor communication from me she probably didn't put in their names, etc. For a period of time we did registrations that way to keep the database off the Internet. People were not allowed to register without a real name (who knows if it's the right real name) and with Hotmail or Yahoo email addresses except for a small handful of REPUTABLE posters who were a hold-over from the old J-7. The web-based email addresses that are in the forum database are there because that is the email addresses that posters wanted in the online database. Correspondence for the initial registration was done via email with a non web-based email address. To make it sound as if posters were allowed multiple registrations, with goofy names or email addresses that didn't exist is ridiculous. Those registrations still sat there when I turned over the reigns - un-activated. Just ask the very active poster who tried to register the hat E11ique (with one's rather than the letter l). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "Guilty as charged" Posted by JR on 11:49:14 8/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:49:14, 8/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:24:46, 8/20/2001 However, I never received any notice the name had been approved. I was simply trying to show Ellique at the time how easily it is to mimic someone else's hat. I believe I sent you (Chris) an email stating that. Ellique would have shown up as E11ique and s/he didn't seem to understand at the time that one could do that and other's not be able to tell it wasn't the same poster. I can see if I kept a copy of the email I sent stating my reasons if you'd like. Edited to add - Dunn please dump this one. I think Ellique has gained enough experience now to understand this can and does happen. Thank you. Edited again to say - I also used a real email address when I did this. For those who don't know, several ISP's now provide you with a number of the. AOL as I recall is 7 and Cox-internet is 5. So, get use to miltiple hats I think is the message. I have always and will always use JR on forums as long as it is available. I used JRonJW on Rocky Mtn (I think that's the one) because it wasn't. You will always know it is me in other words. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Bite me registraion process" Posted by China on 11:34:35 8/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:34:35, 8/20/2001 It was a bitch. Still is I'm sure. Chris and I tried our best to make sure *real* names were used, but that is darn near impossible. However, there are many sleuthing devices available for discerning real emails and we utilized those. The truth is, communicating everything we did to one another was indeed a problem, more mine than hers. However, we trusted one another and with that knew we were both doing what we thought was the best thing for JW as a whole. I've had some funny experiences with believing most registrants used their real names, but I won't tell that story JONESY, altho' I still LOL at that mistake. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Pedro asked that I post this" Posted by JR on 11:40:04 8/20/2001 Pedro "I happen to know that Chris is telling the truth regarding registration policy. Everyone register in JW did so with a real e-mail address Some posters did change their e-mail address to web based e-mail addresses in their profile for other members to e-mail them, but again all registrations were made upon real e-mail addys. The truth is the truth and has nothing to do with my feelings and/or opinions about how people does things. Chris say that some people got in with areal e-mai addy but wothout name, and that's true, it was a communication problem between china and chris and Chris is blaming herself for it. Best Regards. Pedro. " [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "Dunvegan@JusticeforJonBenet.org" Posted by Dunvegan on 12:05:18 8/20/2001 ...I appreciate your taking the time to explain the situation as it stood prior to August 6th. I've grandfathered in all existing accounts that were extant as of August 6th, 2001. That includes the following entries in the User Manager database: Activate user accounts Deactivate user accounts Remove user accounts Modify user accounts Chris has worked with the most difficult of all possible times in making her best decisions regarding the user registration function. What I have to deal with pales in comparison. Becaue of Chris' original registration work, it leaves me with the far less volatile issues of our new registration to deal with. I'm grateful to Chris for working through all of the original morass, so that I don't have to. It's all a lot of work. I'm just working out the little stuff, now. Chris: Thank you for posting, I've missed your input...and hope that Daisy's pups are all well and many off to wonderful homes...and that you are happily on you way to vet school. I only wish that I had that kind of training when I was trying desperately to extend Kitski's life. Also, Chris: if you have a moment, I'd like to talk with you about the last phase of domain transfer paperwork with you. Please write me or give me a call, at your earliest convenience, so that we can complete the domain transfer. We're ready (finally!) for the notary part: 415-567-7172. Again, thanks, Chris...for Justice Watch, and for everything you've done and scarficed for this community. I am personally forever grateful. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "All I can say is," Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:45:34 8/20/2001 thanks for the help. I always appreciate it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "I think the point being here" Posted by JR on 11:59:58 8/20/2001 Folks is that as a web master or mistress you best take these things seriously and I believe both Chris and Dun did/do. If Chris didn't activate a hat in order to help a newbie understand something why would she purposely allow people to wear multiple hats? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "Whatever..." Posted by shadow on 12:33:30 8/20/2001 I'm not one of the "mysterious six"! I was registered under my real name at J-7, and I have been from day one here at JW. Since all the MW problems errupted at JW quite a few months ago (which led to my truthfulness being questioned), I haven't been posting much here - but I still lurk... I guess I'm even willing to give a few drops of my dna to still enjoy the "ravings" of WY, fly, Gemini, LurkerXIV, 1000Sparks, V_P, JR, Florida, darby, morgan, starry and others. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "dunvegan" Posted by fly on 12:31:03 8/20/2001 Dunvegan, I think you're misinterpreting my comment. Requiring a verifiable real name is the only reason I'd expect to get booted/denied access. And if that is the policy that you eventually institute (which I doubt), I'll accept that and my "booting" without protest. You'll be doing what you think is best, and that's all anybody can expect. I'm not worried that you'll be booting people without good reason. As I think I posted before, I appreciate the fact that you allow everybody to voice their concerns and preferences. YOu could just announce a policy and tell people to live with it. At some point you'll have to set policy, and we'll have to live with it, but it is very obvious that policy won't be capriciously determined. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 99. "(c) Shadow" Posted by JR on 12:36:36 8/20/2001 Moi - rave? Well, at least you put me in with some good company. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 100. "Well, if Chir and Dun" Posted by Watching you on 12:52:40 8/20/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:52:40, 8/20/2001 could kindly explain to me what Chris has scarficed for this community, I too will be personally forever grateful. I'm sure glad we're not discussing the national budget here - man, all this fuss and distrust isn't good for my corpsuckles. Edit!!! Edit!!! yeah, well so I spelled Chris wrong in the subject line. Chris - you give all those puppies away yet? Nope, New York doesn't want one right now - just wondering. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 101. "(c) WY" Posted by JR on 12:57:59 8/20/2001 When you post number 100 and specifically ask for more posts the leat you could do is start the next thread. Didn't yo mama bring up right? :-\ Please post on "New Registration Policy II" Thanks Y'all [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE