Administration

[LargePrime]

The utility of history is to learn from our mistakes.

 

Sanitizing our interactions will not allow us to learn from and quote them going forward

[Joe Patterson]

Where is the insightfullnes.............other than insighting others to anger.

 

I see one Show-off......and One Mystery MAN .........GAWD, I know this is gonna make enimies.

 

I think some think that to dwell means ownership. That is why there are laws regarding "Squatters Rights".

 

You guys finishing your aircraft, are actually not as important as the ones starting...........The future builders are what a data base is for.

 

Nat P. was right not to turn this over to a Corperation, and three guys getting together can do as much bad..............It will not easy keeping "My Ideas Are The Best" OUT OF HERE.

 

Dust, do what is right for the builders..........NOT FOR HOW TO BE KING OF THE FORUM. I am sure have plenty of friends that will put their heads on the chopping block for , Why make them though.

 

Dust, why have you not gotten back with me about the "Dustspick" THreads I did not get a chance to write down. I am the new builder, I need you help, must everyone kiss your @$$, before I get your help......................

 

IF so, No thanks ,I can do it.

[John Slade]

I agree that the "ruckus" should stay in the database. I'm one for "letting it all hang out". (see http://sunsportgardens.com/ for my favorite weekend retreat).

 

For example, when Marc (very rarely) bites someone's head off in the Cozy list, he usually does it in public. i.e. I believe that "Justice should be seen to be done." This helps people to behave, since they know they're gonna get a public bashing if they don't. If I have a problem with someone's post, I tend to react as a member, not as an "administrator". Sure, I CAN go and amend or delete the post, but I'd rather leave it there, and comment on it in public. This way I can be jumped on by other "members" if I'M out of line, which has been known to happen. I suppose multiple one word posts by the same member might be considered differently, but lets leave that alone and move on.

 

I've said I think of this forum as a club. Certainly it's a valuable information resource too, but as someone said earlier, one of the forum's strengths is the ability to simply chat with friends about things we love - airplanes and flying. Building a plane hour after hour, day after day, week after month (need I go on) can be a very lonely business (unless you have slaves). When you work on the plane alone, as I did, you carry a big responsibility. Every day you're making judgements that could affect the lives of yourself, family and friends. There's no-one to turn to for advice, or to double check you're work. (Dust * Clifford - you guys have it too easy).

Its nice to sit down after a day of building, thinking and deciding "it'll do" to relax and chat light heartedly with good people of like mind. Maybe as well as a "coffee house" we should have a "hot tub" section where everything we said gets deleted every day, and we know that before we get in.

 

So; lets keep using this medium for both purposes. "Feel good because I have friends out there who are going through the same thing" and "how do I.....".

 

In order to promote the latter "information resource" side of things I'm going to think up a few new threads on building issues which might help start useful discussions in new areas. I'd ask that others with experience in something relevant do the same. Let's get this forum MOVING Meanwhile, Jon is looking into the software so we can all rate threads.

 

I'll continue to chatter with my buddies each day in the same inimitable way that I've enjoyed for the last 5 years. If I p.ss someone off now and then, so be it. Ain't gonna spoil my day. Speaking of which - where the hell are you, Wayne? Got that strake finished yet? Come on get on with it - all you gotta do is hack off chunks of frozen epoxy resin and warm them by the fire.

 

PS - It was 81 here yesterday.

[Joe Patterson]

Buncha hedons.

[Steve Davies]

Welcome a total newbie, to this Forum, to Aviation and to experimental aircraft. I'll be ordering my plans for Cozy mkIV next month! I intend being one of the "20%".

Unfortunately, I am not new to "Posting Wars"... there's always a stick to stir the bucket. Who cares who stareted what, who did what to the other, just drop it... simple as that. Get back to the tracing tables, back to the laminations, back to the dream we all share.

See, the key is just that... We all share this dram of building, and flying our very own plane. Some here might see these things as their toys, while others here may feel that this is the ultimate dream becoming true. Don't spoil it for either group... Know when enough is enough.

Yadda, yadda... all sweetness and light... A Joe Schmoe like me doesn't have time or the interst in petty warfare.. this is about building planes... Get on with it!

[Dan Tomlinson]

I also have to agree with Steve and John - everything SHOULD stay, although for long-term - it is better to have edited or condensed archives.

 

Jon mentioned that you can only "rate" with moderation on. ? Is there a way to turn moderation on and automatically accept all messages without intervention?

 

OR can the "best-of" messages be added / copied to a best-of thread by chapter and kept alive, meanwhile the free-form discussion remains. Or does cross-posting not exist in the software>

 

 

We need the free flow of ideas etc, but we don't need typos archived forever! So, if the "best-of" is kept forever, and the general threads are only kept for a year or so?

 

Thoughts?

[Jon Matcho]

Originally posted by Dan Tomlinson

Is there a way to turn moderation on and automatically accept all messages without intervention?

Yes, but I now believe we should be able to rate Coffee House threads without Moderation on. Look for 'Rate This Thread' at the bottom of the page, OR at the bottom of the message composer/editor when writing or replying to threads. Can someone confirm this is active and available?

 

<Administrator Mode OFF>

 

Originally posted by LargePrime

Click on my sig "we know who...". No privacy on the web. Dont let anyone belive it. It's not fear, its fact.

Sorry Large, but this is just FUD nonsense. Privacy is absolutely possible online, as much if not more so than when going to the mall in the "real world".

 

There's nothing special about a Web page/thing telling you what your IP address is, or what browser/OS you're running for that matter. That can be turned off, but it just doesn't matter -- that's how the Internet and Web work.

 

Large, cruising around the Information Superhighway on your Windows 95 machine is no different than when I see you driving up and down Main Street in your Gremlin. Big deal, we can see you.

 

If anyone is interested, Large's scary signature is available for your use here: www.danasoft.com

 

 

<Administrator Mode ON>

 

Thank you for choosing the Canard Zone!

[LargePrime]

Depends how you define FUD.

 

Commonly people in there own home feel the things they do on the web are private and secure. There not. If They were walking down the street they wouldn't suggest what they did was private.

 

Privacy is not "absolutely possible online". We both know that. Just like it is not "absolutely possible" in your bedroom.

 

I wont read anything into your suggestion that I am crusing the internet on a win95 maching, or that my sig is "Scary". You probably wern't suggesting i dont know what i am talking about.

 

"That can be turned off" Really? Spoofed. fooled and whatever I understand. But Off? How would a TCP request be answered if it's off?

[Jon Matcho]

<Administrator Mode OFF>

Originally posted by LargePrime

Privacy is not "absolutely possible online". We both know that.

Speak for yourself -- I wouldn't be arguing this point if I agreed with this statement.

 

It seems you are saying that by simply going online you somehow become exposed. This is like saying that your privacy is at stake when leaving the house to go to the park and someone sees you. My definition of privacy allows me to come out from under my bed and leave my house.

You probably wern't suggesting i dont know what i am talking about.

No, only presenting my opinion that there are well enough options to maintain online privacy, even with your name, address, email, and phone number out there.

...[privacy] is not "absolutely possible" in your bedroom.

Right, and the government is trying to control my mind with radio waves.

How would a TCP request be answered if it's off?

I wasn't not talking about spoofing IP addresses -- every Web page/server has the opportunity to capture your IP and show the world. Finding out an IP address is like finding out someone's hotel room number. Since it is possible to secure that hotel room COMPLETELY, it is possible to maintain privacy.

 

On one end of the social spectrum we have celebrities and such, where their privacy can actually be considered at stake with a walk in the park. In the middle of the social spectrum, we have "regular" people, who tend not to worry about their walks in the park. On the other end of the spectrum, we have certain types who feel that it is necessary to be invisible when walking in the park. Since it is not possible to be invisible in the real world, I find the quest for invisibility in the virtual world to be mostly a waste of energy that could have otherwise been spent towards good purposes. In other words, a waste of time, just like this post.

 

Security is really the topic of concern. How private is the President, yet how secure are his dealings? A breach in security can indeed cause a loss of privacy, but that is why we keep our cash and papers in a vault rather than carrying them with us to the park. I assume you're not running around naked on the Internet (or in the park pulling your wallet by a 50' rope).

[dust]

Largeprime's email address is just fine

 

Largeprime has started some of the most posted to conversations on this forum

 

All this stuff on zetlins mail list is silly, it is out in the open for all to see and copy and post where ever they want to, it is on señor maddy's site, where there are no members, no agreements, just out in the public domain. Sooooooooo, if you don't want it out there go take it away.

 

Leave largeprime alone, at least his tirades are in PUBLIC for all to see, put him back on the forum.

 

enjoy the build

 

Dust

[Jon Matcho]

Your comments here have nothing to do with this thread.

This is the thread you're replying to: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=690

Post again over there if you'd like to continue that discussion.

[mplafleur]

Jon,

 

Can't we turn on the images that are attached? Like this:

 

http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/showthread.php3?s=&postid=558461#post558461

[Jon Matcho]

We could. I'll look into it. For now, the Coffee House allows you to embed references using the IMG control in the message editor, which you can use to reference a URL to a graphic on the 'net. I don't see why not, and will consider as part of the hierarchy update tentatively scheduled for this weekend.

[ekisbey]

Can't we turn on the images that are attached? Like this:

 

I hate to be negative, but please don't.

 

For some reason, the filters at DOIM frequently deny access to sites with that kind of content, as evidenced by the fact I can't see the picture that mpafleur just linked. There's a good chance over the next year that my sole internet access could come through a NIPR.MIL domain, meaning I, for one, would be SOL.

 

Most folks won't have this problem, but making this move could potentially lock a few of us completely out of the forum.

 

Forcing a link to each picture the way we do now, while inconvenient for some, speeds up the load times for those on dial-up, and will probably keep overall bandwidth requirements on the site a little lower as well (less $$ for whomever maintains it). Allowing the pictures is simply not necessary. It's a small matter to click on the link to see the picture. Just a thought.

[John Slade]

I agree with Evan here, Jon.

I'd hate to cut off the military types while they're on deployment, plus certain of us are still "bandwidth challenged". If I want to see a picture I'm happy to click on the link.

[Jim Sower]

Originally posted by John Slade

If I want to see a picture I'm happy to click on the link.

Add to that the reduced bandwidth mentioned already - if I don't care to see the picture, I don't have to wait for it to download along with the text that I do want to see.

[mplafleur]

This is the only forum I belong to that DOESN'T show the images. I've never heard anyone complain about bandwith on any other either. I also think that having to click on the image to download is a PITA.

 

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. If it's difficult, (or at least an annoyance) to place/view pictures of what we are doing, it just won't be done.

 

How many have bothered to view the strake pictures I posted?

[ekisbey]

I've looked at your strake pictures myself and they displayed just fine. Had the option to display them been enabled I would have been able to see the page, along with the pictures, with no trouble.

 

However, had the picture you posted above been on the page, I would have been locked out of the site completely. I don't know why; I'm no web admin. I do know, however, that I'm not the only person on this forum that has this issue. I understand this is only a very small number of people, but are the pictures that necessary?

 

This is the only forum I belong to that DOESN'T show the images.

 

Interestingly, I don't belong to any forums that DO display the images.

[mplafleur]

This must the only common forum we belong to then.

[Jon Matcho]

Do you mean to say we can't do this?

 

 

Well, I never.

 

Sorry... but go ahead, let me have it.

[mplafleur]

I love it, but is that image referenced from another website? It's not attached.

[John Slade]

Very nice, Jon, but if I understand his message correctly, I think Evan's point is that you just effectively banned all deployed servicemen and women from the forum. That issue alone would be enough for me to leave the pictures off. My son-in-law leaves for Iraq today, as do many others.

 

Maybe this is one we should have a vote on

John

[Joe Patterson]

I would like to chime in, and agree with Mr. Slade here............

 

Some buisnesses and Govs. restrict access to site with pics.

 

I would hate to think that any service people could be banned...........I have always clicked on the links just fine, kinda prefer it.

[marbleturtle]

uh... guys? Maybe you should make that point without pictures attached to your ID's. Just a thought.

[ekisbey]

Okay, well, I'm still here, and this is from a .MIL domain, and I can see the pic that Jon posted just fine. So first allow me to fend off this foot that's trying to feed itself to me.

 

Now, I'm not sure exactly why we occaisionally get locked out, but we sometimes do. It's possible that there is a key text string or something in the link that triggers the filter depending on where the link goes (such as personal pages). Like I said, I'm no web admin. It's inconsistent. Some Cozy Builder's web pages I can view, others get locked out because they're "Personal Pages." Some pictures I can see just fine, others lock out the whole website. It's not really something that's going to change my whole life, but it will make accessing this site pretty inconvenient while I'm away. As I said before, we're a pretty small minority here; if the consensus turns out to be pictures are the way to go, we'll cope, I'm sure.

 

I tried to post a copy of what we call "big blue," (Access Denied!) but it doesn't seem to work. Oh well.