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.

Originally posted by Marc Zeitlin

Since there are two questions here, the Poll is misleading.

Granted, and so let the following help clarify:

 

Question #1 -- What does everyone think about adding a Chat Room to the forum? Post/discuss your thoughts in this thread.

 

Question #2 -- Would you use it? Use the voting options at the top.

What does everyong think about adding a Chat Room to the forum? Would you use it?

Originally posted by LargePrime

You can Bully and BS all you want, but what you did to a Newb WAS WRONG.

You are out of line. Read Marc's original post again. It is hardly anything but polite.

 

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=682

 

As a member of the Cozy mail list, I do NOT consider the posts to be immediately in the public domain. The Cozy list is based on a trusted membership, with a "closed circuit" nature to the information exchanged. I have been VERY happy with the care in which Marc has handled my personal information.

 

 

You have NO protection or recourse over ANYONE doing ANYTHING they want with what is posted on the list, except your bullying.

Marc's responsibility is to ensure that the members of the Cozy list are able to exchange information freely -- among themselves. That is the nature of the list, his service, and what its members assume is happening by virtue of the sign-up process.

 

 

I am a member. I get all the list messages. And the ONLY reason I haven been banned yet is because you haven yet figgured out who I am, isn't that right?

Unbelievable. You quietly benefit from a service provided to you for FREE, and then put on a mask and heckle namelessly from the shadows at the person who provides that same service.

 

Please refrain from posting further tirades.

 

On a related topic, the forum's outbound e-mail system has been logging errors when sending to your configured e-mail address, reporting that your address is invalid. Given your post of questionable intent here, I can only assume this has been intentionally configured on your part. Regardless, you have effectively reverted your account to the role used for new users as part of this forum's sign-up process -- 'Users Awaiting E-mail Confirmation'. This role allows you to read all forum posts as well as access the User Control Panel.

 

Until you configure a valid e-mail address in your User Control Panel, you will not be able post messages. I would have preferred to send this to you privately, but I have no other way to get it to you at this point. You can send a mail to support@canardzone.com once you're properly setup, and I will see that your user role is set back to 'Registered' immediately.

>Did I ramble?

 

I think you have contracted a case of Chatroomitis.

 

A chat room is now on the list of todos.

<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).

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!

Originally posted by John Slade

Clothing would be optional.

Originally posted by macleodm3

Whatever rules you come up with will work for me.

Given the predominantly male audience, how about NO pictures for starters?

I have increased the time required between posts from 30 seconds to the default and recommended value for vBulletin (1 minute). This ensures that forum load is properly balanced.

 

If you would like to communicate with other users more rapidly, I suggest using one of the following:

 

http://messenger.msn.com/

http://www.aim.com/

http://messenger.yahoo.com/

or ICQ

Originally posted by John Slade

Oh, by the way, Jim.

Do you think it might be possible to avoid mentioning human excrement (liquid or solid) in a couple of your future posts?

Ha!

 

Just so that everyone knows, the forum is configured NOT to display certain four letter words, specifically **** and ****. We can expand the configuration to include first tier 4-letter words, but for now I think censorship of third tier cus words is good enough. The masses can sort it out.

Tim,

 

Check this thread for a prior discussion on the topic: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=546&highlight=rv10

 

The topic degrades into a discussion of spare tires, but that should get you started.

Once having access to the asses, who in charge will assess the situation?

 

<Posted in Administrator OFF mode>

Originally posted by CBarber

Is there a way to rank the post via user input?

Chris, yes. We can have it done right, or we can have it right now, but we cannot have it done right, right now.

 

The Thread Rating feature is hooked up with the Moderation features, which I'm trying to separate so we can have all members vote.

 

I would rather wait to do this until the same time we implement the revised forum hierarchy. To me that makes best sense.

Originally posted by LargePrime

How about we make a policy of no secrets?

Fine w/me, so who the heck are you?

 

I doubt however that the membership would be happy with giving everyone access control to view the contents of other member's private message mailboxes.

On my posts to Dust in the Private Messaging system here, I was sharing constructive criticism to Dust directly. By nature of the name 'Private Messaging System', I believe it is understood by all that messages there are to be kept private.

 

John, at NO TIME was I put on notice that my e-mails would be made public.

 

Now that that this sh*t-storm is blowing, I have restored Dust's original message. In the future, I suggest the policy be that any post of private messages result in an immediate deletion of the entire thread with no exceptions.

John Slade, Marc Zeitlin, Nick Ugolini, and yours truly are all the administrators here. I have not and will continue not to do anything without first gathering consensus. Administration is not a popularity contest, otherwise I would not be the admin. My posts mainly deal with the following, in this order:

 

1) Administration and tech stuff

2) Setting up shop

3) Buying plans

 

I readily admit that this is the extent of my Cozy experience -- as my posts show. I am also a new builder, and so have had legitimate questions and feedback -- like everyone.

 

The physical server hosting the Canard Zone forums is setup in a temperature controlled datacenter at my office, where it is monitored and cared for regularly.

 

When Mike/Dust began spamming the forums with 'dustspick', I noticed we had an unusually high list of online members. Why? Because their inboxes were filled with "Someone replied to your message at the Canard Zone". John Slade, co-admin, shared my opinion that Mike/Dust should stop this activity. I took the liberty to remove the single-word posts from the end of 20 threads that contained only 'dustspick'.

 

As John said, Mike/Dust's sentiments were appreciated, but the manner in which he was trying to effect Thread Rating had far more problems than good. Not I nor anyone else is disagreeing whether thread #283 should be called out -- I am sure Mike/Dust is right on for thread rating. However, knowing this software intimately, I can tell you the approach and means for tagging threads needs further review and analysis.

 

Originally posted by No4

I appreciate your plan for the canardzone, but that website is not particularly brilliant.

I'm sorry you do not care for the Web site, but it is optional viewing. Regardless, I have heard the voices and am working towards improving it.

Originally posted by dust

...you were on notice that i would put it in the public forum

You did not tell me you would do that, and at no time did I even consider you would do such a thing.

 

Everyone, the private messaging system is for private messages. Unless you get explicit permission from the other end of your discussion, private messages (an emails) generally should not be made public without the other's permission. This is just courtesy.

 

Seems like we need to add this to the guidelines (my apologies to those that do not use IE 6.0).

 

Mike, neither I nor anyone else is asking you to fade away. Just take a moment for a breather. I'd say more, but I don't want to incite riots and looting and so I will only hope the forum is still here when I wake up.

You just quoted a personal and private e-mail discussion that was between you and I.

 

If anyone did this to anyone else, I would do the same by deleting the post. Yes, this is moderation, but the practice of quoting private and offline discussion is unacceptable.

 

Any disagreements we may have that are kept offline must remain offline. I assumed this was/is understood.

I just deleted a dozen+ posts consisting of only one-word 'dustpicks'.

 

Mike, in the future, please acquire some level of consensus on this sort of thing first. I would like to be part of the consensus. With issues relating to archiving, moderation, and thread rating, I need to be part of the consensus as this ultimately will require a weekend and a fair amount of work on my part.

 

There are options to have 'Sticky' threads -- those that stay at the top of a section.

 

We can figure this out in 2004, but rest assured nothing is lost -- it can be found using the search function.

Originally posted by John Slade

I appreciate the sentiment, Mike, but surely there's a better way to do this that doesnt involve a bunch of one word posts and lots of searches for "whoeverpick".

I'm sure the rating system can work for us, perhaps with slight modification.

There is absolutely a better way.

 

Mike, please stop the one-word 'dustspick' posts. As part of the conversion to the new hierarchy, I will look for how to use the built-in rating system for this purpose.

 

The only problem with the rating system is that it appears tied to the 'feature' of assigning moderators / turning moderation on. The consensus is that most are against moderation, and I agree with this -- it's not only a lot of work, but the wrong moderator can go berzerk and wreak havoc on the membership. The solution would become worse than the problem.

 

I do see how to potentially turn Thread Rating on without moderation, but need some time to test it out offline on my test setup.

Originally posted by Dan Tomlinson

...if it's a 2-car, 2-door garage, you "could" do everything inside (mating wings etc out through an open door) right through the end, then have the pillar removed (theoretically holding the center with a crane) to remove and take to the airport.

Marc Zeitlin made his center post non-structural when he built his house. I was considering retrofitting this feature into my own garage, but costs compared to the costs to build a detached, so that's what I'm doing now. Here's a link to Marc's page.

Originally posted by dust

I think those spiders are many of our guests

Originally posted by Jon Matcho

They used to be, but with the move and redirect from www.cozyaircraft.com/forum we appear to have lost them.

I stand corrected. Looking at Who's Online here @ 8:45 on 25-01-2004: There are 10 members and 13 guest online right now. Further inspection of the guests shows them to be all from AOL. Unless I am twice mistaken (I would find it hard to believe that 10 of 13 guests are from AOL), AOL search spiders are currently picking through the posts to index for future searches at AOL.

 

I am actually all for individual posts being searched and indexed for the search engines, but only if it doesn't slow performance down. As far as I can see, forum performance is quite fine.

Originally posted by marbleturtle

I tried to change MarbleTurtle to Napoleon Bonapart, but I couldn't resolve how to do it!

Only the forum administrator (me) can change your user name. This is exactly what the admin here did for me when I joined as 'jon'.

 

I now suggest one of 2 options:

 

#1 - have me change your user name to your real name

#2 - keep your user name as-is, and just add your real name to your signature

 

Send a mail to support@canardzone.com if you want your user name changed. Everyone, it's time to come out of the shadows of anonymity. While there are no active plans for moderation or censorship, there are considerations to setup to allow only authenticated users the ability to post into sections beyond the Coffee House. This is just a thought right now. Aside from improving the forum hierarchy, nothing else is underway to change the current forum setup. I will definitely solicit feedback before such a change would occur.

Originally posted by dust

...it is very important on the internet and on this forum to dispel false info when it appears...

I did not suggest anything to be true or false with regard to taking your dog up to 25,000 feet in a Cozy, nor did I suggest planes cannot fly that high.

 

Originally posted by dust

...implies something is silly...

Well, maybe I did that.

 

Originally posted by dust

Lots of unpreasurized planes fly at 25000 with ox for the speed AND weather...

I am not experienced to properly address this question. My humble opinion is that when confronted with the Perfect Storm, and without the avionics required to definitively determine the ceiling of the storm, and without a jet engine in the back, my reaction will likely be to turn around, change course, or land immediately.

 

Remember, this is the Coffee House. Enjoy the coffee.

Originally posted by No4

No that was me, Jim's a good ole boy from the south.

My bad -- too much copying and pasting.

 

BTW, does anyone see a 'Rate this Thread' choice at the bottom-right corner when reading threads? I could look into make that becoming useful.