In article >,
Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2005 03:39:36 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>
> >Someone has been posting a "new rule" about RFC, that posting
> >anonymously is no longer allowed. I choose not to post anonymously,
> >but no one should be deciding what the rules should be. It is an open
> >forum. No one can appoint themselves Chief Rule-Maker.
>
> Nancree, who are you to appoint yourself Chief Anarchist? There have
> always been channel rules. The channel's been around for several
> years. It is not an open forum. As with many things, posting is a
> priviledge, not a right. If someone is disruptive or hurtful to
> another person, they lose their priviledges.
>
> It is also very unsettling to several people to have an unidentfiied
> person just sitting there, not saying a word, and not identifying
> themselves. Anyone who comes in under Anonymous, but chooses to
> contribute to conversation is fine.
>
> Crash's rule refers to people who come in and just watch the rest of
> us. It's creepy. These are not posters. They're just there, and no
> one knows who they are.
>
> > Do join in and post however you wish. It's more fun when you also
> >post your name, but it is not necessary. Sometimes a little privacy
> >is a wonderful thing.
>
> See above.
>
> Carol, co-founder of the channel (Crash is the head honcho)

Maybe you wouldn't get so many silent types, strangers, if it weren't so
publicized on r.f.c. announcing who's there, blahblahblah. At what
point do those announcements become spam? Maybe never, I don't know.
If you're the same people in there all the time and you're looking for
each other, maybe you could email each other your announcements instead.
--
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com, updated 11-19-05 - Shiksa Varnishkes.