Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2005 14:02:25 -0800, "nancree" > wrote:
>
>
>>Damsel,
>>I don't understand why you say this:
>>You wrote:
>>"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."
>>
>>Why did you write this when Crash's name is one of those who is always
>>posted in the list as being on line--yet hours go by and he doesn't
>>post? He is apparently just watching, not posting. Just curious.
>>Don't misunderstand me. I prefer it when people identify themselves. I
>>do. My objection is to people who chime in with new rules that they are
>>apparently making them up by themselves. Who are the owners of this
>>RFC chat? Whoever they are, thank you for the work you do. But
>>perhaps you should identify yourselves, just so we know.
>> Thanks for any answers. Nancree
>
>
> Okay, let's see if I can cover all the bases. Several people who
> actually talk in the channel have expressed their discomfort with who
> knows who sitting and never saying a word. It's a place to have
> conversations. Some have felt that they were being spied on. On
> numerous occasions, people have welcomed the java users and tried to
> explain how to change their nicks. Most of those requests have been
> ignored and the person(s) still just sit there.
>
> Crash is always in the channel so that when someone comes in and he's
> awake, he can greet them and chat with them. I've been trying to
> train him to change his nick to Crash-afk or something when he goes to
> bed. I'll keep at him.
>
> Nancree, I rarely see you talk. You generally sit on the sidelines
> and watch, too.
>
> Crash made the rule for the emotional comfort of several people who
> have approached him regarding the subject.
>
> The server where the channel is hosted is personally run by a
> long-time friend of Crash's, so it is a private server. Each channel
> (chat room) is free to make their own rules, especially when it
> concerns the comfort levels of other participants. And like I said,
> this rule was in response to several persons' wishes.
>
> Carol

What really turned me off is when someone was having problems getting
onto the channel and their IP was posted in this newsgroup. The chat
channel is private and information revealed there should be kept
private. For whatever reason, many do not want their IP addresses
revealed on usenet. I thought that was rather a breach of privacy. I
also was turned off when it was announced several times who was in the
channel. Not that it really matters but private run chats should be
kept private much the same as email, IMO.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the few times I dropped in on the chats
but I won't compromise my privacy for them. I think they are great for
those who enjoy that type of thing. I think though that people need to
know they can be identified through their IP address and that they
cannot expect privacy when using mIRC. They also should be aware of the
privacy/security issues involving mIRC if using a PC. Mac users don't
need to be as concerned about the security issues but privacy issues are
still of concern. Those desiring privacy should use a proxy server to
connect to mIRC. As long as participants know the risks, then they
should be able to make an informed decision as to whether to
participate. Just my opinion and that won't count for much as it is a
private channel anyway.

I've said enough on this issue. I'm back to cooking.