Private Messaging?

[scott]

Hi Everyone,
I've decided to conducting a poll in order to guage interest in the private messaging (PM) feature of this board.

Basically, the private messaging feature works like an instant messanger service. It allows you to converse in real-time with other logged in users on the site.

When I first set up the board, I decided not to allow private messaging, so that our users would be forced to use the public forum instead. Since I'm trying to foster an open community here, I didn't want a lot of ideas being exchanged privately, where they can't benefit the community at large. (Hence, I'm voting no...)

But now I'm wondering if you all would like having access to the PM feature...

What do you think?

Thanks,
Scott

[Jonathan]

I think yes, but it should be understood by everyone that the ideas should be on the board. That way if things get a little off topic, people can just talk over the PM and not have the threads temporarily veer off course.

[Sevich]

Your right Scott! If there are any other ideas I might have I'll share them with this board rather that secretly exchange ideas with board members. Sorry Jonathan!! can no do!..................Regards, Sevich

[MrTim]

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as I have the PM feature set to "off" anyways.
That should keep things even. One "For", one "Against", and one "I Don't Care". ;-)

[Jonathan]

Sevich, what do you mean?:

Sorry Jonathan, can no do[sic]...

I don't think I don't remember asking you to send me any ideas privatly, I think you came up with that. Well, while on this subtopic, I want you all to know you can email me if you like, you don't have to ask or anything. I doubt many of you will though. Also, I don't want very specific ideas for reasons that are longer than I care to write.
Edit: It just occurred to me that this post is an exact example of why I'd like to have PMing. I doubt any of you care why Sevich said that.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Scott,
I think you should allow private messaging for the following reason.
I have ideas to share, but i don't like to share it with covered persons.
I like to know, to whom I give a information or not. General information I will share on the board, patent claims which are not opened to all, i like to share only with known and trusted people. Maybe this mail will help, that members of the board can fill in their correct name, adress etc. and not only fiction names.

[ovyyus]

Hi Georg,

I totally agree with your statement that board users should provide access to their true identity. There are some on this board who feel it necessary to remain hidden behind one or more false identities. IMO, this form of deception betrays a fundimental trust.

Unfortunately, it would probably be a difficult task to vet and qualify the identity of all board members. Besides the fact that it's probably pointless to do so on a public forum. Speaking for myself, this knowledge certainly moderates what I will discuss or disclose here. Wish it were otherwise.

Perhaps the only way to comfortably discuss sensitive design concepts and proposals is within the confines of a trusted, invitation only, closed research group.

[scott]

I like to know, to whom I give a information or not. General information I will share on the board, patent claims which are not opened to all, i like to share only with known and trusted people.

Speaking for myself, this knowledge certainly moderates what I will discuss or disclose here. Wish it were otherwise.

I wonder if a Members Only Forum might address these concerns? Please see my latest poll (and vote!): Members Only Forum?
-Scott

[Serenity now]

Ovvyus, I would think it has become clear by now what are your thoughts on all things "fundimental". I quote you now: "There are some on this board who feel it necessary to remain hidden behind one or more false identities" This obvyyiously includes yourself! That is unless by a singular stroke of "Besslerianism", you feel that "Ovyyus" is a true identity. I am speaking to the heart of the matter, the crux of the issue now. Did you not above say...ONE or more? One is all it takes. I quote you again: "IMO, this form of deception betrays a fundimental trust." I ask you, what is it about one's choice of usernames that you find so offensive? You speak of "fundimental" trust as though you yourself are a man of honor! It is quite clear that you are pandering to a lower common denominator or your own personal idiosyncracies, I shant judge which. For one such as yourself, engaged in the personal habits you have displayed thus far, it is somewhat hilarious to me that you speak of "fundimental trust". Your "laser like" splitting of such fine hairs to begin with, really cuts me to the quick! One with such keen character insights as yours should give the old college try at pointing his "magnifying glass" in sweeping arc back to the south a bit. Another quote of yours: "Perhaps the only way to comfortably discuss sensitive design concepts and proposals is within the confines of a trusted, invitation only, closed research group" You speak as though you have not one wit about the internet, this despite showing considerable skill as a webcrafter? Almost in the same breath with: "Unfortunately, it would probably be a difficult task to vet and qualify the identity of all board members" ? Such incongruities speak beyond their intended meanings. I am really not one to judge motives...unlike some to whom it almost seems a "Nom De Guerre". Motives usually speak for themselves and so to the transformation they take over time. I am heartened to see that yours are being showing a positive improvement. What's in a name....you certainly don't need mine to validate your innate aversion to my statements. You only have to look at your intrusion attempt logs to see that your fears are better directed elsewhere. Give me a call on the telly sometime and let us discuss the finer points of fundimental trust and deception. Some take affront that others would seek to choose those to which they are accountable, personally. I say it is better to focus on the message rather than the messanger and your battle for a successful self-education is half done. I hope you make it over your self placed mountain range someday, or tunnel through it even tomorrow, perhaps. Then you may have a heart to heart with your own alter ego about your bigger nemesis: self deception. I may write a screenplay about certain recent and intriguing events in my life......the names will be changed (not necessarily to protect the innocent mind you) If it makes it to the big screen and you get a chance, critique it. Just please don't feel deceived or betrayed at it's content or the prospective title: "Fundimental trust".


P.S. what becomes of the man who takes himself too seriously and others even more so? It's patently Obvious.

[John Collins]

I agree with Ovvyus. He and I used to belong to a closed forum and for a while it was very successful and as we brainstormed our way forward we felt that it was very exciting and that we were getting somewhere fast in looking for a solution to the Bessler puzzle. I think that we eventually burnt our selves out with over-enthusiasm, and we got bogged own in side issues, but a gentler more sober approach might just yield some advances.

John

[Patrick]

To add my two cents, I agree with with John, Georg and Ovyyus. The post by 'Serenity now' is a good/typical reason why I will not post more detailed questions/ideas on this board since there is strong anonymous lunatic fringe element here that needs a healing touch.
I don't know why anyone would think 'Ovyyus" is hiding behind his 'nom de plume' when the guy has his own website of research on Bessler. When I first joined the old discussion board, it took me like two seconds to find out who Ovyyus was. But since there seems to be some deep unresolved issues here; I will leave 'Serenity' to his own reasoning.

[?]

You have real rapist wit there, pat. You waste so much of it on yourself though. As for that "healing touch"......I suspect you should take it up with the lawnmower man. (insert Rod Serling theme here).

[Patrick]

Okay. But at least I hope you meant 'rapier' wit.

Scott, I think you will find your poll quickly skewed to the 'no' side if the number of new anonymous posts has any relation to the poll results.

[murilo]

If people wants to kid, joke and talk off-topics themes to members they feel more friendly, colleage or paizano, I think the off msg. is great, and will avoid bothering to all rest of the group. Anyway, in my oppinion, the owner should have means for to read to all. The knowledge of this previous condition could force to a minimum of order, rules and to put questions ''inside'' and directed to the main deal. M.

[jim_mich]

I find privacy helpful.

In another area of my interest a group friends and I were using a public chat room (Raging Bull) and a few individuals kept causing us grief. One member then started a private chat room using 'Powered by phpBB' the same as here. It gave us shelter from harrasment. But is also limited our exposure to new individuals and ideas. If anyone wants to know my real name I have provided my website. Even there it is not plain but if you go to any pages with my ideas, they have my name and address. I figure only serious people will be inclined to see those pages. It protects my identity a little bit from fools. My handle name is unique and in a search for 'jim_mich' most hits are mine.

Keep as much as possible public, but have a place for shelter if needed.