Conference hydra::dejavu

I agree.  The person mentioned in 391.8 asked me to delete this note.  I
had meant to post something on this earlier but I didn't.  I appologize
for not entering a note to this effect sooner.

		Dave

    Of course, people are free to post their *own* numbers if they wish,
    I assume.  One could also, I would think, legitimately post someones
    number with their "informed consent" (but they would have to understand
    the nature, size, permanance etc. of DEJAVU before it could be
    considered informed).
    
    					Topher
    

    I just would like to say that 391.8 did reply to me off line.  I
    have been reading recommendations from other noters in this file
    and
    I fail to see what 391.8 did that was so wrong.  I think there should
    have been more etiquette displayed in across a crowded room note,
    especially from frederick.  I was quite embarassed reading that.
    
    maybe this conference is only open to a select few as other people
    have perceived.  (I believe this is what started the skeptic bashing
    subject).  
    
    I knew I should never have replied in this conference...

    
    
    re: .3
    
    Sorry you feel you can't communicate in this conference.  As far
    as I know, no one else has made the statement that they feel this 
    conference is only open to a select few.  And I don't think the
    situation discussed in 556.0 is saying that.
    
    Also, if the "Across a Crowded Room" note has caused you some
    concern, then I hope you have communicated this to the moderators
    so that they can review it.  So far *I* don't think it has gone
    over the edge *yet* :-)
    
    Carole
                                           
    

    
    Unique Write-Blind Feature of DEJAVU?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    DEJAVU offers a write-blind feature no other Note seems to.
    Perhaps some people prefer not to be known or reached @ all     
    due to the 'sensitivity' of the overall subject itself.
    DEJAVU Privacy Protection.
     
    New Write-Vague Standard for DEJAVU?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Now a Standard's been set for DEJAVU re: citing people by name, 
    location, code, & DTN. Or by any skill construable as a service: 
    write-vague or 'Ask-me-outside.' A stricter write on issues not 
    about non-consenting parties requirement. DEJAVU Privacy again.  
    
    As the 'perp.' of 391.8 I only meant to help Pat Waleski but
    appear to have jeopardized the privacy of the person who had
    helped me earlier. I'll apologize to them outside this Note.
    
    -Boleslaw 

    
    
    	re .0 
    
    		I appreciate your note Sandy.  Dave contacted me because
    	        I've been out of touch with DEJAVU lately.  For the
    		record, I would have put my name and contact info into
    		the notes file with a blub about what I can do if I
                had chosen to.  Dave was kind enough to delete the notes
    	        with my name in them, at my request.  
    
    	        As I recall, there have been several notes in here which
    	        refer to the sensitivity around the type of information 
    	        we share.  It's important because this is an open
    		conference and that means that anyone can
    	        access it.  The skills I've developed, referred to out
    		of context could be misunderstood by predudice and uninformed
    	        people (I'm sure this applies to others as well).  I do
    		not want that to happen in a work environment
    	        for obvious reasons.  People have to oppty to get a
    		sense of other noters by their responses to this notesfile
    	        and, in my opinion, can contact those people off line
    	        to learn more.  That way, the noter takes the
                responsibility for the shared information.
    
                Lora
    	     		
    	        
    	    

    RE.3 (and others)
    
    I seemed to have missed #391.8, so have nothing to add to that
    discussion.                                                   
    
    However, regarding the topic "Across a crowded room...", while it
    may have been a little risque (depending upon your definition),
    I would like to state that I did not find it objectionable.  Indeed,
    there have been reruns of Mae West films shown on Sunday afternoons 
    where the use of inuendos is much more evident (complete with pictures
    and motions).  Old Popeye cartoons also come to mind, as does the 
    Song of Soloman from the Bible (which was once censored on a radio 
    show).
    
    Just wanted to state that for the record.
    
    Cindy 

    I thoroughly enjoyed Across a crowded room!
    A nice break from the usual "serious" topics!
    
    

Even though I don't enter in "Across a Crowded Room", I don't have any problem
with it's contents up to this point.  I've found many of the entries to
be enjoyable.

		Dave

    Since I was "off line" at the time, I have no idea what talent the note
    in question reveiled about "WALLIS", but all this hub-bub has me
    curious.  What does this guy do, debug other peoples programs???
      :^)
    
    Re:  the select few of DEJAVU
                       
    
    I have to agree.  It does take a special sort of person to consistently
    contribute/benefit from DEJAVU.  In addition, it does seem that
    there are some that are more equipped and/or inclined to contribute
    than others.  As a result, it does seem that there has developed
    an "in croud" within this conference.  The thing that makes this
    "in croud" so "in" is that in order to be IN the "in" croud - all
    you have to be is respectful of others (or at least for the most
    part).  In the "DEJAVU in croud", I have observed, you will find
    all sorts of people.  Some are egg heads, some are encyclopedias,
    some are crabby, some are funny, some are dreamers, some are realists.
    Alllllllll sorts of folks.  In fact there are some people in this
    conference that I am "madly in like with"!  The problem comes up
    when people consider themselves to be outsiders.  I think this is
    partly because there are some other conferences where the going
    is fairly tough.  I don't find it so here.  That's why I still read
    it.  I think it's too bad that these people don't stick around long
    engough to find this out.  I hope that some of the people who have
    "given up" on DEJAVU are still reading and can find it within
    themselves to realize that a bad start in the conference is something
    that can easely be overlooked (do you remember the big deal when
    Frederick joined us?).  The reason it can be put aside is that many
    of us in DEJAVU make a pointed effort NOT to dismiss others because
    we feel that, sometimes in spite of ego, everybody has an important
    part to play.  I guess that's all I wanted to say.
    
    Marion
    
                                         

    re:  crabby
    
    Actually, Mary, I was thinking more of ... well ... never mind.
    
    
    To be honest, when I said "crabby" I was washed with memories.  My sister,
    who I love dearly, has always been very openly referred to as an
    "industrial strength crab".  As a child we called her "Lucy" (of
    Peanuts fame) when we were trying to nicely suggest she lighten up.
    I mean this lady has lifted crabbyness to an art form.
    I don't see her as often as I would like, but every time I visit
    her and her family, at least once during the visit she will do
    something or other that lets me know that some things just never
    change.  I guess Ann just wouldn't be Ann any other way.
    
    Marion
                                                                 

    I enjoyed "Across a Crowded Room...".
    
    As with any media, books, magazines, television, etc. you have the
    choice whether or not to read, watch or participate.
    
    When watching the tv, if I find a show that is questionable or
    unenjoyable, I take the remote and tune something else in.
    
    When reading a magazine, I flip by the boring articles.
    
    When buying a book, I buy the ones that *I* like.
    
    When reading DEJAVU, hit "Next Unseen".
    
    It's all a matter of choice. 
     
    (This is said non-sarcastically, not to offend.
     If you don't like something, just pass it by.)

    Where on the keyboard is this [Next-Unseen] key, hey?
    All mine's got is a [Return] key! But seriously, folks,
    I've felt it quite an uphill-effort to 'contribute' to   
    DEJAVU in the past. Some people seem to be quite taken with their
    being the final arbiters of correct information.  
    
    Personally, I just enjoy 'crafting' a screen of thoughts;
    it may look 'hermetic' superficially, but so did James Joyce, 
    who was more playful than erudite.
    
    Let's endeavor to keep this on 'open-system' for entry, versus
    a 'closed system' for definitive top-down pronunciamentoes.
    & let's cut the spurious 'competition' for The Last Word?
    It's obviously impossible in the Note format. So why try?
    
    Thuggery Prohibited in DEJAVU. 
    
    -Boleslaw
    
    
    

    I could see how someone could be embarrased by what was said in
    "Across a Crowded Room" if they thought it was serious.  This is,
    I think, a misinterpretation, of what was going on -- no one was
    being serious.  Most of the exchange fell into the level "flirting"
    (if taken even slightly seriously) which in most circles in our
    society is considered acceptable public behavior.  A little bit
    of it -- *if not taken as a joke* -- would have to be considered
    beyond the bounds of acceptable public behavior; public verbal
    "petting" so-to-speak.
    
    Making a mildly lewd suggestion publicly with the expectation of
    it being possibly accepted is not acceptable by our societies norms
    -- it forces unwilling onlookers (perhaps before the realize it
    and can hit "next unseen") into an unwanted intimacy with the people
    involved.  However, there is *no* intimacy to be forced into if
    there is really, absolutly no expectation of acceptance of the
    suggestion.
    
    Since I do not think anything which was said was said for any other
    reason but humor, I do not think that the bounds of etiquette were
    exceeded.  I realize that other people, with different backgrounds,
    may have different standards, but a public forum can only go by
    the "general culture's" standards or nothing could be said at all.
    (There are people who would by outraged by the use of the "familiar"
    pronoun "you", for example -- yes, there still are such communities,
    though they are unlikely to be on this net).
    
    The conclusion -- use smiley faces.  There is only one which counts
    (:-)).  You can ignore the supposed fine gradations of meaning for
    all the others and take their main point -- "This isn't to be taken
    seriously."
    
    					Topher

    Because I was one of the more active/risque participants in
    the "Across..." topic, I can assure you that what was both 
    said and implied was only in good fun, and as Topher pointed
    out in .15, should not be taken seriously.  Frederick and I
    are not engaged in nor looking to be engaged in (gasp!) an 
    affair with each other.
    
    I'm rather surprised that in such an open conference such as
    DEJAVU someone would be offended at make-believe stories,
    when the real life experiences that many of us have shared
    here hold much more interest!!!!!!
            
    If we can't all enjoy each other at a lighter level here,
    where CAN we??
    
    					Carla

     RE: .14
    
>    Where on the keyboard is this [Next-Unseen] key, hey? All mine's got is
>    a [Return] key ... 

            
    It's the comma key on the numeric keypad (at least on the 200 series
    keyboard...I'm not sure about 100 series). Type HELP KEYPAD for
    a full list of keys with NOTES definitions. 
    
    
    				Lance

    This began because someone used another person's name without that
    person's permission in association with a certain talent or skill.  
    Later the person's mailstop and dtn were added.  
    
    We all work for DEC.  We all have access to ELF.  We all have access 
    to a Digital Telephone Book.  If anyone wishes to reach anyone else, 
    they are free to call or send VAX mail to the person themselves... it is
    both inappropriate and unnecessary to post such a request to a public
    notesfile without the knowledge and consent of the person being
    discussed.

        DEJAVU has never been known for strict, unreasonable moderation.
    Anyone who wishes to contribute may certainly do so.  Anyone who
    is uncomfortable contributing is not required to do so. 

    o We don't all work for DEC, exactly (some of us a contractors);
      consequently....
    
    o ELF is notoriously out-of-date; people fail to update themselves
    there for indeliberate reasons. Contractors can't enter themselves
    in ELF @ all, lacking valid badge #s.
    
    o The DEC Phone book is equally as out-of-date & restricted.
    
    o If someone uses a {hidden}::username they can't be VAXmailed.  
    
    I think the issue I managed to roil is 2nd-party-referencing:
    The rule now is: don't unless permission's obtained beforehand.
    Simple as that.  Ask or be generic: DEJAVU Protects Privacy. 
    
    -Boleslaw
    
    

    re.19 How can you make a statement like "we don't all work for DEC?
          Of course we do. This is INTERNAL USE ONLY, isn't it ?
    re topic
    Divorce in America C. 1979 ""9 of 10 divorces are prompted by 
                                 overanalysis...."

    
    
    	I for one would like to see this note ended...frankly I wish
    	the whole thing hasn't started...but since it did, lets be done
    	with it.  Or at least the referencing to the 'person' whose
        name, node and dtn got thrown in... it was poor judgement; the
    	person accepted responsibility and apologised to the appropriate
    	person and it would be nice if that ended it.  And the 'he's'
    	a 'she'.....no need for the sarcasm either.