| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief
interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 6:21 AM, Robert Catt wrote:
For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. Umm, who are you? |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
news wrote in :
On 11/13/2011 6:21 AM, Robert Catt wrote: For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. Umm, who are you? Since he's gone now, I'll reply. He's a long time poster in r.p.c.a. Bobble |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"MaryL" wrote:
"Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
news wrote:
Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 09:45 AM, Adrian wrote:
wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. His posts have apparently few and far between. Hd probably won't be missed. MLB |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 11:45 AM, Adrian wrote:
wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. I am (lurk mostly), and I don't. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
MLB wrote:
On 11/13/2011 09:45 AM, Adrian wrote: wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. His posts have apparently few and far between. Hd probably won't be missed. MLB Most of us won't have to miss him as he posts on Facebook every day. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
news wrote:
On 11/13/2011 11:45 AM, Adrian wrote: wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. I am (lurk mostly), and I don't. How long have you been lurking? Bob goes back many years. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Robert Catt wrote:
For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. I think it was pretty childish of people to send private emails about someone on this group, in response to a public disagreement that stayed entirely wihin the bounds of civility, if not warm fuzzies. Almost everyone on this newsgroup gets grumpy from time to time, so why does "this individual" get singled out for sneaky gossip? I've never seen the aforementioned individual do anything reprehensible here. He's opinionated, but so are many of us. On the other hand, if that trivial disagreement is the worst thing Robert has seen on usenet, maybe he really *doesn't* belong here. -- Joyce - Mommy loves you too my sweaty litter baby fire - Ummm what mom? - MY SWEET LITTLE BABY GIRL!! sorry honey! -- damnyouautocorrect.com |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Adrian" wrote in message ... "MaryL" wrote: "Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
wrote:
For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. I think it was pretty childish of people to send private emails about someone on this group, in response to a public disagreement that stayed entirely wihin the bounds of civility, if not warm fuzzies. Almost everyone on this newsgroup gets grumpy from time to time, so why does "this individual" get singled out for sneaky gossip? I've never seen the aforementioned individual do anything reprehensible here. He's opinionated, but so are many of us. On the other hand, if that trivial disagreement is the worst thing Robert has seen on usenet, maybe he really *doesn't* belong here. Maybe you missed it, Joyce, but the way the individual acted certainly wasn't trivial, it led to several people leaving the group permanently. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Adrian wrote:
wrote: I've never seen the aforementioned individual do anything reprehensible here. He's opinionated, but so are many of us. Maybe you missed it, Joyce, but the way the individual acted certainly wasn't trivial, it led to several people leaving the group permanently. You mean this little argument about facebook? People left over that?? Feel free to email me privately if that isn't what you're talking about. No sense dragging everyone through something unpleasant twice. Just remove the XXX from my username before sending. -- Joyce It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same. -- Unknown (I don't really agree that it's "better to give than to lend", but the rest of the statement is absolutely true.) |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"jmcquown" wrote in message ... "Adrian" wrote in message ... "MaryL" wrote: "Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill - - - - - - - - - Agreed. In addition, Facebook is notorious for sharing information. The r.p.c.a. group seems to be an "invite only" group, but even that would require members to use personal information to sign up. Facebook has a history of changing their "rules" in ways that may not be acceptable to users. MaryL |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On Nov 13, 11:46*am, Adrian wrote:
Maybe you missed it, Joyce, but the way the individual acted certainly wasn't trivial, it led to several people leaving the group permanently. It was beyond the pale to put it mildly Lesley Slave of the Fabulous Furballs |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
news wrote: On 11/13/2011 6:21 AM, Robert Catt wrote: For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. Umm, who are you? Right! (I've never heard of him/her/it before.) I seriously doubt whether I'm the only poster to rpca who resists Facebook, Twitter, et al because of privacy issues. True, genuine privacy is a thing of the past - apart from our government spying on our personal lives, a determined person can find out anything about anyone, nowadays. (But why make it easy for them?) |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
|
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Adrian wrote: "MaryL" wrote: "Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. Really? I think you are being overly optimistic! |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
I think it was pretty childish of people to send private emails
about someone on this group, in response to a public disagreement that stayed entirely within the bounds of civility, if not warm fuzzies. Facebook is quite often used by gangs of bullies to coordinate harassment. Zuckerberg and his minions have continued to deny any liability even when that has ended in suicide (which has occurred quite frequently in the UK). No idea who's been communicating privately about who, but this sort of behaviour is just par for the course and one reason why I'm never going near it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 14/11/2011 7:45 AM, Judith Latham wrote:
In . net, MaryL wrote: "jmcquown" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote: "Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill - - - - - - - - - Agreed. In addition, Facebook is notorious for sharing information. The r.p.c.a. group seems to be an "invite only" group, but even that would require members to use personal information to sign up. Facebook has a history of changing their "rules" in ways that may not be acceptable to users. MaryL I agree. There are far too many people trying to control me, some I have to tolerate but I refuse to have it in my personal life. Also many employers check out facebook if you apply for a job. It's worrying as things can be posted on facebook that you don't know about and again, have no control over. Facebook? No thanks. Whilst folks have every right to choose not to use Facebook for whatever reason, I feel I need to address a few misconceptions: The RPCAgroup on Facebook is indeed 'secret' so as to stop all comers joining and to stop what is said in RPCA appearing on your "wall" so its a safe place to talk. It is not a 'secret' in that just a select few know about it - otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned here. Its not so much "invite only" as that the right to read & post has to be granted, rather that any old person being able to access the group. However, the only way to stop trolls, spammers and the like from accessing the group means there has to be some sort of 'gate' at the front - which is the "one of the admins has to approve your membership" process. IMHO, this is not much different that NIN (for example) cleaning up the news feed to remove spam, gross cross-posts and the worst of the trolls. Facebook has no way of knowing the information you provide it is accurate. Mooch-the-cat posts to Facebook, for example. The only information they can gather on you is what you provide, and thats entirely up to you. An admin simply has to know that "Mr Snookums" is or has been an RPCA poster, or another member can vouch for their relationship with The Mothership, and they'll be granted access. Us hoomins will know who "Mr Snookums" really is, but Facebook need not know And whilst RPCA-FB *could* be moderated, it isn't. You can control who writes on your wall if you wish, and if you want to be really conservative you can choose to have no Facebook friends at all and yet still post to a group like RPCA (although you'll have to be friends with an admin for about 5 minutes so you can be let into the group - then you can unfriend them). You can lock your profile so no-one can access it. IMHO, Usenet is a far less private place than Facebook as there is no control over who sees your posts nor any entirely effective way to delete them afterward. But if you don't feel comfortable using Facebook - or even just plain don't want to - thats fine. Its certainly a more complicated place than Usenet is, for good and for ill. Yowie |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Judith Latham wrote:
In article , MaryL I agree. There are far too many people trying to control me, some I have to tolerate but I refuse to have it in my personal life. Also many employers check out facebook if you apply for a job. It's worrying as things can be posted on facebook that you don't know about and again, have no control over. Facebook? No thanks. Judith it's not just Facebook they trawl, I assume you use your real name on usenet, everything you post is easily found by google. Not necessarily true for Facebook. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"MaryL" wrote:
"jmcquown" wrote in message ... "Adrian" wrote in message ... That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill - - - - - - - - - Agreed. In addition, Facebook is notorious for sharing information. The r.p.c.a. group seems to be an "invite only" group, but even that would require members to use personal information to sign up. Facebook has a history of changing their "rules" in ways that may not be acceptable to users. MaryL That is just not true, at least two members of the group on Facebook use totally fictitious information it is no less safe than usenet which can be trawled by anyone. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
Really? I think you are being overly optimistic! Do you have any evidence that I'm wrong? -- Adrian |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Adrian wrote:
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. I think you're wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time either :) ). It is possible that Evelyn really didn't notice the creature. I felt the same as she did, but decided to check. To my surprise Robert (or Bob) Catt has about 35 messages here on rpca for the past one year. I'm certain I've read every one of them (I read all messages), but the name rang no bell; it's as if they slid accross and did not register at all. I'm guessing something similar happened to Evelyn's perceptions. Anyhow, I for one won't miss him, as I was not even aware he was here before. -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. * Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 03:29 PM, Patok wrote:
Adrian wrote: "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. I think you're wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time either :) ). It is possible that Evelyn really didn't notice the creature. I felt the same as she did, but decided to check. To my surprise Robert (or Bob) Catt has about 35 messages here on rpca for the past one year. I'm certain I've read every one of them (I read all messages), but the name rang no bell; it's as if they slid accross and did not register at all. I'm guessing something similar happened to Evelyn's perceptions. Anyhow, I for one won't miss him, as I was not even aware he was here before. Wouldn't it be nice(?) if our memories were unfailing? I have a slight memory(I think) of him (?) writing about an outside cat under a table. But then again, I'm not sure. If memory fails, we need good notes. But then again, keeping notes is a bother.....whatever.......... MLB |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
|
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Adrian" wrote in message ... "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. -- Adrian - - - - - - - - - - I also don't have any recollection of him. I admit that I often skim over a lot of messages, especially if it is a long thread. However, it wouldn't surprise me if I had actually replied to some of his messages and then forgotten about it. For one thing, I don't always associate the name with the message. MaryL |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"MaryL" wrote in message ... "Adrian" wrote in message ... "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. -- Adrian - - - - - - - - - - I also don't have any recollection of him. I admit that I often skim over a lot of messages, especially if it is a long thread. However, it wouldn't surprise me if I had actually replied to some of his messages and then forgotten about it. For one thing, I don't always associate the name with the message. MaryL If I am correct Robert used to go by Bobcat who has been posting since 2001 and I think Dusty is or was one of his cats. I deal with so many people everyday now I can't keep names straight anymore ;-) |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Patok wrote:
Adrian wrote: "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. I think you're wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time either :) ). It is possible that Evelyn really didn't notice the creature. I felt the same as she did, but decided to check. To my surprise Robert (or Bob) Catt has about 35 messages here on rpca for the past one year. I'm certain I've read every one of them (I read all messages), but the name rang no bell; it's as if they slid accross and did not register at all. I'm guessing something similar happened to Evelyn's perceptions. Anyhow, I for one won't miss him, as I was not even aware he was here before. Isn't he the same guy who posts about Mooch, the neighborhood friendly feral who lives in a house he built for him on the front porch? Joyce -- Joyce There is no alternative to being yourself. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
Yowie wrote:
wrote: Adrian wrote: wrote: I've never seen the aforementioned individual do anything reprehensible here. He's opinionated, but so are many of us. Maybe you missed it, Joyce, but the way the individual acted certainly wasn't trivial, it led to several people leaving the group permanently. You mean this little argument about facebook? People left over that?? Feel free to email me privately if that isn't what you're talking about. No sense dragging everyone through something unpleasant twice. Just remove the XXX from my username before sending. E-mail sent. It was not about facebook. Got it! And sent a reply. Thanks for the reminder. I was here when all that happened, but I had completely forgotten it. Such is the state of my memory these days... I got Adrian's email too. -- Joyce There is no alternative to being yourself. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Adrian" wrote in message ... wrote: For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. I think it was pretty childish of people to send private emails about someone on this group, in response to a public disagreement that stayed entirely wihin the bounds of civility, if not warm fuzzies. Almost everyone on this newsgroup gets grumpy from time to time, so why does "this individual" get singled out for sneaky gossip? I've never seen the aforementioned individual do anything reprehensible here. He's opinionated, but so are many of us. On the other hand, if that trivial disagreement is the worst thing Robert has seen on usenet, maybe he really *doesn't* belong here. Maybe you missed it, Joyce, but the way the individual acted certainly wasn't trivial, it led to several people leaving the group permanently. -- Adrian - - - - - - - - - - I'm puzzled about this. I don't have any idea who or what all of you are talking about. The whole thing is too cryptic for someone who isn't "in" on the controversy. MaryL |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 08:39 PM, MaryL wrote:
wrote: I, too, am completely lost on what happened. Of course. I did have "puter problems for a while and probably missed some things.MLB |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"jmcquown" wrote I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill It's simple to killfile on Facebook. Shoot me an email if interested in learning how to do it. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Judith Latham" wrote employers check out facebook if you apply for a job. It's worrying as things can be posted on facebook that you don't know about and again, have no control over. No one sees your posts on Facebook unless you allow them to. Learning how to control who can see your posts takes a little bit of investigation but is really not difficult at all. As to r.p.c.a. on FB, unless you are a member, you can't even read the posts on the group. |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 09:07 PM, Pat wrote:
"Judith wrote employers check out facebook if you apply for a job. It's worrying as things can be posted on facebook that you don't know about and again, have no control over. No one sees your posts on Facebook unless you allow them to. Learning how to control who can see your posts takes a little bit of investigation but is really not difficult at all. As to r.p.c.a. on FB, unless you are a member, you can't even read the posts on the group. Somehow that does NOT sound appealing. I know what I think already. What I like to do is find out how others think....and not require permission to do it. MLB |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
"Adrian" wrote in message
... "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: Adrian wrote: news wrote: Umm, who are you? If you were a regular of the group you'd know. Not true! (I've been a "regular" for nearly ten years, and I've never encountered him before.) I think you're lying. -- Adrian Why would she do that? She could have missed his posts, or forgotten seeing them. Joy |
More about r.p.c.a. and Facebook
On 11/13/2011 2:45 PM, Judith Latham wrote:
In . net, MaryL wrote: "jmcquown" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... wrote: "Robert Catt" wrote in message ... For the reasons I've given here in a previous post, and after a brief interchange with a certain member of this newsgroup, I've decided to restrict my involvement with r.p.c.a. to its group at Facebook. Other people have written to me me about this individual, and their comments about him are part of the reason I will no longer be reading or posting to this newsgroup. As of today I've removed it from my list. - - - - - - - - - - I have taken the opposite approach (but certainly not because of any of our posters). I refuse to use Facebook, for this group or any other group. My objection is to Facebook itself, not to individual posters. MaryL I really don't understand peoples hostility to Facebook when they're happy to use usenet which is accessible by anybody. With Facebook, you can decide who can or can't see your posts. -- Adrian That's *exactly* the problem I have with Facebook. I don't have to want to be invited to join. It reminds me a lot of moderated newsgroups and web forums where people can decide what you can and cannot post. With rpca on usenet, I can easily killfile someone (and vice versa) if I don't like the things they're posting. Jill - - - - - - - - - Agreed. In addition, Facebook is notorious for sharing information. The r.p.c.a. group seems to be an "invite only" group, but even that would require members to use personal information to sign up. Facebook has a history of changing their "rules" in ways that may not be acceptable to users. MaryL I agree. There are far too many people trying to control me, some I have to tolerate but I refuse to have it in my personal life. Also many employers check out facebook if you apply for a job. It's worrying as things can be posted on facebook that you don't know about and again, have no control over. Facebook? No thanks. Judith I have had a "friend" "tag" one of my photos that I didn't want public and by "tagging" me made the photo available to all other FB users. However, if it's the only way to communicate with a lot of now "FB only" friends, then I'll suck it up and do it. This group is too precious to me to avoid it in any way. -- Hugs, CatNipped See all our masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped See the RPCA FAQ site, created by "Yowie", maintained by Mark Edwards, at: http://www.professional-geek.net/rpcablog/ Email: L(dot)T(dot)Crews(at)comcast(dot)net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com