Re: 1. Reflector lists and 2. Nudity on Public Reflectors

Luc Volders (
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:33:51 +0100

Dear Ian,

I am not trying to defend Bill (think he is man enough to stand up) but I
need to say that he is right. I already posted a message on this.

Now concerning your mail:

>>PUBLIC reflectors, and this is why we try to do in our channel.
> ^^
>Please define how we (ie. the readers of CU-SEEME-L) should understand your
>use of the term "we" in this context. Is this simply the "Royal We"?

Bill's channel is a democratic one. All users agree on a wide base.
Nobody is playing boss or something like that.
I know because I am there often.

But sometimes people join and they start discussions about sex in a rude
way and they are inviting people to special channels etc.
Now the complete community politely tell's these guys to stop harrassing
certain users. He is asked friendly by most users to search an appropriate
IRC channel for that. Because there are about 40 channels discussing sex
there are enough opportunities. If the guy agrees nothing happens, and he
is welcomed to join the genaral dscussion. No question about that.
But if the guy keeps on bugging users he just is kicked off the chanel.
And this kicking off the chanel is mostly not done by Bill himself.

Keep in mind that the channel is used for a great deal to help new users
starting to get this CU program working. There is a lot of incompatability
around on video cards etc. So some people join just for fun and are
watching and discussing what is going on, on reflectors. And others are
technically helping people.

So bill's 'we' is not the 'Royal we' but a general feeling of a group.

best regards,

This message was send to you by:

Luc Volders