Re: What the future holds for ASA

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Apr 11, 10:22=A0am, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:36=A0am, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 11:31=A0pm, SRyckman <nevets...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 6:55=A0pm, G. Morgan <usenet_ab...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe Mr. Ryckman will consider adding a "Pro's Only" sub-forum?
>
> > > Not right away because the verification process would need to be
> > > decided. =A0 Does providing an email address or web URL with a compan=
y
> > > related page qualify? =A0 Do they have to be a licensed company in th=
eir
> > > home state? =A0 =A0What about technicians of a company, do we call fo=
r
> > > employment verification? =A0 Who does this verification process?
>
> > To me, it's obviously to complicated to be managed properly. It seems
> > (from this vantage point .... now) that even if managing it was
> > successful initially, that eventually it would become to unwieldy. It
> > would be reason to cause conflict between the veified and the non-
> > verified. There would be people who change jobs and people with an ax
> > of some sort to grind starting false rumors and acusations of who is
> > telling the truth and who's not, would =A0no doubt abound.
>
> > Steve is this new "group" being moderated (?) and if so .... by who?
>
> > You'll have to excuse me. I've avoided this whole Facebook thing for
> > want of better things to do with my life. I don't know if I will
> > participate or not but I would like to see what becomes of it. I'm
> > trying to sign up for it now. Back when I first came to ASA, I was
> > looking for something a lot different than what happend here so I
> > would be interested in participating if it came close to what I first
> > envisioned. If it doesn't ...... well ...... ASA just might have to
> > do. It is better now than it was here and as long as there are
> > participants =A0I'll hang out.
>
> > > As for the forum, if anyone doesn't want to participate in the forum
> > > then don't. =A0 =A0Everyone knows that what this world needs is more
> > > people who are glad to cut down ideas rather than try to promote our
> > > industry in a more civilized manner.
>
> > I'm curious about how control of this phenomena will be accomplished.
>
> RHC: I see no real worth in such things as Facebook and Twitter;
> frankly, I don't want to know what other people had for breakfast. Nor
> do I want to connect with strangers other than my customers locally.
> People coming in to a Facebook security forum are going to be the
> types that are strictly DIY types, or of the simple minded mind set
> that believe companies such as Alarmforce (for one) are great
> services. Dialoguing with them is a waste of time and energy
> generally. Over the years this forum has been a great place to
> dialogue with other professionals in the industry even though we have
> at times disagreed on some things vehemently. Even though it has
> become somewhat "sparse" of late, it's still worth being here. I see
> little redeeming value in opening up a forum that will not involve
> security professionals as it CORE participants.
>
> I personally plan =A0to stay in this forum and ignore moderated groups
> entirely. Just my vote for what it's worth......-

I am of the same mind ...... regarding the "what I had for breakfast"
thing .... but ..... I would like to at least give it a view .... to
see where it might go. If it's moderated maybe some of the "bad"
things you are presuming about it may be controllable. I don't know
anything about Facebook or moderated groups ..... so ... taking a look
is ...... ummm ... taking a look :-)   Could be alright

I just have to freekin figure out how to get in to look at the damn
thing.......