Re: Industry Members Only Sub-Forum

[James B <denco2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 18, 11:04=A0pm, James B <den...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:02=A0pm, Robert Neville <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > SRyckman <nevets...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >Your loss then. =A0If we can't verify who you are then no access.
>
> > Here's a great example of why web based forums that slurp up usenet fee=
ds are a
> > bad idea. We're not interested in your internal squables. Really.
>
> > And no, you have no idea who I am.
>
> Wow, why are some of you afraid to validate who you are? =A0And
> automatically allow membership based on "regulars" in this group is
> laughable. =A0I have been a regular in this group for around 10 years,
> most of the time I spend lurking for those tidbits of info I may pick
> up. =A0But just because I have been here for 10 years does not prove to
> anyone that I am in the industry. =A0In fact this was just questioned
> the other day when I asked a fire related question.
>
> I agree with SRyckman that ALL users must be validated. =A0I know some
> of the names of the regulars here, but I have no idea what they do for
> a living. =A0I am sure everyone here would feel better knowing they are
> in a secure area to talk about certain topics and that each person in
> the forum has been validated.
>
> Of course Alt.Security.Alarms is just fine for the usual B.S. but I
> for 1 am putting my vote in for a "validated" forum where we can
> discuss best practices, and panel specifics without being afraid
> someone lurking may mis-use the information.
>
> James B
> Denco Security

Wow, I just googled myself and found posts as early as 1997... Where
does the time go?

James B
Denco Security
Member of ASA over 14 Years