Re: What the future holds for ASA

[G. Morgan <sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Warren Duvall threw this one out:

>On Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:43:55 AM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
>> spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Simple. Why start a NEW thread on a subject ALREADY being discussed HERE? And is it really advertising when it is DEAD ON TOPIC?
>>
>>
>>
>> It *was* being discussed over a year ago.  It was flatly rejected.
>
>And now it's being discussed again, same subject

Ah, so you think your web forum is the "future" of ASA?  Gotcha.  I see
only you and me doing any 'discussion', and it's not exactly the same
subject.

>same subject, no need for a new thread

Well, if you think your forum is the future replacement for ASA I
suppose the subject may be the same. I'm going to go out on a limb here
and predict your site will not replace ASA, or even get more than 15
registered members.  Even the creator of ASA could not pull it off, what
makes you think your 5 member forum (including yourself) with no content
will work?

>(do you not understand how this whole thread thing works?)

I am fully versed in Usenet threading, thank you.  That's why I don't
understand why you picked a thread over a year old to piggyback on.
That's bad form.

> I don't actually see where it was "flatly rejected" either.

You must have missed SRyckman's reply where he posted verbatim: "It's
dead Jim", when asked how his forum was going.  You also must have
missed the 5 or 6 replies where different people said "no thanks" (and
I'm being kind by paraphrasing it that way).

This has been tried half a dozen times by various people.  None were
successful.  What makes you think you can waltz in here (not even
introducing yourself, "Warren", I assume) and get folks to fill up your
empty forum?

I would have started a new thread, introduced myself (since you're a
unknown persona here) - and not be so presumptuous that people will
flock to your empty forum where you say: "it IS moderated so there ARE
Controls".  If you read SRyckman's proposal and replies for his now
defunct forum, you would see that participants don't want "controls"
over what they post.  That goes double for an unknown persona whom we
(TINW) don't know, and can trust you won't censor or hand-pick
participants you like or dislike - or make up silly requirements for
"membership", like SRyckman did.

In other words, what little time you spent setting up "UBB.threads" on a
domain called "fullstrut.com" (with a turkey gobbling sound on the home
page) and didn't even bother to set the forum up on the domain
"integratedsecurityprofessionals.com" was time wasted you'll never get
back.  Stick to turkey hunting, Warren Duvall - web authoring isn't your
forte, as evidenced by the domain's history:

http://www.domaintools.com/research/screenshot-history/fullstrut.com/

HTH
HAND