| Subject: Re: Shadow Wednesday |
| From: "emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com" <emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com> |
| Date: 12/6/10, 22:22 |
| To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
Private reply to Barrett Brown. Emma just woke up having a coughing
fit. Will have to try to sleep propped up on pillows. Sending this
because I want attention goddamn it. I want a video of you being you.
Ie sexy and hot. If you don't have time it's okay but I will
definitely cry. Love Emma age 2 xx
On 12/7/10, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like I'm probably not going to have time to think about this just
now, so let's plan to discuss it on Wednesday evening. I also believe our
new participant Ken Lipp will be attending to begin discussions on the
specifics of how we can assist in his Third World health development effort.
Here's a link to the announcement I made today which in turn links to Lipp's
announcement; please spread the word to anyone who might be interested in
participating either on our end or under Kenneth's First Praxis project.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/12/first-praxis-information-based-developmental-health-project-launched-by-cambridge-researcher/
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Vertesi.com <campbell@vertesi.com> wrote:
I didn't hear about any proposed series of punishments, but I'd be
interested to.
Sundeep and I had discussed a probationary period, wherein your inviting
blogger's reputation score would reflect the quality of the invitee's
posts.
We considered this to be a very powerful way to ensure that quality begets
quality. People on probation don't necessarily see any disadvantage in
this
situation, so I don't understand how this could be a disincentive to join.
Perhaps we're talking about two different probationary period ideas?
C
Le Dec 5, 2010 à 18:18, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> a écrit :
The probationary period as well as the proposed series of punishments from
earlier were rejected because they would antagonize a lot of potential
bloggers and prompt some not to join in the first place, whereas we think
the schematic will be sufficient to handle any problems those are intended
to solve. For instance, I'd be disinclined to join any such network, and
obviously I need to be able to sincerely convince others to join.
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Scott Mintz < <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory on why the probationary period was
rejected?
Sorry but my memory sucks.
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Barrett Brown < <barriticus@gmail.com>
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
No, the changes appear to be fine. I've also made changes to the other
document on specs to remove the portion regarding a probationary period
for
bloggers as per our conversation with Campbell and the others.
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Scott Mintz < <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>
scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
So I see Shadow has made some modifications to the Initial Release Spec
document Sundeep created.
I didn't notice any gross changes so I assume the adjustments were both
minor and benign.
Since I was curious who this Shadow Wednesday was I did some quick
Googling and came the conclusion that Shadow is associated with
Quebec's
branch of Anonymous.
Barrett, I take it I need not concern myself with the changes?
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302