Re: Industry Members Only Sub-Forum

[James B <denco2@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 feeds=
 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?  And
automatically allow membership based on "regulars" in this group is
laughable.  I 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.  But just because I have been here for 10 years does not prove to
anyone that I am in the industry.  In 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.  I know some
of the names of the regulars here, but I have no idea what they do for
a living.  I 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