Hi CRIMPers, I wanted to PM someone on here but couldn't figure out how to do that. Does this forum have this capability?
If it doesn't then this place is really primitive.

Sorry, the forum software does not have such a feature.

Lucine wrote:

Hi CRIMPers, I wanted to PM someone on here but couldn't figure out how
to do that. Does this forum have this capability?
If it doesn't then this place is really primitive.

I think that can also be taken as a compliment. I like primitive...

Definition of primitive (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : not derived : ORIGINAL, PRIMARY
b : assumed as a basis
especially : AXIOMATIC

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitive

Dr Andus wrote:

I think that can also be taken as a compliment. I like primitive...

Definition of primitive (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : not derived : ORIGINAL, PRIMARY
b : assumed as a basis
especially : AXIOMATIC

Are these your online digs, Dr. Andus?

If so, I appreciate your hospitality. If not, I appreciate reading your posts.

But I fail the spirit of the environs. Perhaps Harvard format, a little extended hierarchical haiku, would allow better expression within the vernacular of an outlining site.

I. Need better tools.
A. Google.
1. Biased toward commerce.
2. Privacy concerns.
B. Seek solace in CRIMPing.
1. Always a perfect solution in the next purchase.
2. Great forum.
a. Join.
b. Bask in thoughtful analysis.

I suggest you post your request for such a functionality here:
https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/8304/0/improvements-to-the-forum

I may add that quite a few of us have at certain times provided our email addresses here, in human readable form, or are easily traceable through our social network presence--at least those who post with real names. Those who have done neither of the above may simply want to be left alone, which could explain why in the 12 years of this forum (and I believe also in the 7 years of its predecessor) I don't remember another request for such a functionality. There's always the first time for anything though.

Nevertheless, if such a functionality is provided, it should come along with a user's ability to switch it off for themselves. I sense a sort of Chatham House ambience at the forum, even if it is fully public and accessible via search engines, and this can only be good.


Lucine wrote:

Hi CRIMPers, I wanted to PM someone on here but couldn't figure out how
to do that. Does this forum have this capability?
If it doesn't then this place is really primitive.

If there's any interest, I could set-up a Signal Group ( https://signal.org/ ) ... The group could invite whoever wants to be included. It's then a closed group that can only receive and send private messages between those in the group. Two-way communications are private, of course. Just a thought. Any other ideas? Sometimes it would be nice to communicate with OS users privately on matters they might care about - but niche enough it would have no place on the board. (Guiding somebody step-by-step through a program, etc.) There are other simple ways this could be accomplished without handing out personal information. The OP was snarky, but the point is worth considering without troubling the able owner of this forum to worry about it.

Donovan wrote:

If there's any interest, I could set-up a Signal Group (
https://signal.org/ ) ... The group could invite whoever wants to be
included. It's then a closed group that can only receive and send
private messages between those in the group. Two-way communications are
private, of course. Just a thought. Any other ideas? Sometimes it would
be nice to communicate with OS users privately on matters they might
care about - but niche enough it would have no place on the board.
(Guiding somebody step-by-step through a program, etc.) There are other
simple ways this could be accomplished without handing out personal
information. The OP was snarky, but the point is worth considering
without troubling the able owner of this forum to worry about it.

Good idea, Donovan. I'd take part in it.

Sure, Donovan -- I'd join. Maybe if successful and endorsed by the group here your Signal could be a link in the sidebar if Chris agrees.

That's an excellent idea Donovan, I'd join too.

Nice idea! I only knew Telegram for that purpose so far, but Signal would be nice, too as I just found out that there is also a desktop version.

Might not be nice to most users not present there or our host Chris. To take a chunk of his userbase to an effectively parallel forum, which is in nature and as a formal analysis parasitic in nature on an ongoing basis.

You can setup temporary emails fast, mail.com or just Google "disposable email" which are instant, and post it here if someone needs contacting you and you acquiesce. Then can exchange other emails there if wanting to.

However if Chris has the time to manage a second cyber location, and inclination, I can suggest a much better alternative than signal or telegram to him here.

I don't mind linking over to other tools/sites. In fact, I might set up a links page for links out to truly interesting places of discussion like Donation Coder, the Zettelkasten site, etc.

Also, it wouldn't be too much trouble to add a PM feature, but there are quite a number of more pressing features and improvements I need to get to first. Top on my list are providing markdown formatting, image attachments, and the ability to edit your own posts within a certain window after posting.

Excellent, Chris. Editng spelllling mystakes gets my top vote! Thank you for this forum and everything you do for this community.

Chris Murtland wrote:

Also, it wouldn't be too much trouble to add a PM feature, but there are
quite a number of more pressing features and improvements I need to get
to first. Top on my list are providing markdown formatting, image
attachments, and the ability to edit your own posts within a certain
window after posting.

Paul Korm wrote:

Excellent, Chris. Editng spelllling mystakes gets my top vote! Thank
you for this forum and everything you do for this community.

Chris Murtland wrote:
>Also, it wouldn't be too much trouble to add a PM feature, but there
are
>quite a number of more pressing features and improvements I need to get
>to first. Top on my list are providing markdown formatting, image
>attachments, and the ability to edit your own posts within a certain
>window after posting.

Yes, indeed.

I'm against a separate forum that would act as a drain on discussions here. A PM feature is not important to me, and probably not to most others. It sounds shiny now, but how much use would it really get? Certainly not enough to justify me having to check this forum and some new forum in order to get full value on the discussions.

Hugh wrote:

Paul Korm wrote:
Excellent, Chris. Editng spelllling mystakes gets my top vote! Thank
>you for this forum and everything you do for this community.
>
>Chris Murtland wrote:
>>Also, it wouldn't be too much trouble to add a PM feature, but there
>are
>>quite a number of more pressing features and improvements I need to
get
>>to first. Top on my list are providing markdown formatting, image
>>attachments, and the ability to edit your own posts within a certain
>>window after posting.


Yes, indeed.

Paul Korm wrote:

Excellent, Chris. Editng spelllling mystakes gets my top vote! Thank
you for this forum and everything you do for this community.

I concur.

--Ken

tightbeam wrote:

I'm against a separate forum that would act as a drain on discussions
here. A PM feature is not important to me, and probably not to most
others. It sounds shiny now, but how much use would it really get?
Certainly not enough to justify me having to check this forum and some
new forum in order to get full value on the discussions.

While I probably would not use the PM feature much, I am not as concerned about it being a drain. Many forums I frequent have PM features so folks can have OT or private conversations, and I have not experienced much drainage there. I trust the folks around here to keep discussions for "the good of the order" in the forum. I think the question is how it is implemented as to its usefulness in the long run.

--Ken

I think when tightbeam opposes a "separate forum", it does not mean private messaging here, but the chat room/separate forum platform such as signal/telegram as suggested here earlier.

Discussions would be bifurcated. Would have to read everything on both cyber locations just to make sure. Increasingly we're all short of time these days, I can't read half the threads here, nvm somewhere else. Also splitting up ongoing discussions on topics on two sites/chatrooms would not be as fruitful, nor handy in archives.

washere wrote:

I think when tightbeam opposes a "separate forum", it does not mean
private messaging here, but the chat room/separate forum platform such
as signal/telegram as suggested here earlier.

Discussions would be bifurcated. Would have to read everything on both
cyber locations just to make sure. Increasingly we're all short of time
these days, I can't read half the threads here, nvm somewhere else. Also
splitting up ongoing discussions on topics on two sites/chatrooms would
not be as fruitful, nor handy in archives.

You might be right. It was never my intention to step on the toes of Chris, our able forum host, but to lessen any stress for PM's here. But, as one who is trying to simplify my own digital life, the points made in resistance to this idea are well-taken.

I had to laugh at Alexander's point that the forum has a Chatham House vibe. I agree with that 100%. It makes for open discussion, and again, point taken. No doubt that many here don't want to be "public" with who they are because it's a bit like discussing what machinery should be used at the factory, being able to try and discuss, make mistakes, explain them, try something else, rinse and repeat. It's a perk that it is all done without the knowledge of who is actually behind the username (and I suspect more than a few here are fairly well-known in their craft).

Yes, Chatham rule, as long as the old colonies' subjects are kept blissfully happy. The Non-Attribution rule guidelines, also the rule in the more honest cousin, CFR. Both are hyped and essentially waste of time these days. Still, the method brings out honest opinions.

Yes, exactly. I have no problem with a PM feature *here*, but I wouldn't want to see an entirely new and separate forum created in order to implement it.

washere wrote:

I think when tightbeam opposes a "separate forum", it does not mean
private messaging here, but the chat room/separate forum platform such
as signal/telegram as suggested here earlier.

Discussions would be bifurcated. Would have to read everything on both
cyber locations just to make sure. Increasingly we're all short of time
these days, I can't read half the threads here, nvm somewhere else. Also
splitting up ongoing discussions on topics on two sites/chatrooms would
not be as fruitful, nor handy in archives.

tightbeam wrote:

Yes, exactly. I have no problem with a PM feature *here*, but I wouldn't
want to see an entirely new and separate forum created in order to
implement it.

I didn't see Donovan's suggestion as the start of a new forum (maybe because I've never used Signal before). I wouldn't want a side-forum, either. I thought it would be just a way to send a message to one of the members and that we would keep all discussions here - where they belong.

Franz Grieser wrote:

tightbeam wrote:
>Yes, exactly. I have no problem with a PM feature *here*, but I
wouldn't
>want to see an entirely new and separate forum created in order to
>implement it.

I didn't see Donovan's suggestion as the start of a new forum (maybe
because I've never used Signal before). I wouldn't want a side-forum,
either. I thought it would be just a way to send a message to one of the
members and that we would keep all discussions here - where they belong.

You are correct. That was the idea.

Here's how it was originally described:

"If there’s any interest, I could set-up a Signal Group ( https://signal.org/ ) ... The group could invite whoever wants to be included."

I read "group" and took it to mean a new group, separate from this one, and that's sure what it sounds like. Discussions will occur on that group, presumably through private message, that will not be replicated here. To take part in the group, and to participate in it, I assume (per the Signal website) that users would have to download an app, either for the desktop or mobile phone. Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.



Donovan wrote:

Franz Grieser wrote:
tightbeam wrote:
>>Yes, exactly. I have no problem with a PM feature *here*, but I
>wouldn't
>>want to see an entirely new and separate forum created in order to
>>implement it.
>
>I didn't see Donovan's suggestion as the start of a new forum (maybe
>because I've never used Signal before). I wouldn't want a side-forum,
>either. I thought it would be just a way to send a message to one of
the
>members and that we would keep all discussions here - where they
belong.

You are correct. That was the idea.

tightbeam wrote:

Here's how it was originally described:

"If there’s any interest, I could set-up a Signal Group (
https://signal.org/ ) ... The group could invite whoever wants to be
included."

I read "group" and took it to mean a new group, separate from this one,
and that's sure what it sounds like. Discussions will occur on that
group, presumably through private message, that will not be replicated
here. To take part in the group, and to participate in it, I assume (per
the Signal website) that users would have to download an app, either for
the desktop or mobile phone. Sounds like a solution looking for a
problem.

Please! This is turning into something I never intended. I explained in my post on December 12th at 8:51PM (please read it) that I concur with the objections. You've now jumped in here and continue to argue your case against my original idea. I get it - I really do. Can we now move on?