Anyone who has ever had a stalker (and I unfortunately have, so I can
speak with some authority on the subject) will appreciate why it's
important not to disclose your real name and address in public.
Where it comes to trust, Henri has a point here - do you have the
address of every single develop
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:16:37 -0700, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> Henri,
>
> The viewer is required to comply, just make your viewer comply and don't
> register in the directory. If they are to prevent any viewer that does not
> comply with the TPV to connect to the grid I am glad for it.
And that's wha
On 29/04/2010 1:43 PM, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
>> In fact, it probably comes from the fact that Linden Lab uses contradictory
>> phrases in the TPV policy and in the TPV directory.
>>
>> Quoting the former:
>>
>> "Unlike the other sect
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> In fact, it probably comes from the fact that Linden Lab uses contradictory
> phrases in the TPV policy and in the TPV directory.
>
> Quoting the former:
>
> "Unlike the other sections of this Policy, participation in the Viewer
> Director
Henri,
> So, registering to the directory is clearly not a requirement to be
considered
as TPV-policy compliant, but on the other hand LL suggests that
the viewers
which are not in the directory are "dangerous" ones...
This is both unfair and
very close to pure diffamation.
The viewer is required t
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:50:11 -0600, Andromeda Quonset wrote:
> That aside, I investigated the application form for the 3rd party viewer.
> It does ask for my real name, but has that already filled-out for me,
> and is marked as something they won't publish. It asks for age
> verification, whi
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:34:29 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> This is not a choice I made lightly, but many people simply did not
> understand why the RLV was not in the directory, and despite the number of
> times I said it was compliant, people just can't get their heads around the
> fact that TPV
At 12:40 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:02:24 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
> Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
> cross next to the little star indicating that they w
This is not a choice I made lightly, but many people simply did not
understand why the RLV was not in the directory, and despite the number of
times I said it was compliant, people just can't get their heads around the
fact that TPV policy compliance and Viewer Directory listing are two totally
dif
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:02:24 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
> Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
> cross next to the little star indicating that they were mandatory), and
> that's what wa
Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
cross next to the little star indicating that they were mandatory), and
that's what was holding me from registering the RLV there. Today I just
noticed
11 matches
Mail list logo
