Should we really be unofficial?

Posted by: jbauer

Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 04:25

Since empeg/Rio/SonicBlue/etc. are no more, there will really never be an "official" empeg BBS... Is it time that we became "official"?

- Jon
Posted by: loren

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 05:06

well...

Posted by: boxer

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 05:26

Why bother with official? Why not just "The Empeg & Rio: Car; Receiver;Central; Karma BBS".
Just delete the discussion point as to whether its official or not.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 13:53

Why not just remove any point of contention about what's discussed in here at all? Just remote the whole title completely.

Na, just kidding. Drop the empeg/rio part and just call it "the Official BBS"
Posted by: boxer

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 14:59

(a)It comes up with a mountain of sites, nothing to do with us, if you google, including "The Official BBS - faq"
(b) Somebody from outside our community, similarly googling, wishing to find out about Empegs, would never find us.
Posted by: jbauer

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 15:01

I like Loren's suggestion and graphic. Let's keep our unofficial heritage, but update it with a more dignified officiality.

- Jon
Posted by: peter

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 15:13

FWIW I always think of an "unofficial" BBS as similar to a "non-government-run" mass media; in other words an important check-and-balance, and withal more dignified and credible than the "official" sort. And if one's allowed to unilaterally declare officialness just because the original group that could have bestowed officialness has disappeared without doing so, there's way cooler things we could be than the official Empeg BBS: how about the Official Douglas Adams BBS, or perhaps the Official Concorde BBS? Or maybe we could crown ourselves the Official Holy Roman Emperor?

Peter
Posted by: boxer

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 15:25

Or "The thoughts of Chairman Boxer"
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 17:23

I'm guessing that there's a moderator/administrator who got a kick out of this thread and changed the title of the BBS
Posted by: peter

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 17:28

Quote:
I'm guessing that there's a moderator/administrator who got a kick out of this thread and changed the title of the BBS

Oh, cool, I was wondering if he'd done that to everyone or just to me

Charlemagne
Posted by: jbauer

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 18:25

Great! I love this BBS.

- Jon
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 18:37

Hopefully it won't get changed before Google has a chance to index.
Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 19:24

Just a minute ago I was skimming all the open tabs and looking for "empeg". "I swear I have the BBS open," I told myself. "Where the 'ef is it?"

--Nathan
Posted by: webroach

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 19:38

I prefer "Holy Roman Empegger"...
Posted by: music

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 20:23

Quote:
Quote:
I'm guessing that there's a moderator/administrator who got a kick out of this thread and changed the title of the BBS

Oh, cool, I was wondering if he'd done that to everyone or just to me

Charlemagne


There's still a little Hadrian's wall around the proprietary parts
of the source code....

(Cue Roger Waters, "Bring Down the Wall! Bring Down the Wall!" )

Genghis Khan
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 29/09/2006 22:36

Quote:
Quote:
I'm guessing that there's a moderator/administrator who got a kick out of this thread and changed the title of the BBS

Oh, cool, I was wondering if he'd done that to everyone or just to me

Charlemagne

It must be just you. I don't see *anything*.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Should we really be unofficial? - 30/09/2006 14:47

Check the title bar.