ANNOUNCE: Private Rx - a new closed mailing list for pharmacists
Simon Whitaker
I have created Private Rx, a new discussion list for UK pharmacists. The
advantages include:
- Only registered pharmacists will use the list
- All subscribers vetted using RPSGB register
- No web echoing or archiving
- No one-issue trolls!
To subscribe, simple email me directly at si...@whitaker.u-net.com including
the following information:
- name
- address
- email address
- RPSGB registration number
Once your details have been checked against the RPSGB registry you will be
added to the list.
Hopefully most of you will know me by now. I can assure you that the
information you provide will be used solely for the purposes of vetting your
application. It will NOT be passed on to third parties under any
crcumstances. If you have any questions please drop me an email.
Simon
--
Simon Whitaker MRPharmS Community Pharmacist, Cardiff, UK
Underneath this white coat there's an anorak bursting to get out.
Martin Bennett
In article <3593bba2...@news.u-net.com>, Simon Whitaker
<si...@whitaker.u-net.com> writes
>I have created Private Rx, a new discussion list for UK pharmacists. The
>advantages include:
>
>- Only registered pharmacists will use the list
>- All subscribers vetted using RPSGB register
>- No web echoing or archiving
>- No one-issue trolls!
>
I thought this facility was already available via Pharmweb. Do we really
need to be so secretive? If we do can we have a special handshake etc
like proper secret societies - could be cheaper than the RPSGB
membership card.
Martin Bennett
Simon Whitaker
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:20:25 +0100, Martin Bennett wrote:
> Why?
>
> I thought this facility was already available via Pharmweb. Do we really
> need to be so secretive? If we do can we have a special handshake etc
> like proper secret societies - could be cheaper than the RPSGB
> membership card.
It is already available on Pharmweb, but only AFAIK as a web-based service.
If and when Tony rolls out an email service Private Rx would probably
quietly fade away as demand fell. Personally I prefer an email mailing list
-- I don't want to be online whilst reading posts and I also find web-based
lists get a bit too cluttered on screen.
As to why? ... Well, why not? There is certainly a demand for such a
service, and the list hosts are providing the list FOC, so I thought it was
worth giving it a go. If no-one ends up using it, it can easily be wound
down. Time will tell. I don't want to dilute CommunityUK and other PharmWeb
lists, but feel that a completely private forum would suit some needs better
than one which has built-in web archiving. Oh, and it'll bug the hell out of
Mark Lewis... >;->
All the best,
Simon
--
Simon Whitaker MRPharmS Community Pharmacist, Cardiff, UK
Underneath this white coat there's an anorak bursting to get out.
[Please replace spam with simon when replying by mail]
Chris Livsey
In article <$GdA+FAZ...@hymer.demon.co.uk>, Martin Bennett
<mar...@hymer.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3593bba2...@news.u-net.com>, Simon Whitaker
><si...@whitaker.u-net.com> writes
>>I have created Private Rx, a new discussion list for UK pharmacists. The
>>advantages include:
>>
>>- Only registered pharmacists will use the list
>>- All subscribers vetted using RPSGB register
>>- No web echoing or archiving
>>- No one-issue trolls!
>>
>
>I thought this facility was already available via Pharmweb. Do we really
>need to be so secretive? If we do can we have a special handshake etc
>like proper secret societies - could be cheaper than the RPSGB
Stricly speaking if you know of their existence they are not secret
societies but should be regarded as societies with secrets.This view is
not a defence of any such but should affect your dealings with any
organisations you may feel fall into this category.
The PharmSoc could be said to be thus as for eg (of course)the Puxon
Report remains a (poorly kept) secret from most members of the society
never mind the public domain.
The Pharweb facility is not "secure" but could be made so as I
understand it.It has been used very little either because users found
there was nothing that they felt could not be said in this group(in a
public forum) or in other open subscription mailing lists or that they
found the on-line type of interface clunky and so different to
conventional e-mail they were not comfortable using it.An e-mail list is
so similar to news and e-mail nothing new needs learning.
The four points made above (by Simon Whitaker) will am sure attract
users who in my opinion should be able to access a list of all members
subscribing to it.The presence of "big brother" readers of public groups
and lists with no access to the user base does restrict what people are
prepared to discuss.Thus,to drag it in again,Puxon discussions are
suddenly interupted with warnings of legal action by RPSGB who feel they
must monitor and police public discussion of pharmacy matters.
I feel you should direct your accusations of activities akin to "secret
societies" with the connotations of control and holding of information
not freely available to all to RPSGB for example not to creators of
mailing lists with a limited,openly stated, distribution policy.
--
Chris Livsey
Chris Livsey
In article <3594f60e...@news.u-net.com>, Simon Whitaker
<sp...@whitaker.u-net.com> writes
> Oh, and it'll bug the hell out of
>Mark Lewis... >;->
To subscribe, simple email me directly at si...@whitaker.u-net.com
including
the following information:
- name
- address
- email address
- RPSGB registration number
You are aware,I am sure,every "large" public library carries a volume
with precisely this information which would enable easy impersonation.In
this case (ML) however the literary style would be easy to detect :-) On
the broader front caution is urged.
--
Chris Livsey OCRIXON LTD Voice 01524 63006
Pharmacist 11 Dalton Square Fax 01524 842239
c...@ocrixon.demon.co.uk LANCASTER
UK LA1 1PL
ATeasd5941
- No one-issue trolls!<<<<
Except the odd one or two who know
how to get around undetected :o)
Simon Whitaker
On 26 Jun 1998 23:11:43 GMT, ATeasd5941 wrote:
>>>>>> Except the odd one or two who know
how to get around undetected :o) <<<<<
Oh I don't know should be easy to spot. ;-)
Simon Whitaker
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:09:27 +0100, Chris Livsey wrote:
> The four points made above (by Simon Whitaker) will am sure attract
> users who in my opinion should be able to access a list of all members
> subscribing to it.
I personally have no objections to this. I shall propose it via the new list
once numbers are up and leave it to the members to decide.
Anthony Howarth
In article <3594f60e...@news.u-net.com>, sp...@whitaker.u-net.com
(Simon Whitaker) wrote:
>
> It is already available on Pharmweb, but only AFAIK as a web-based service.
> If and when Tony rolls out an email service Private Rx would probably
> quietly fade away as demand fell. Personally I prefer an email mailing list
> -- I don't want to be online whilst reading posts and I also find web-based
> lists get a bit too cluttered on screen.
>
Simon & others,
A couple of posts have mentioned this point, so I thought it might be
worth clarifying.
Although the PW archives are currently only available on the web, the
mailing lists are actually sent out to a large number of users by eMail.
Most of the PW lists are simply standard eMail lists which work in the
usual way - the only exception is that Tony requires you to 'join/leave'
the list through a web page - he feels that this is likely to reduce the
amount of bogus subscriptions (and so far seems to be right).
Some of the more popular lists also have digests.
Example: CommunityUK
To receive messages as eMail, access the page
http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/uk/pharmwebuk2.html
and scroll down. Complete the form with your details and submit it.
Messages are forwarded to your mail address as and when they are recieved
by PharmWeb.
Hope that helps,
Anthony Howarth
--
Mailed/Posted with Love & Hugs from
Fuzzy Hot_...@HotMail.com
Chris Livsey
In article <ajh-290698...@pbad.pa.man.ac.uk>, Anthony Howarth
<a...@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> writes
>Simon & others,
>
>A couple of posts have mentioned this point, so I thought it might be
>worth clarifying.
>
>Although the PW archives are currently only available on the web, the
>mailing lists are actually sent out to a large number of users by eMail.
>Most of the PW lists are simply standard eMail lists which work in the
I and I think others are very happy with the Pharweb standard lists
operating as you describe.The web based closed group we have mentioned
operates as outlined below:
I have created a closed discussion group. Have a look at:
http://www2.pharmweb.net/forum/pharmwebuk.html (normal access)
https://www2.pharmweb.net/forum/pharmwebuk.html (secure access)
The page is dynamic i.e. messages sent appear immediately, and it is
also set to refresh automatically every 5 minutes. You can also use the
reload to refresh at any time.
To send a message simply hit the 'post' button, hopefully the rest of
the system should be self-explanatory but please contact me if you have
any questions.
Look forward to your comments and suggestions.
Tony
PharmWeb
This "private" group is web based and the subject of the limitations I
and others have outlined.
Best wishes.
Simon Whitaker
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:09:44 +0000, Anthony Howarth wrote:
> A couple of posts have mentioned this point, so I thought it might be
> worth clarifying.
<snip>
Hi Anthony,
I have no beef with the PharmWeb groups. I'm a member of CommunityUK and
enjoy it very much. However the private access group is still web-based
only, which doesn't appeal to me. There is a demand for a private mailing
list, and that is what I have created. As and when the PharmWeb private
group becomes mail-based I sare say my own list may wither and die, which I
would accept -- I don't anticipate a "VHS -v- Betamax" type conflict where
only one can survive! (Indeed, I'd certainly be quite happy to leave all the
admin work to Tony D'E.)