Re: Looks like HJR is thinking about tossing in the towel?

On Nov 3, 8:07 am, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:13 am, Steve Howard <stevedhow..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have been thrown off HJR's site's more than once. I guess if you
> > > > want to express opinions that don't agree with his viewpoint that's
> > > > what happens.
>
> > > No, that's not what happens at all. You get thrown off the site for
> > > being a dumb-ass trouble maker that doesn't know when to stop digging
> > > no matter how deep the hole.
>
> Yay! I _love_ being a dumb-ass trouble maker! I wish I could post in
> bold on usenet so I could be a dumb-ass troublemaker here!

Well, you're welcome to think that way. But personally, "troublemakers"  make trouble *for me*, and I have better things to do with my time than deal with it.

> I'm still wondering how you tell what people would have looked for had
> you not wiped it. Especially since they may be looking with search
> engines not on your site.

I obviously cannot tell what people "would have" looked for. It was sufficient for me to see months and months of hits on the recent threads and hardly any hits on threads older than two weeks.

So I don't feel obliged to tip-toe my way around what people "might have done" if only it were there when I know darn'd well they didn't do it when it was there!

> Democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. That's
> why there needs to be protection of minority opinion, taboos, bills of
> rights, or similar. Every sort of group run membership is going to
> have to deal with allegations of cabalism of one sort or another
> (TINC!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal). And of course,
> some people who are really good at some things who are really bad at
> creating and enforcing policies (no secret that I think hjr is one of
> those - and I still would encourage him to continue to be himself and
> post loud and long everywhere he thinks it is useful, and just don't
> be an admin - which is not the same as saying he should shut down his
> site).

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think it is hopelessly unrealistic.

I do databases for a living, not web sites. I don't even begin to pretend to run Dizwell "professionally" -which is why no-one is charged for signing up. It's my personal website to which others are welcome, provided they don't piss me off with silly complaints about technical glitches and "suggestions" that turned out (every time) to be merely a reflection more of them, their dodgy hardware/software setups and their unrealistic expectations. The only policy I think that is needed is "be reasonable". You can complain about Microsoft: you paid them good money. But complaining about (say) Ubuntu is just bad manners, because you didn't pay them a cent. Similarly, if you want to pay me to run a "professional" website that has the sort of standards and policies you appear to want me to enforce... well, I am pretty convinced that membership would plummet to close to zero, but it's at least a vaguely plausible way forward. I await the cheque in the mail, then.

As it is, when lots of people (not just one aggrieved visitor who has hardware and software problems his end that he likes to blame others for) keep falling over the same issue, I do try to respond with "policy documents" to flesh out the "be reasonable" requirements. That's why there's a Site FAQ. It's why there are posting guidelines. It's why there are sign-up rules, linked to and supposedly read by everyone before registering. Dizwell is an organic thing: it grows and is shaped by the demands made of it. It's a ramshackle cottage to which bits are added as the need arises. You, on the other hand, seem to want a perfect floor plan in place before a brick is placed or any mortar mixed. It's not a bad thing to expect of a professional service you pay good money for, but it's not and never has been (or will be) Dizwell. Received on Fri Nov 02 2007 - 21:17:21 CDT