 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> > Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I
> > am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my
> > contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs
> > an idiot or madman)
>
> Hey don't worry about it - I personally enjoy your posts anyways :)
Aye. And remember, this is a discussion forum. Some very good posts don't
lend themselves to further discussion, and so don't get much (or any)
follow-up. And some very crummy posts get tons of followup.
> In my niche here (CAD) there are a lot of times I'll value the opinion of a
> long time contributor over that of a newbie - because I know and trust the
> person. Not that it's right.
Not that it's wrong either. Trust is an important issue. I don't have
time to sit down and thouroughly process through everything posted on
LUGNET. I depend a lot on familiarity with the people I'm reading messages
from, or responding to. This can make it harder for new people to 'break
in', but it's not impossible.
Communication skills help a lot. If a post shows very poor communication
skills, it's going to take more to get me to pay attention to it. Is that
elitist? Maybe. It's just another time issue -- I don't have time for
everything, and I'm trying to get (and give) the most value for my time.
> Yes, I'll read certain peoples' posts first, for whatever reason.
There are two people I used to look for, for responses to "Look at my MOC!"
posts. If Terry K. or Jeremy S. responded with a "that's great!" post,
then I'd go look at the MOC. They never steered me wrong.
> One thing is I do get disappointed if I don't get replies - that might not be
> an ego thing, but just the way my personality works. I work off of feedback.
> No one replied to my Spamcake To Go rendering I posted last week, which was
> surprising to me because it was a hit at Kidvention, and with every Lugnut
> I've shown in person. But that doesn't mean that people haven't seen it and
> haven't enjoyed it.
I'm still looking at it -- I immediately made it my background/wallpaper.
:)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In my niche here (CAD) there are a lot of times I'll value the opinion of a
> > long time contributor over that of a newbie - because I know and trust the
> > person. Not that it's right.
>
> Not that it's wrong either. Trust is an important issue. I don't have
> time to sit down and thouroughly process through everything posted on
> LUGNET. I depend a lot on familiarity with the people I'm reading messages
> from, or responding to. This can make it harder for new people to 'break
> in', but it's not impossible.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this... there is *nothing wrong*
with being elitist... as long as it's a meritocracy. In large part, that *is*
the way things operate in a lot of groups, there are people who most people
know are contributors, or who know who they are talking about, and whose words
tend to get more weight.
That is a good thing.
And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
novices in others.
Where things go a bit wrong is where cliques form, based on not merit, but
that sense of closeness that shuts out valid contributors. Fresh ideas are
good. There's a balance in there somewhere. This is a great topic, I wish I
had more time.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> novices in others.
Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > novices in others.
>
> Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
I don't think is the right group for that...
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
>
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > > novices in others.
> >
> > Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
> I don't think is the right group for that...
Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the word "compartmentalisation". I'm sure you
remember that little flap in RTL about a year ago...
Actually, the post was just simply my little way of posting "I agree". Unless you
want to argue whether my comment belongs in this group, in which case the discussion
would;-)
-John
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> >
> > > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > > > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > > > novices in others.
> > >
> > > Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
>
> > I don't think is the right group for that...
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the word "compartmentalisation". I'm sure you
> remember that little flap in RTL about a year ago...
>
> Actually, the post was just simply my little way of posting "I agree". Unless you
> want to argue whether my comment belongs in this group, in which case the discussion
> would;-)
Sorry, I just left off the winkey. ;)
It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to
celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom.
:)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to
> celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom.
:-) Thanks for the chuckle, Steve!
-John
> :)
>
> Steve
| | | | | | |
