 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | |
