Subject:
|
Re: peeron inventory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:11:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3715 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.inv, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.inv, John Patterson wrote:
> > I don't believe that I made accusations about anything.
>
> Then please, leave out the commentary. You come across as being condescending,
> insulting, and rude. If you have corrections that you want to post to Lugnet,
> well, fine I guess. But if your intent is to start a flame war so that it draws
> attention to Peeron's accuracy issues and puts pressure on them to correct the
> problems, then you can expect:
>
> 1) people will get angry at you
> 2) Peeron may intentionally ignore you
>
> > I do not think that it takes more time to correct than what it takes me to
> > figure out the correct inventory.
>
> That's not really the point. If you could afford to spend 60 hours a week doing
> inventories, great. But Peeron admins will NOT make that same committment.
>
> > Do you not agree that the inventories have a major problem? Perhaps
> > I expect too much, I was just commenting on the time it takes, which is a
> > fact. I come from 24 years in the military and then I managed a corporation
> > for the next 14 years. I just took it very seriously when mistakes were made
> > and corrected everything that I or one of my soldiers or workers did as
> > quickly as I could.
>
> See, here's where people are taking offense. You're "just commenting" on the
> "facts", but you do a fine job making sure to sound insulting. Peeron is NOT a
> military organization, and volunteers are not PAID for their contributions.
> You're implying an unfair comparison.
>
> Is Peeron on the level of professionalism as a multi-million dollar corporation?
> No. Will it be? Not unless you're planning on funding them. Your expectations
> seem to be unreasonably high for a volunteer effort.
>
> I'm glad you want to put the effort in fixing the problems, and I'm grateful
> you're doing your best to keep accurate records. And if you want to spend a lot
> of time doing it, that's wonderful. But other people aren't necessarily as
> dedicated as you are.
>
> > I really do not want to get into a long drawn out he said she said thing.
>
> You seem to. I expect you're relatively new to the online environment as well.
> Both these are evidenced by the fact that you have a tendancy to reply to nearly
> every response that your posts generate, without adding content. Perhaps you
> feel that it is a common courtesy to reply, but it's not always the case in the
> online world. By continuing to post replies and degrading commentary, you
> further the impression you DO want to turn this into some sort of long, drawn
> out argument.
>
> > I will just post what I find, send the corrections to you and let what
> > happens with them happen. I will make no editorial comments that may be
> > construed as "not nice."
>
> That would be great.
>
> > It seems that a lot of people here are more concerned about how something is
> > said rather than what is said. I noticed that on the back and forth comments
> > about Brickfest and their profit if there is any.
>
> Does this suprise you? Notice your reply in the earlier discussion (I could
> probably find many more, too):
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/inv/?n=294
>
> That entire sub-thread is riddled with you being annoyed with several people,
> while providing little or no actual information. In short, I'm trying to point
> out that you yourself cared about how people were treating you. As a result, you
> should expect people to care about how you treat them and others. Humans are not
> machines, and typically they will reply to BOTH informational and emotional
> stimuli. That's not something that's unique to Lugnet, it's human behavior.
> Anywhere you go, if you start appearing to insult noble volunteer efforts that
> people value greatly, people will react poorly to your comments, and probably
> poorly to you personally, thanks to the precedent you set for yourself.
>
> I expect that any worthwhile discussion following my post will be concerning
> behaviorial issues and/or netiquette, so FUT set to .debate.
>
> DaveE
Thanks Dave:
Thanks Dave:
I treat others well. If anything is rude it is the people that take apart every
comment I make, which I really do not give a hoot about. The inventories are
messed up; I am trying to fix that. Almost every one I look at needs work. I
would just expect the effort to fix to be the same as the effort to put the
inventory on in the first place.
Now as about comments; many more things were written that were nasty to me. I
had one nut case send me a picture to my email. I have also had several emails
thanking me for making corrections to sets that they had. They seemed amazed at
the blatant mistakes in the inventories that they relied on. At this point I
was saying that you cannot rely on the peeron inventories and I think that I
have proved that. I have made no attacks on anyone on this web site. I think
that the umbrage comes from the fact I am finding so many mistakes in the iconic
peeron inventories. Instead of attacking me Davy why don't you spend your time
as a volunteer and help peeron get the facts straight.
My last posts were changes, commenting on how quickly they get things done. You
have called me coming across as condescending, insulting, and rude. The only
comment I have made about peeron is that they are slow. A bit of a difference.
As to how I feel about people saying things about me: I have faced gun fire in
Iraq during Desert Storm, stood on the Sinai and watched Arab troops lobbing
motors our way, and spent a year in Viet Nam watching out for hidden taps,
explosions and average Vietnamese people shooting us. What ever a bunch of
people playing with plastic toys (which includes me) say won't hurt my feelings.
You seem to be far too thin skinned. If this is arrogant so be it. You seem to
be arrogant too. And you are probably the knucklehead that sent me the picture.
John P
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: peeron inventory
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote: --snip-- (...) John, You're really beginning to make me very irritated. You seem unable to accept responsibility for the way you put things and seem to justify this in a variety of ways including (...) (17 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) Yes you do. - "If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you." - "Valium might be in the future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down." - "remember 7 comes after 6 and before 8, perhaps that will help." (...) (17 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) Then please, leave out the commentary. You come across as being condescending, insulting, and rude. If you have corrections that you want to post to Lugnet, well, fine I guess. But if your intent is to start a flame war so that it draws (...) (17 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.inv, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
