Subject:
|
Re: peeron inventory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:01:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3875 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: --snip--
> > Tim:
> > I was not rude to volunteers, I even offered to volunteer to get thing done.
> > I want to help and have only come here when Dan ignored my requests as to what
> > was happening to the corrections sent into Peeron.com.
> > I am still not sure what polite is on this site. I am serious about this. What
> > exactly was not polite?
>
> John,
>
> It was not polite to make the comment "Corrections sent to inv@peeron again are
> not getting posted. It has been a bit since they did a few.". The reason it
> isn't polite is because it is a) unneccesary and b) expectant as the implication
> of those two sentences is that they SHOULD be getting posted,
>
> > Not in my last reply to Mad Dave, but in my posts to
> > Dan or the corrections?
>
> I realise you're dense as all hell when it comes to the internet but would you
> kindly realise this and stop bandying around accusations of who sent you the
> pictures. I find it unlikely in the utmost that it was Dave and I know it wasn't
> me (who you've previously accused).
>
> > I just don't understand, sorry. I might be blunt and
> > don't mince words, but what was not polite? I am really serious about this
> > question.
>
> Answered above. To be more general about it your behaviour goes as follows:
> 1) Write a comment about how the inventories at Peeron are incorrect and that
> you have corrected them and they are not up immediately after you sent the
> correction
> 2) When someone explains why this is so you go on a rant about how you are
> utterly thorough and work towards perfection and you expect this from everyone.
>
> This is rude because a) It implies expectation that people should be at your
> beck and call for updating the inventories and b) it implies that not only are
> people not as thorough as you but they are making no effort to do so (even
> though people have explained ad nauseum why this is not true).
>
> Do you understand now?
>
> --snip quote--
>
> > Is it wrong to say they are not getting posted? Is it not polite to say don't
> > go by these inventories that are done by instructions? I am finding a lot of
> > mistakes, is that impolite?
> Explained above.
I differ with you here. Serious collectors need to know. You have no idea how
many are wrong. This is not impolite. It is a systemic problem. Would you
feel that it is more polite just to note it on Lugnet? If that is a solution I
can do it. I don't know how to inform people without being considered thick.
>
> > What in the above is wrong? Dan wrote to me after that and I answered. This is
> > the one that started everything all over again.
> > Dan wrote:"your demands and accusations” in the above there are no accusations
> > and I did not demand anything. There is a difference between demand and
> > pointing something out.
>
> You do demand things and you do accuse things. I really find it so hard to
> fathom how you can be so thick as not to recognise this.
>
> > I would just like to know what I said that is so nasty in the above post.
> > Not only that I am getting rather tired of you all being spring loaded to the
> > pissed off position. "Don't kill the messenger" Isn't it better to know that
> > they are incorrect rather than assuming they are correct regardless of how it is
> > said?
>
> Ahhh the famous Patterson wit comes on show again. The only person "spring
> loaded to the pissed off position" around here at the moment is you.
> Unfortunately you're too thick to realise it.
>
> If the messenger is rude to the king, the king will kill the messenger. Surely
> your army background should have at least taught you that. If something has gone
> wrong and it's the fault of your superior officer do you rudely accuse them of
> it and expect to get away with it?
Yes, it is the duty of an NCO to point out things. If I said to my CO "your
taking way too long to fix SSG Baxters problems, you need to get on the ball and
do this, I have done all I could at my level" he would get the message and
either tell me he isn't or see the point and fix it. From the sound of this you
have never been in the military. That is the way things work with senior NCO
and the military. but I do understand a little more from whence you come
>
> If you still don't understand then I give up. It's remarkably like getting water
> from a stone.
>
> Tim
Thanks Tim
I will be more polite when I post. I still think it is a bit slow to post
corrections. Example 001, I sent a change in in OCT and again a couple of
months ago.
I realize that you think that I am rude and I will honestly try. But please
remember the only one that has called anyone names are those that responded to
my posts.
I do this to be helpful while I am making sure that the sets I got from ebay are
correct. It is a wealth of info and I am making it available to Peeron. It is
also correct that it is his site and he can do what he wants with my info. I
feel that people need to know and that is why I am posting in the inventories.
Pick out a change and check it and see how long it takes to correct. When you
feel it was overlooked let me know. I will stop with the commentarys. I get
your message and will stop.
John P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: peeron inventory
|
| --snip-- (...) Hi John, Thanks for taking that on board. Noone is saying your contribution isn't worthwhile and I don't think anyone minds your regular updates of what you've done. If you stick to these I think we will all be happier. It also means (...) (17 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: peeron inventory
|
| (...) --snip-- (...) John, It was not polite to make the comment "Corrections sent to inv@peeron again are not getting posted. It has been a bit since they did a few.". The reason it isn't polite is because it is a) unneccesary and b) expectant as (...) (17 years ago, 3-Apr-07, to 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
|
|
|
|
