[Theforum] blah blah. Or, who gets to edit articles

[Daniel J. Cody]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, .jeff wrote:

> dan,
> 
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: Daniel J. Cody
> >
> > the backstabbing continues behind closed doors while
> > everyone plays nice here in public. bullshit.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> backstabbing there?  playing nice here?  what?!

precisley the problem with closed lists, i can't point out examples
 
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i've only skimmed that list [...]
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> that explains the comment above.  perhaps you're not understanding the
> nature of the current discussions because you haven't thoroughly read them.

see below for how well i've skimmed.

and i understand the nature of the discussion because its been hashed out
numerous times before.
 
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i look in my 'good ideas' folder and see at least 15
> > really good ideas for evolt in there that have been
> > suggested in the short time this list has been around.
> > i think its a shame that those ideas are getting left
> > along the wayside while the majority of the discussion
> > here and behind closed doors continues to focus not on
> > positive things for evolt, but on the reasons why a
> > select group of people should be allowed to edit
> > articles in private.(for example)
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> your collection of good ideas that have been culled from this list and other
> places does no one any good locked away on your machine.  furthermore, until
> that list is public, no one but yourself can be held accountable for those
> ideas not reaching maturation.  if you want people to pursue the ideas, they
> have to know about them.  how about keeping the list updated in a public
> place where those that are interested in following through on ideas can see
> what's the latest and greatest ideas for evolt.org according to djc.

the ideas aren't 'locked away' on my machine like some treasure i'm trying
to protect. they're ideas(as mentioned) that have been brought up here on
this list. 

furthermore, that list is public. its in the archives. 'accountable'??!

jeez.
 
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > just some thoughts to address a lot of the issues i'm
> > seeing lined up, but won't read because, frankly, i've
> > got better shit to do.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> yet you'll malign some of us who happen to be on the admin list simply
> because you can't be bothered to read the issues and understand them thereby
> continuing the cycle of negative discussion?  pot?  kettle?

i've read it close enough to know that the second time you've used the
pot/kettle analogy to support obscured reasoning. how does me not reading
the 'issues' correlate('thereby') to continuing the cycle? if i don't
respond to those issues - therefore breaking the cycle, your reasoning
makes no sense.

can i assume that because you didn't break down the rest of my argument
into bite sized chunks that you agree with it? or is it easier to
discredit what i'm trying to say when you only respond to the things you
disagree with?