Keith G wrote:

To put it simply, stop whining, grow a thicker skin, and post
something on-topic.

I think you are missing his point Wally - he is saying that he is
aware that there are a number of people who refrain from joining in
here for fear of being unsulted or dragged into a slanging match and
that that is, ultimately, not good for this group. I happen to
agree...

I can assure you that I am entirely au-fait with the point. Discussion
forums veritably abound on the internet, and there are plenty of places
where the subject matter of ukra can be discussed in a safe, sterile,
butt-kissingly polite manner. This ng is part of *usenet*, and it has the
character that is quite typical of that arena - eclectic, informative,
funny, and provokingly no-holds-barred.

The fact that IMC doesn't like it isn't the group's problem, it's his.

His post is either a troll (in which case he's a sad ******* with
insufficient life with which to find something better to do), or he's a rube
who needs to get out more. If he plans to stick around, he'd do well to take
note of JLS's approach and get *with* the program, rather than try to change
it.

What I don't like about some of IMC's posts is his moral standpont - he's
essentially dictating how people should conduct themselves, but all he's
really doing is saying that that's how he prefers to conduct himself. He's
campaigning for a certain approach, but has no normative basis for asserting
that approach. The implication in his commentary is that his approach is the
way it 'should' be, when the fact of the matter is that his head is too far
up his arse for him to reaslise that other people have different ethics and
conduct themselves in accordance with their own and not his.

Basically, he can't handle the fact that there are people who's beliefs
regarding conduct differ from his. I for one will never kow-tow to any
****er's set of ethics other than my own - and I've never anyone with a
scrap of self-assertiveness that held a different view.

Sometimes, MC comes across as a self-righteous, holier-than-thou ****; but
one who doesn't actually have an argument. If he thinks he has, then he
should feel free to establish that the principle of normative ethics holds
for all men. And, if he can't, he should shut the **** up about 'behaviour'
and get on with posting on-topic.


Now on the subject of growing a thicker skin, do you think you could
pass the same advice to one or two 'sensitive souls' here who don't
seem to be too comfortable when I give as good as I get from the
likes of Pinky et al....

There are plenty of silly little weans that want to control their
environments so that they can be safe from being upset. Anyone with half a
brain and an ounce of nous can see that you and Pinky each give as good as
you get, and that the mutual kickings are taken for the ascerbic ****-takes
that they are. The silly little weans that are scared to venture into big
bad usenet should learn to operate their killfiles.


Or, better yet, switch your telly on *right now* and tune into a
gardening programme - some **** has hacked a Firefly about to use as
a bloody garden ornament.....!!!

*******! (Phone the producers - there might be some cheap sails and rigging
going cheap!)


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I think you are missing his point Wally - he is saying that he is aware
that there are a number of people who refrain from joining in here for
fear of being unsulted or dragged into a slanging match and that that
is, ultimately, not good for this group. I happen to agree...

There are plenty of people afraid to join in public discussions for
reasons best known to themselves. Anyone who expresses an opinion in a
debate is by nature likely to be challenged - otherwise it becomes merely
a lecture. But the one genuine lecturer here seems to be also the one who
conducts his debates with the least invective.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Iain M Churches wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
Iain, unfortunately - or should I say fortunately - this is not a
moderated group, so there is no way to keep anybody out. And even more
unfortunately some of the most prolific posters are either peddlers of
myths or downright pig-rude (both in some cases). But hey - that makes
the group fun; I wouldn't want it to be some stuffy repose of academe.

d

My point is Don, that *we* the members of this group are keeping people
out by our churlish behaviour, and the influx of new blood (or old blood
for that matter:-) would add a new dimension.

You obviously haven't seen how bad it gets in some groups then !

That's the nature of Usenet I'm afraid.

Graham

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Iain, unfortunately - or should I say fortunately - this is not a
moderated group, so there is no way to keep anybody out.

No one has suggested that it shojuld be or that we should try to:-)



And even more
unfortunately some of the most prolific posters are either peddlers of
myths or downright pig-rude (both in some cases). But hey - that makes
the group fun;

Surely whether it is fun or not depends from which end of the gun barrel
you are looking:-)

I was thinking of a case in point just a day or two ago, when a newbee
posted a schematic of his new amp for comments. (Surely you remember
the one, that had the heater centre-tap left unconnected!)

Our lads certainly gave him a peppering with buckshot.
He he won't be back for a while!
What a great feeling!


:-(((((

Surulista!

Iain

I wouldn't want it to be some stuffy repose of academe.

There is litle fear of that:-)

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:43:05 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

And even more
unfortunately some of the most prolific posters are either peddlers of
myths or downright pig-rude (both in some cases). But hey - that makes
the group fun;

Surely whether it is fun or not depends from which end of the gun barrel
you are looking:-)

I was thinking of a case in point just a day or two ago, when a newbee
posted a schematic of his new amp for comments. (Surely you remember
the one, that had the heater centre-tap left unconnected!)

Our lads certainly gave him a peppering with buckshot.
He he won't be back for a while!
What a great feeling!

Iain, your memory fails you. It was me that pointed out the error on
the diagram - and I did it quite nicely, with a joke. It was then me
that got "peppered with buckshot" for having the effrontery to point
out an error on a circuit that had been submitted for exactly that
purpose - peer review. I had failed to appreciate that where valves
are concerned, criticism is not an option - lavish praise is all that
is allowed.

OK, I got irritated by the flak, and went on to describe how the
circuit was going to work in practice (very poorly in this case). But
there - you go. I have had circuits peer reviewed on the past, and
pulled to pieces. That is why you do it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Iain, your memory fails you. It was me that pointed out the error on
the diagram - and I did it quite nicely, with a joke. It was then me
that got "peppered with buckshot" for having the effrontery to point
out an error on a circuit that had been submitted for exactly that
purpose - peer review. (snip and paste)

OK, I got irritated by the flak, and went on to describe how the
circuit was going to work in practice (very poorly in this case). But
there - you go. I have had circuits peer reviewed on the past, and
pulled to pieces. That is why you do it.

d

Hello Don,

It may well me that my news server did not download all the messages to
that particular thread, because I saw no evaluation of the circuit, or
suggestions
of improvements (with reasons why they would be improvements)

I had failed to appreciate that where valves
are concerned, criticism is not an option - lavish praise is all that
is allowed.

:-) That's not really fair Don. I am sure there is no-one amongst us who
does not appreciate help, I know I certainly do, and I have been building
amps for a very long time. To build a valve amp is a pretty simple task.
To build a good valve amp is quite a serious undertaking.

Cordially,

Iain



Cordially,

Iain





Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Iain M Churches wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Iain, your memory fails you. It was me that pointed out the error on
the diagram - and I did it quite nicely, with a joke. It was then me
that got "peppered with buckshot" for having the effrontery to point
out an error on a circuit that had been submitted for exactly that
purpose - peer review. (snip and paste)

OK, I got irritated by the flak, and went on to describe how the
circuit was going to work in practice (very poorly in this case). But
there - you go. I have had circuits peer reviewed on the past, and
pulled to pieces. That is why you do it.

d

Hello Don,

It may well me that my news server did not download all the messages to
that particular thread, because I saw no evaluation of the circuit, or
suggestions
of improvements (with reasons why they would be improvements)

The schematic was posted in a.b.s.e 'my latest 845'

Graham