"Rich N." wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> It sounds like you are saying, "Screw you guys. I'm going to
> do what I want." That's always nice to hear from someone
> relatively new to the list.
Well I guess you could interpret it that way if that's your mindset. You could
also interpret it as meaning that I have received lots of email by back channel
that says, "go ahead and post links and if the other guys have a problem with
it, then so be it". I've received as many pieces of mail from folks that lurk
that want to see the images as I have seen diatribes from old hands that want to
control the content of the postings.
I think that a number of the old hands sort of have the "screw you I'll do what
I want" attitude as well. Only it seems to be viewed differently depending on
from where it comes. For example a recent posting by an "old hand" about a
piece of scrap aluminum tubing that is up for grabs technically has nothing to
do with observing but seemed to be tolerated. I think it was nice that the
tubing posting was made and that it was offered free to anyone that wanted it,
but then I don't take a narrow definition of what is and is not acceptable for
this list. Another recent example is the long thread about green lasers started
by an "old hand". Those have no loggings in them, are not talking about faint
fuzzies or open clusters (sorry Richard N) or even observing sites. Yet the
postings were made, the thread was followed and no one complained. And again I
am happy that the group chipped in to buy one for the ranger at Lassen.
I have no problem at all with those postings, but cited them solely to expose
the hypocrisy among the "don't post image links because they have nothing to do
with observing" crowd. Bottom line is that there's lots of non-observing report
traffic here and only some of it seems to get the fur of the old hands riled up.
So what sort of "off topic" posts are OK or does it depend on WHO it is that is
posting them?
Clearly there are at least two camps here: those that do not want links posted
and those that do. There are also pragmatic folks that know how to skip over
postings they don't want to read and are willing to do so. Personally I think
this controversy is more about controlling others behavior (ie the "net nanny"
phenomenon) than it has to do wiith any unambiguous regulations, rules or
operating procedures. But that's my opinion.
What's a newbie to do? Should I continue to post links as quite a number have
asked me to do, or should I not?
I had already agreed that Richard N's suggestion of a weekly synopsis was fine,
and the only thing that stirred this hornet's nest again is that I mentioned in
reply to Baldwin's posting regarding a dearth of traffic is that one reason
could be is that I've not posted any links lately. I submit that I was right, as
soon as I talked about links, all sorts of traffic popped up and at least one
old hand apparently decided to pick up his marbles and go play some place else.
Again, links to images bear on the fundamentals about what observing is all
about. The images are highly relevant and more so than green lasers or aluminum
tubing. But I think all that traffic belongs here as it is all topical and has
to do with what we all enjoy doing.
It will be nice when the sky is good for observing again so the group can get
focused on what has made it great.
rdc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 30 2001 - 11:39:33 MST