Did you also read my reply to Bruce?
Rich
>"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 - 12:11:57 MST