Rob...this thread is about 2 years old...Gene is digging it up for some reason, not sure why...
Steve
Private Messaging?
Moderator: scott
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: Private Messaging?
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
Re: re: Private Messaging?
John (The carpenter's boy)
What DOES foster it, however, are the Private Groups!
These secret, exclusionary fetishes are custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale. In fact, one of them is just OH-SO exclusive, that it's comprised of only THREE members! And what's more is, that there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble!
Real 'old guard' site owner types they are. The elites of the elites. (Or so they no doubt fancy themselves to be, as one would logically suspect.) Naturally, the fertile imagination simply reels when contemplating it all; at what Furies might possibly be unleashed from within those various electronic conferences, now held en camera!
Also, the very fact that "Groups" may be viewed as a button to be clicked then accessed, but NOT entered into by the unwanted, is TRULY BAD POLICY, no matter how fancily sliced and arranged the arguments 'pro' may be. Now I ask: to WHAT purpose is all this? Might a likely response be: 'mischief'?
In a word, it 'stinks'!
I have no argument con, that pairs of fellow members might communicate one-on-one by PM, just as it is in the case of simple e-mail.
(And, OF COURSE it is my own opinion I'm putting out, and for which NO MAN doing likewise should apologize for expressing, if it be sincere and with all points being well-taken and made. It is truly saddening to see people actually apologizing for expressing themselves. Slaves apologized to their master for speaking their minds. We no longer have slaves and masters; just 'elites', or so it would seem.)
Although a little late, I just entered my 'yea' to the proposition, for reinforcement.
James
Based on my own use of the PM feature, I've found that NO cliquishness has developed between myself and my respondents. How could it when it is merely a one-on-one exchange?rks1878 wrote:The feature fosters the clique syndrome.
What DOES foster it, however, are the Private Groups!
These secret, exclusionary fetishes are custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale. In fact, one of them is just OH-SO exclusive, that it's comprised of only THREE members! And what's more is, that there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble!
Real 'old guard' site owner types they are. The elites of the elites. (Or so they no doubt fancy themselves to be, as one would logically suspect.) Naturally, the fertile imagination simply reels when contemplating it all; at what Furies might possibly be unleashed from within those various electronic conferences, now held en camera!
Also, the very fact that "Groups" may be viewed as a button to be clicked then accessed, but NOT entered into by the unwanted, is TRULY BAD POLICY, no matter how fancily sliced and arranged the arguments 'pro' may be. Now I ask: to WHAT purpose is all this? Might a likely response be: 'mischief'?
In a word, it 'stinks'!
I have no argument con, that pairs of fellow members might communicate one-on-one by PM, just as it is in the case of simple e-mail.
(And, OF COURSE it is my own opinion I'm putting out, and for which NO MAN doing likewise should apologize for expressing, if it be sincere and with all points being well-taken and made. It is truly saddening to see people actually apologizing for expressing themselves. Slaves apologized to their master for speaking their minds. We no longer have slaves and masters; just 'elites', or so it would seem.)
Although a little late, I just entered my 'yea' to the proposition, for reinforcement.
James
re: Private Messaging?
James,
I too, find myself questioning the motive for Gene bringing up this old thread. I could just brush it off and forget it, but my conscience is not at rest without stating my feelings regarding private groups. Here are my
own thoughts on your below inserted quote:
True there are three members in John Collins group, himself, Scott and Bill. These represent the foundation and backbone of this forum. That includes but not limited to the operation, maintenance, all MT drawings and background and translation research. It is they who make this all possible and I applaud them highly.
If you wish to offer input I am sure that a PM post to any of them will be accepted as long as it is in or meant to be constructive related. I do not blame them for keeping the door closed, and I do not consider them to be secret, exclusionary fetishes, custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale.
Yes they are exclusive and dependent upon to keep the wheels we seek greased and augmented. for if it were not for them and the operations of this forum it would not exist!. Their right to do so in an unfettered atmosphere, is as it should be. After all any member can start his own group if desired , Michael, Stewart, Umez, Patrick have all tried it and it does not pack the wallop one would anticipate. You say it best with your explicit closing line: "there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble!" and that is how I feel it should be!
So three guys get together for a poker party while discussing and contemplating subject matters. What do you find so unusual or unexceptionable with that?
Ralph
I too, find myself questioning the motive for Gene bringing up this old thread. I could just brush it off and forget it, but my conscience is not at rest without stating my feelings regarding private groups. Here are my
own thoughts on your below inserted quote:
!These secret, exclusionary fetishes are custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale. In fact, one of them is just OH-SO exclusive, that it's comprised of only THREE members! And what's more is, that there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble
True there are three members in John Collins group, himself, Scott and Bill. These represent the foundation and backbone of this forum. That includes but not limited to the operation, maintenance, all MT drawings and background and translation research. It is they who make this all possible and I applaud them highly.
If you wish to offer input I am sure that a PM post to any of them will be accepted as long as it is in or meant to be constructive related. I do not blame them for keeping the door closed, and I do not consider them to be secret, exclusionary fetishes, custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale.
Yes they are exclusive and dependent upon to keep the wheels we seek greased and augmented. for if it were not for them and the operations of this forum it would not exist!. Their right to do so in an unfettered atmosphere, is as it should be. After all any member can start his own group if desired , Michael, Stewart, Umez, Patrick have all tried it and it does not pack the wallop one would anticipate. You say it best with your explicit closing line: "there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble!" and that is how I feel it should be!
Real 'old guard' site owner types they are. The elites of the elites. (Or so they no doubt fancy themselves to be, as one would logically suspect.) Naturally, the fertile imagination simply reels when contemplating it all; at what Furies might possibly be unleashed from within those various electronic conferences, now held en camera!
So three guys get together for a poker party while discussing and contemplating subject matters. What do you find so unusual or unexceptionable with that?
Ralph
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: Private Messaging?
You will doubtless notice that I have not posted anything in my own private forum since October 2004.
My original idea was to post anything I thought I had cracked, regarding Bessler's codes, the purpose being that I didn't want to reveal anything prematurely because I was working towards a solution using the bits I thought I had decoded, so posting it would define a date that I could later point to and say I knew such and such a thing at that time.
I included Scott out of respect for all that he has achieved with besslerwheel.com and also Bill because we have been corresponding since at least 1999. I discovered that my solutions were wide of the mark but I decided to leave them where they were until such a time as I was ready to discuss them publicly. I actually agree that probably the private groups are a bad idea since they encourage an us and them mentality.
Some of you may not know that we (Bill and I) originally formed a group known as BORG (Bessler -Orffyreus Research group) with four or five others to try to solve this Bessler problem - in the end the others faded away just leaving myself and Bill to continue. Mikey Ned, who was one of our group, has an interesting web site for those who are unaware of it http://www.mikeyned.com/ Definitely worth a visit.
John Collins
My original idea was to post anything I thought I had cracked, regarding Bessler's codes, the purpose being that I didn't want to reveal anything prematurely because I was working towards a solution using the bits I thought I had decoded, so posting it would define a date that I could later point to and say I knew such and such a thing at that time.
I included Scott out of respect for all that he has achieved with besslerwheel.com and also Bill because we have been corresponding since at least 1999. I discovered that my solutions were wide of the mark but I decided to leave them where they were until such a time as I was ready to discuss them publicly. I actually agree that probably the private groups are a bad idea since they encourage an us and them mentality.
Some of you may not know that we (Bill and I) originally formed a group known as BORG (Bessler -Orffyreus Research group) with four or five others to try to solve this Bessler problem - in the end the others faded away just leaving myself and Bill to continue. Mikey Ned, who was one of our group, has an interesting web site for those who are unaware of it http://www.mikeyned.com/ Definitely worth a visit.
John Collins
re: Private Messaging?
I dont think it will matter if we share our ideas or not, none of them work anyway.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Private Messaging?
Again, it seems that the ethical nature of Private Forums has surfaced for consideration.
Generally, I am not in favor of such forums mainly because, by requiring a member to go out of his way to seek admission, they might discourage their content from being viewed and possibly used to some benefit by a member who might not be particularly interested in the forum's main "theme". Also, there is the issue of the bad feelings that can arise when an unsuccessful applicant is reduced to the status of being an "outsider".
However, I still think that such forums should be allowed for those that feel they are necessary. But, I would never start one or seek membership in one...
ken
Generally, I am not in favor of such forums mainly because, by requiring a member to go out of his way to seek admission, they might discourage their content from being viewed and possibly used to some benefit by a member who might not be particularly interested in the forum's main "theme". Also, there is the issue of the bad feelings that can arise when an unsuccessful applicant is reduced to the status of being an "outsider".
However, I still think that such forums should be allowed for those that feel they are necessary. But, I would never start one or seek membership in one...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
Re: re: Private Messaging?
Most peculiar.
For two blessed days I basked in the glow of the luxury of "No Reputation" - up from being made to bare those long, burdensome chains of being "Disregarded By Some" - but now it is back down to status quo once again for The Primemignonite.
Something that was said, one supposes?
It is my understanding that those who change their minds about me and what punishments I am deserving of here, and now there, cannot do this over and over ad infinitum. Is it not but a one-shot opportunity to deliver the dirty jab from cowardly hiding, along with a single rescinding of it allowed, and that's it? Or is my understanding on these points defective somehow? IF this is so, the way I understand it - then the key question becomes: WHO is manipulating the buttons on-off-on-off, etc.?
Hmm?
From where, and by whom is it being done? (. . . so many questions; so few answers . . .)
Well, I too have no idea as to why Gene did as he did, but when I saw that he had, I just waded right into the alligator pit heedlessly to say my piece and vote.
Your words are those of moderation and good ones, no doubt. Thank you for adding them to the discussion.
Perhaps I did overstate the case just a tad, and was in fact too harsh with those to whom so much is rightly owed, and who blessedly and so rightly commune within their very own, but very public privacy. Yes, maybe I did . . .
Also, I certainly do agree with what you expressed regarding JC and Scott, as far as our collective debt of gratitude ever-owing, though not yet re-paid, but, as to that other personage you mentioned along with them, I don't know who he might be, nor what he does, nor what he is for, even. [Rude bafflement here intruding.]
Getting down to brass tacks: it is not a question of a "right" for them to indulge in having private forums for themselves, or not. They will and shall do as it damned well may please them. They ARE in-control, after all. Rather, it is the far more important issue of what is right, and what is not.
Setting the issue in another way, to my eye and senses, the look of it, the feel of it and the very smell of it, is all most unsavory in a supposedly democratically-run type setting.
If it REALLY is, after all, not that - democratic - and is in reality some form of petty dictatorship at it's true, hidden core, then I advocate for letting that reality be expressed in black on white, with the glistening new clarification then being understood by all. Then, everyone will come to know truly what is what, and what is not, which would be a real luxury in these twisted times of "un-think" and "double speak", which we all now endure.
As to your quoting my bit about "a'pacing rabble, etc." - touche! - but I was being facetious there, Ralph. We are not actually that supposedly described therein, by any means. Quite to the contrary! If it were not for us lively, wind-raising participants, the rightly esteemed 'clutch of three' would be as-nothing, in fact, but rather, left only talking to and amongst themselves, and yes, in very private but limited conversation!
Believe me, they would soon tire of their exercise in futility, for "We . . ." are the actual show, Ralph, and not they. [Now, how large should our bill submitted for services rendered be, and, will their luck keep holding?]
Granted and understood that it is YOUR FEELING that very public exclusionary exclusivism should be encouraged and applauded by "We . . .", the supposed proles that we should remain as; but, it is MY UNDERSTANDING as to why it should not.
All of this has now been expressed every which way past exhaustion, would you not agree?
And so to conclude this round: as the Emperor Himself exclaimed to the masterfully scheming Salieri, "Well . . . there it tis."
Warmest Regards,
James
P.S. Behrendt, as usual, puts the case and his opinions regarding it most elegantly and diplomatically, unlike my more brusque, greatly-objected-to minute self. I agree wholeheartedly with all the points he makes - BUT WITH ONE EXCEPTION - I say No exclusionary forums which existence can become known to those unwanted within them - THIS-ON-PRINCIPLE!
For two blessed days I basked in the glow of the luxury of "No Reputation" - up from being made to bare those long, burdensome chains of being "Disregarded By Some" - but now it is back down to status quo once again for The Primemignonite.
Something that was said, one supposes?
It is my understanding that those who change their minds about me and what punishments I am deserving of here, and now there, cannot do this over and over ad infinitum. Is it not but a one-shot opportunity to deliver the dirty jab from cowardly hiding, along with a single rescinding of it allowed, and that's it? Or is my understanding on these points defective somehow? IF this is so, the way I understand it - then the key question becomes: WHO is manipulating the buttons on-off-on-off, etc.?
Hmm?
From where, and by whom is it being done? (. . . so many questions; so few answers . . .)
Ralph,rlortie wrote:James,
I too, find myself questioning the motive for Gene bringing up this old thread. I could just brush it off and forget it, but my conscience is not at rest without stating my feelings regarding private groups. Here are my
own thoughts on your below inserted quote:
!These secret, exclusionary fetishes are custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale. In fact, one of them is just OH-SO exclusive, that it's comprised of only THREE members! And what's more is, that there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble
True there are three members in John Collins group, himself, Scott and Bill. These represent the foundation and backbone of this forum. That includes but not limited to the operation, maintenance, all MT drawings and background and translation research. It is they who make this all possible and I applaud them highly.
If you wish to offer input I am sure that a PM post to any of them will be accepted as long as it is in or meant to be constructive related. I do not blame them for keeping the door closed, and I do not consider them to be secret, exclusionary fetishes, custom-crafted for questionable goings-on to fester unchecked, and wholesale.
Yes they are exclusive and dependent upon to keep the wheels we seek greased and augmented. for if it were not for them and the operations of this forum it would not exist!. Their right to do so in an unfettered atmosphere, is as it should be. After all any member can start his own group if desired , Michael, Stewart, Umez, Patrick have all tried it and it does not pack the wallop one would anticipate. You say it best with your explicit closing line: "there are NO openings for lowly 'we', the mere a'pacing rabble!" and that is how I feel it should be!
Real 'old guard' site owner types they are. The elites of the elites. (Or so they no doubt fancy themselves to be, as one would logically suspect.) Naturally, the fertile imagination simply reels when contemplating it all; at what Furies might possibly be unleashed from within those various electronic conferences, now held en camera!
So three guys get together for a poker party while discussing and contemplating subject matters. What do you find so unusual or unexceptionable with that?
Ralph
Well, I too have no idea as to why Gene did as he did, but when I saw that he had, I just waded right into the alligator pit heedlessly to say my piece and vote.
Your words are those of moderation and good ones, no doubt. Thank you for adding them to the discussion.
Perhaps I did overstate the case just a tad, and was in fact too harsh with those to whom so much is rightly owed, and who blessedly and so rightly commune within their very own, but very public privacy. Yes, maybe I did . . .
Also, I certainly do agree with what you expressed regarding JC and Scott, as far as our collective debt of gratitude ever-owing, though not yet re-paid, but, as to that other personage you mentioned along with them, I don't know who he might be, nor what he does, nor what he is for, even. [Rude bafflement here intruding.]
Getting down to brass tacks: it is not a question of a "right" for them to indulge in having private forums for themselves, or not. They will and shall do as it damned well may please them. They ARE in-control, after all. Rather, it is the far more important issue of what is right, and what is not.
Setting the issue in another way, to my eye and senses, the look of it, the feel of it and the very smell of it, is all most unsavory in a supposedly democratically-run type setting.
If it REALLY is, after all, not that - democratic - and is in reality some form of petty dictatorship at it's true, hidden core, then I advocate for letting that reality be expressed in black on white, with the glistening new clarification then being understood by all. Then, everyone will come to know truly what is what, and what is not, which would be a real luxury in these twisted times of "un-think" and "double speak", which we all now endure.
As to your quoting my bit about "a'pacing rabble, etc." - touche! - but I was being facetious there, Ralph. We are not actually that supposedly described therein, by any means. Quite to the contrary! If it were not for us lively, wind-raising participants, the rightly esteemed 'clutch of three' would be as-nothing, in fact, but rather, left only talking to and amongst themselves, and yes, in very private but limited conversation!
Believe me, they would soon tire of their exercise in futility, for "We . . ." are the actual show, Ralph, and not they. [Now, how large should our bill submitted for services rendered be, and, will their luck keep holding?]
Granted and understood that it is YOUR FEELING that very public exclusionary exclusivism should be encouraged and applauded by "We . . .", the supposed proles that we should remain as; but, it is MY UNDERSTANDING as to why it should not.
All of this has now been expressed every which way past exhaustion, would you not agree?
And so to conclude this round: as the Emperor Himself exclaimed to the masterfully scheming Salieri, "Well . . . there it tis."
Warmest Regards,
James
P.S. Behrendt, as usual, puts the case and his opinions regarding it most elegantly and diplomatically, unlike my more brusque, greatly-objected-to minute self. I agree wholeheartedly with all the points he makes - BUT WITH ONE EXCEPTION - I say No exclusionary forums which existence can become known to those unwanted within them - THIS-ON-PRINCIPLE!
-
coylo
re: Private Messaging?
LMAO Trevie!I dont think it will matter if we share our ideas or not, none of them work anyway.
Re: re: Private Messaging?
Trevie.. You don't hang out with Marvin the depressed robot from the "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" movie do you?.. LOL!trevie wrote:I dont think it will matter if we share our ideas or not, none of them work anyway.
The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.
re: Private Messaging?
Conclusion: Private messaging might be the whole point of a forum like this, also known as 'information exchange'.
Re: re: Private Messaging?
SeaWasp wrote:Trevie.. You don't hang out with Marvin the depressed robot from the "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" movie do you?.. LOL!trevie wrote:I dont think it will matter if we share our ideas or not, none of them work anyway.
blimey, how did you know that!
re: Private Messaging?
Trevie.. I have Marvin as a screensaver. He always has something to say as he strolls along, back & forth on my screen! That quote just seemed to fit right in with what he says! LOL!
The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.