It’s not the fear that she will write something. It’s that her behavior here reflects a deliberate attempt to aggravate members to generate a story.
2 Likes
Yes. Plus, I’ve abandoned ever writing about this place for fear I’d die of embarrassment. I even went through all my sign-ins yesterday and removed my name so it won’t Google in connection with DMS.
(P.S. My 1,100 word articles in that publication are gaining traction. I’m pleased with my effort there.)
Your style of “reporting” seems to be instigate instead of investigate.
You just made another judgemental statement that most of our 1400+ members would strongly disagree with.
3 Likes
Personal observation. I get to have those.
You have a great Saturday. I’m headed to the space to make a tiny stamp for @Cairenn_Day. If you are around stop into CA and introduce yourself. I’ll be the one huddled over the Shapeoko 2.
^^^
That was offensive and worthy of flagging?
Walter (@wandrson) is welcome to pass information along in the same manner that this thread was generated. If he would like to send a response to be posted here to my Dallas Makerspace email address (Lisa@…), I will gladly copy/paste the full message on this thread.
Honestly though ~ the vast majority of the posts on this thread, that aren’t from or about another person, have been overwhelmingly positive about Walter. Those positive responses are probably more beneficial to his intent to run than anything he could add as rebuttal to that one person…
He is definitely welcome to send a response; but, it’s probably not really necessary in light of how much positive feedback for him has already been posted.
All that being said… This thread continues to be dragged off topic. There have been at least three moderator requests to keep it on topic (see below). I am going to lock the thread at this time. If Walter does decide to send a statement to me - or anyone else - to have posted as a response, it can be added by me or any other moderator.
Below is Walter’s response:
On Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM, “Walter Anderson” wrote:
Lisa,
Thank you for your generous offer. Below is my response to Zach’s request. Please include in the same thread.
While I understand the desire to focus conversations, I personally believe the idea that we should limit conversation on electronic mediums to be ‘on topic’ is a fundamentally bad idea. At least as the medium has created tools to do so.
If one looks at traditional conversation between individuals, it is readily apparent, that going off-topic is the normal way human beings interact. It is something to be encouraged, because it is one source of human creativity. Yes, when the conversation is a meeting to discuss/accomplish some specific act; such as a board meeting, there is a need to keep things more focused. I don’t believe this is generally the case with electronic communications, since they don’t have a time constraint. Further, I believe attempts to split conversations into separate threads further reduces the functionality of the medium since it removes much of the context that created those spawned conversations, as well as making it even more difficult to use limited search functions to find and locate past conversations.
This latter ability is one of the most important features a board like Talk has for DMS. It represents a knowledge base for the members and prospective members. I have been amazed at the detail and quality of the information made available to others in a permanent way. A perfect example is Beau Williamson’s recent thread where he provided an amazing amount of information to a gentleman in Europe concerning his method for producing lighted panels. In short, Talk is yet another means we already use to fulfill our primary purpose; education.
Thank you Lisa, for posting this for me.
11 Likes