K wrote:
>If memory serves me correctly, alternatives have presented themselves in the
>past. In fact, searching the archives, I found several offers to host and
>manage the website for free. For one such example, see
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/letterbox-usa/message/3363
>
>I don't know in any of these offers still stand, but even if they don't,
>there may be others on this list who may have the skillset or the resources
>to handle this, and who would be willing to come forth.
>
>Also, I think it would most in keeping with the spirit of this list, if this
>discourse was held on the list, rather than behind the scenes.
OK I'm feeling a bit froggy today so I'll jump on this. The offer
mentioned above was made by me and subsequently withdrawn as I became
vaguely aware of the heated opinions of some behind the scenes when
discussing my offer. If anyone is interested in the history of why
this might be, I posted a brief overview to the list around the time
of my offer mentioned above.
The Secret Society:
Here is the issue. The webmasters are a secret group that has refused
to open the webmaster list archives to the group who's interest they
claim to represent. It has been others, not me, who requested it be
open. Up until today I have intentionally stayed out of it because I
was tired of all the BS. I have no idea what rational they use to
maintain this secrecy other than treating the letterboxing community
as children who couldn't handle their parents arguements and act in
their best interest. While it is true that many may not care about
the behind the scenes issues that make letterboxing work, those who
do care should know what is going on. I am confident many unpleasant
things have been said about me by some (NOT all) of that group, and
that is fine. However, I also believe that others in the group who
happen to have supported me in some manner (such as the hosting
offer) have taken considerable heat just for voicing their opinion.
In the interest of privacy I will not go into details, but just say I
have talked privately with more than one person who indicated the
level of acrimony that exists.
That is my opinion. I will not debate it on the list with any
webmasters until they open the archives and pledge to remove this
veil of secrecy that allows them to hide their view from the
community. I suggest that any of you who care about such issues
pressure for the archives to be opened and further discussion to
become public.
Well I have turned on the fan so let's see what hits it ;-)
--
Regards,
Eric Mings Ph.D.
Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
5 messages in this thread |
Started on 2001-06-04
Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
From: Eric Mings (elm@letterboxing.com) |
Date: 2001-06-04 09:54:42 UTC-04:00
RE: [LbNA] Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
From: A. Keith Eaton III (keith@ksdmsystems.com) |
Date: 2001-06-04 10:12:14 UTC-04:00
Eric Mings wrote
".... I will not debate it on the list with any webmasters until they open
the archives and pledge to remove this veil of secrecy that allows them to
hide their view from the community. I suggest that any of you who care about
such issues pressure for the archives to be opened and further discussion to
become public. "
If such a veil of secrecy exists it should be removed. In my opinion any
veil of secrecy like this is more objectionable than posting without your
real name.
It is interesting to note the absence of some of the older and in my opinion
best letterboxers from this and other side issues like the
"safety/liability" issue.
Keith Eaton
Guilford, CT
".... I will not debate it on the list with any webmasters until they open
the archives and pledge to remove this veil of secrecy that allows them to
hide their view from the community. I suggest that any of you who care about
such issues pressure for the archives to be opened and further discussion to
become public. "
If such a veil of secrecy exists it should be removed. In my opinion any
veil of secrecy like this is more objectionable than posting without your
real name.
It is interesting to note the absence of some of the older and in my opinion
best letterboxers from this and other side issues like the
"safety/liability" issue.
Keith Eaton
Guilford, CT
Re: Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
From: (defygravity@snet.net) |
Date: 2001-06-05 03:18:53 UTC
I have to say that I've seen this dynamic in MANY large (and small)
groups. Once the suggestion of sharing is made, and another refuses,
it often launches a debate which frequently will factionalize the
group into the "Us" and "Them."
With letterboxing, all I want is to get clues and find boxes. The
activity shouldn't lend itself to political strife...but seeing the
recent arguments sparked from one person getting stuck out past
dark...I bet we're in for it now.
~ Aili
(once again reminded of Charles I)
> The Secret Society:
>
> Here is the issue. The webmasters are a secret group that has
refused
> to open the webmaster list archives to the group who's interest
they
> claim to represent.
groups. Once the suggestion of sharing is made, and another refuses,
it often launches a debate which frequently will factionalize the
group into the "Us" and "Them."
With letterboxing, all I want is to get clues and find boxes. The
activity shouldn't lend itself to political strife...but seeing the
recent arguments sparked from one person getting stuck out past
dark...I bet we're in for it now.
~ Aili
(once again reminded of Charles I)
> The Secret Society:
>
> Here is the issue. The webmasters are a secret group that has
refused
> to open the webmaster list archives to the group who's interest
they
> claim to represent.
[LbNA] Re: Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
From: Eric Mings (elm@letterboxing.com) |
Date: 2001-06-05 09:06:22 UTC-04:00
This will likely be my last posting on the subject to clarify a
couple of questions that have been asked. The essential issue to me
is that a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to seal
off their mailing list from the group they claim to represent. The
problem is that they make decisions that affect everyone involved in
the hobby. The argument made by Susan that essentially we decided it
was private so you don't have the right to know what we discuss is
circular. I really wouldn't give a rat's patoot about any of it
except that I have been consistently told by several people of the
grief they have experienced when expressing opinions that some people
did not like. Consequently, some have either left the group, or the
hobby all together. Others have become very reluctant to say anything
due to the way they have been treated.
As I said previously, though I have been aware of this for quite some
time via private communications from others, I had stayed completely
out of it. If I am full of baloney as might be suggested by some,
opening the archives would certainly clear up the issue. If people
want to "leave well enough alone" and don't care about the alienation
of people who have made significant contributions to the hobby they
now enjoy, that's fine. Unfortunately, I think that John is probably
right that they will never open the archives because of the
embarrassment of some (NOT all) people's behavior. Whether you care
or not at least you are aware. I'm done, back to your regularly
scheduled programming ;-)
--
Regards,
Eric Mings Ph.D.
couple of questions that have been asked. The essential issue to me
is that a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to seal
off their mailing list from the group they claim to represent. The
problem is that they make decisions that affect everyone involved in
the hobby. The argument made by Susan that essentially we decided it
was private so you don't have the right to know what we discuss is
circular. I really wouldn't give a rat's patoot about any of it
except that I have been consistently told by several people of the
grief they have experienced when expressing opinions that some people
did not like. Consequently, some have either left the group, or the
hobby all together. Others have become very reluctant to say anything
due to the way they have been treated.
As I said previously, though I have been aware of this for quite some
time via private communications from others, I had stayed completely
out of it. If I am full of baloney as might be suggested by some,
opening the archives would certainly clear up the issue. If people
want to "leave well enough alone" and don't care about the alienation
of people who have made significant contributions to the hobby they
now enjoy, that's fine. Unfortunately, I think that John is probably
right that they will never open the archives because of the
embarrassment of some (NOT all) people's behavior. Whether you care
or not at least you are aware. I'm done, back to your regularly
scheduled programming ;-)
--
Regards,
Eric Mings Ph.D.
Re: [LbNA] Re: Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
From: Glenn (Glenn.Hansen@usa.net) |
Date: 2001-06-05 09:53:18 UTC-07:00
I don't get it!
What can the webmasters do behind the scene that needs airing out?
Poor color choices? Don't like the background design? HUH? What is it?
These folks seem fairly powerless to me. If they put my clues up or link my
web page they have done everything.
I DON'T GET IT!
Are they modifying clues? Not putting them up? What are we suppose to find
in these secret archives?
I really don't see what anyone has to lose or gain with these mystery
archives.
I DON'T GET IT? What is the problem?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Mings"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:06 AM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
> This will likely be my last posting on the subject to clarify a
> couple of questions that have been asked. The essential issue to me
> is that a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to seal
> off their mailing list from the group they claim to represent. The
> problem is that they make decisions that affect everyone involved in
> the hobby. The argument made by Susan that essentially we decided it
> was private so you don't have the right to know what we discuss is
> circular. I really wouldn't give a rat's patoot about any of it
> except that I have been consistently told by several people of the
> grief they have experienced when expressing opinions that some people
> did not like. Consequently, some have either left the group, or the
> hobby all together. Others have become very reluctant to say anything
> due to the way they have been treated.
>
> As I said previously, though I have been aware of this for quite some
> time via private communications from others, I had stayed completely
> out of it. If I am full of baloney as might be suggested by some,
> opening the archives would certainly clear up the issue. If people
> want to "leave well enough alone" and don't care about the alienation
> of people who have made significant contributions to the hobby they
> now enjoy, that's fine. Unfortunately, I think that John is probably
> right that they will never open the archives because of the
> embarrassment of some (NOT all) people's behavior. Whether you care
> or not at least you are aware. I'm done, back to your regularly
> scheduled programming ;-)
> --
> Regards,
>
> Eric Mings Ph.D.
>
What can the webmasters do behind the scene that needs airing out?
Poor color choices? Don't like the background design? HUH? What is it?
These folks seem fairly powerless to me. If they put my clues up or link my
web page they have done everything.
I DON'T GET IT!
Are they modifying clues? Not putting them up? What are we suppose to find
in these secret archives?
I really don't see what anyone has to lose or gain with these mystery
archives.
I DON'T GET IT? What is the problem?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Mings"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:06 AM
Subject: [LbNA] Re: Secret Society Was: Paying the bills at LbNA
> This will likely be my last posting on the subject to clarify a
> couple of questions that have been asked. The essential issue to me
> is that a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to seal
> off their mailing list from the group they claim to represent. The
> problem is that they make decisions that affect everyone involved in
> the hobby. The argument made by Susan that essentially we decided it
> was private so you don't have the right to know what we discuss is
> circular. I really wouldn't give a rat's patoot about any of it
> except that I have been consistently told by several people of the
> grief they have experienced when expressing opinions that some people
> did not like. Consequently, some have either left the group, or the
> hobby all together. Others have become very reluctant to say anything
> due to the way they have been treated.
>
> As I said previously, though I have been aware of this for quite some
> time via private communications from others, I had stayed completely
> out of it. If I am full of baloney as might be suggested by some,
> opening the archives would certainly clear up the issue. If people
> want to "leave well enough alone" and don't care about the alienation
> of people who have made significant contributions to the hobby they
> now enjoy, that's fine. Unfortunately, I think that John is probably
> right that they will never open the archives because of the
> embarrassment of some (NOT all) people's behavior. Whether you care
> or not at least you are aware. I'm done, back to your regularly
> scheduled programming ;-)
> --
> Regards,
>
> Eric Mings Ph.D.
>