g.man wrote:Is Mod's ego denting your ego google? regards g.man
Mod74 wrote:@google Want to know why I think the other efforts failed? Contributors were cherry picked in private then the finished article was presented back as a done deal. The wider community wasn't offered the chance to contribute. Because you'd chosen a small group the weight of producing fell on a small number of shoulders. Eventually that's too much to bear and one link breaks and the whole lot falls apart. Keep it open to all and you're far more likely to get and maintain interest and contributions. The community as a whole grows stronger had feels invested. Everyone benefits on both ends (creating and consuming) not just a small section.
google wrote:I look forward to the next argument from mod that argue's against points that I've never actually made.
Look I need no encouragement. To stab, or anything else.Petey wrote:I'll give you FTP access, brooks, if you want to take a stab at it
Mod74 wrote:Look, maybe I've had a bit of a kneejerk reaction here against what I thought you were suggesting compared to what you thought you were, but you've got form here and don't pretend you don't.
This.monkey wrote:So we'd need some consensus on what people want for the future. Or at least deciding on a mechanism for deciding stuff.
monkey wrote:This. Or we can just let two people (1/100th of the membership) decide what's going to happen in the future on the back of some festering rivalry they've had going for years. A voting system for shit like this is the only way.monkey wrote:So we'd need some consensus on what people want for the future. Or at least deciding on a mechanism for deciding stuff.
Grow the fuck up you stupid prick.google wrote:This is me ignoring your dumb and ignorant post.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!