Why don’t you go and get ****ed?
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip LaRocco [mailto
larocco@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2002 7:28 PM
To: DIYaudio Forums Mailer
Subject: requiring a search prior to posting a new thread
your site has some stupid quarks and that is why I do not post there anymore one is requiring a search in order to post. not only is that bad but after you search I still get the same message. I will not post on your site until that problem is corrected. No other DIY audio sites require this. Thanks user ppl
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip LaRocco [mailto
larocco@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 9 December 2002 7:28 PM
To: DIYaudio Forums Mailer
Subject: requiring a search prior to posting a new thread
your site has some stupid quarks and that is why I do not post there anymore one is requiring a search in order to post. not only is that bad but after you search I still get the same message. I will not post on your site until that problem is corrected. No other DIY audio sites require this. Thanks user ppl
????????????
Hey ppL,
I don't understand your prob. If it's about the search you have to do before starting a new thread: you have to check a little box on top of the opening post form. You don't even need to make a search, the only thing you have to do is to check the bloody box!
Why do you insult people for something like that? That's poor behaviour.......
Hey ppL,
I don't understand your prob. If it's about the search you have to do before starting a new thread: you have to check a little box on top of the opening post form. You don't even need to make a search, the only thing you have to do is to check the bloody box!
Why do you insult people for something like that? That's poor behaviour.......
I did not understand about the check box untill alot later. poor behaviour on my part Perhapps However if you spent the time i did trying to get this solved you would not be at your best ether. My point is that in no way should a Modorator or anyone else be so Vulgar in a reply people is it Just in the U.S.A that this matters and the rest of the world this is considered ok?
Re: Check the box, in upper left Corner, after your Search.
Can't really see how it could be more obvious since it is there at the start of the page:
Have you searched?
(Required)
That does not however justify the vulgar reply. Other things may.
On the other hand I personally think that that question is justified and definitely should be there. If there was only a way to check that a search actually was performed would be even better. That way we wouldn't have thousands of threads on heatsinks and PSUs for Aleph 5...maybe.
/UrSv
halojoy said:
Can't really see how it could be more obvious since it is there at the start of the page:
Have you searched?
(Required)
That does not however justify the vulgar reply. Other things may.
On the other hand I personally think that that question is justified and definitely should be there. If there was only a way to check that a search actually was performed would be even better. That way we wouldn't have thousands of threads on heatsinks and PSUs for Aleph 5...maybe.
/UrSv
Yes i totaly missed the Checkbox for searching. this is not required on the sites i frequent the most so it did not occur to me that this was a requirement on these fourms. Yes my primarry complaint is the Vulgar reply I could have lived with anything elce. Like, Hay stupid... ect. However To reply to a members request for help However moronic it may seem with such a Reply is totaly unexceptable and i have Never in my life got sutch an answer from an Internet Administrator. People in that Posistion are to use tact and not fly off the handel like that as thay are not fit for that Posistion if that be the case with Them. dealing with the Plublic should be by People that understand how to do it right. How long would say Microsoft Keep such a person?
treated etc
PPL,
If I may put this a little bit more in perspective, this was your msg:
"your site has some stupid quarks and that is why I do not post there anymore one is requiring a search in order to post. not only is that bad but after you search I still get the same message. I will not post on your site until that problem is corrected. No other DIY audio sites require this. Thanks user ppl"
Who do you now think is "flying off the handle"?
I do not endorse the vulgar remark, but after reading your msg I can perfectly understand the frustrated remark by a monitor. Not agree, but understand, read what I say.
It would show a lot of maturety from your side if you would acknowledge that.
Jan Didden
PPL,
If I may put this a little bit more in perspective, this was your msg:
"your site has some stupid quarks and that is why I do not post there anymore one is requiring a search in order to post. not only is that bad but after you search I still get the same message. I will not post on your site until that problem is corrected. No other DIY audio sites require this. Thanks user ppl"
Who do you now think is "flying off the handle"?
I do not endorse the vulgar remark, but after reading your msg I can perfectly understand the frustrated remark by a monitor. Not agree, but understand, read what I say.
It would show a lot of maturety from your side if you would acknowledge that.
Jan Didden
Why do you all make yourself a big head about checking the box?
I think the big point is that some moderator replied in a vulgar way which is not right.
I think if this special moderator is not able to apologize he´s got the wrong job here and should get ****ed for every member being here.
Jens
I think the big point is that some moderator replied in a vulgar way which is not right.
I think if this special moderator is not able to apologize he´s got the wrong job here and should get ****ed for every member being here.
Jens
I dont know about anyone elce but i do not take kindly to being told to Get ******* if thay are not where i can hit them, and i am sure most perple will not also. moreover i intended to bring this up as it is an issue that needs to be taken care of and jason should reconsider his posistion if this is his attatude.
A) So who is the moderator who sent that to you? You have not made yourself very clear in this thread at all. I spent several posts thinking, "What is this guy talking about? There is no moderator named Philip LaRocco!
B) The moderator who sent that to you was wrong. However, your original statement was less-than-polite, and invited a less-than-polite reply. Not as bad as you got, true, but there is no reason why the moderator has to be nice while you vent away about "stupid quarks", (I didn't know we had an Nuclear Physics forum, LOL), and issue ultimatums that if everyone doesn't jump up and change something immediately, you are not posting here anymore.
Some ultimatum. The board has over 3,000 members posting here. Did you seriously think you would be missed?
C) Your original contention about the Search requirement is without merit. This is a technical forum, and the same material gets covered over and over again. It makes little sense to have an exhaustive discussion on a topic over the course of several days, only to find that a week later the same question is being asked again by a different member.
That Search requirement was put in there so we, the users, can have a better forum without having the same questions being asked and answered all the time. The forum wants to answer the basic questions, especially by newbies, but also wants to put special emphasis on new and inventive approaches to things. Hence, the Search requirement.
If events are as you describe them, and there were no additional insulting parts to your original post, I do believe the moderator should be called up on the carpet. However, it should be noted that his response was not completely out-of-the-blue, but rather an overreaction to a post that was insulting in the first place.
B) The moderator who sent that to you was wrong. However, your original statement was less-than-polite, and invited a less-than-polite reply. Not as bad as you got, true, but there is no reason why the moderator has to be nice while you vent away about "stupid quarks", (I didn't know we had an Nuclear Physics forum, LOL), and issue ultimatums that if everyone doesn't jump up and change something immediately, you are not posting here anymore.
Some ultimatum. The board has over 3,000 members posting here. Did you seriously think you would be missed?
C) Your original contention about the Search requirement is without merit. This is a technical forum, and the same material gets covered over and over again. It makes little sense to have an exhaustive discussion on a topic over the course of several days, only to find that a week later the same question is being asked again by a different member.
That Search requirement was put in there so we, the users, can have a better forum without having the same questions being asked and answered all the time. The forum wants to answer the basic questions, especially by newbies, but also wants to put special emphasis on new and inventive approaches to things. Hence, the Search requirement.
If events are as you describe them, and there were no additional insulting parts to your original post, I do believe the moderator should be called up on the carpet. However, it should be noted that his response was not completely out-of-the-blue, but rather an overreaction to a post that was insulting in the first place.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.