rude woodturners

[robert davis]

before reading the global warming posts ithought all woodturners were nice people

 

[Ruth Niles]

That's not fair, Robert. They are all nice, they are just enjoying a heated arguement...er discussion. Go to the next symposium and you won't see a single one of them with a frown or confronting another turner. Each one of them is absolutely right because what they are all saying is their own feelings and opinions and we all know opinionscan't be wrong only facts can be right or wrong.

We actually all love each other.

 

[George Guadiane]

before reading the global warming posts ithought all woodturners were nice people

I am a very nice person with very strong opinions...
Is that a bad thing???
(by the way, you should jump in over there, it's getting to be silly)

 

[Bill Grumbine]

My wife says I have a strong opinion about everything. What does she know? Actually she knows me very well! :cool2:

But Ruth is right. Life would be unbearably dull if we were all vanilla and bland. And anyone who has met me knows I am just a big teddy bear.

Bill

 

[Desert Pete]

Read a few of the posts and I did not see anyone being particularly rude. Strong opinions, yes.

I frequent some other forums where people get so worked up the moderator actually has to remove the posts to avoid blood in the streets. I saw none of that in these posts.

 

[John Van Domelen]

Lol

What - we should all be Bliss Ninnys

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blissninny.htm

 

[Ruth Niles]

OMG, my sister is a Bliss Ninny! I love it

 

[Charles Henderson]

I agree with Ruth, your being unfair

That's not fair, Robert. They are all nice, they are just enjoying a heated arguement...er discussion. Go to the next symposium and you won't see a single one of them with a frown or confronting another turner. Each one of them is absolutely right because what they are all saying is their own feelings and opinions and we all know opinionscan't be wrong only facts can be right or wrong.

We actually all love each other.

I couldn't agree more :cool2:

It is very easy to assume that woodturners are nice people because most of them are. I am much nicer to woodturners than I am anyone else. I have found the woodturning community to be the most friendly and genuinely helpful group I've ever come accross. However, we are still made up of a very wide and varied demographic. The controversial issues that divide the public so badly are impacting woodturners just as much as anyone else. We all have opinions about the world, but not many of these subjects apply to us. This one absolutely does. The discussion IMHO is very long overdue, but you just can't expect everyone to put aside their passionate feelings while in debate.

 

[Ed Davidson]

With all respect, guys...what I don't get about these opinion-laden threads is that the underlying issue, concern, complaint, or whatever is never directly addressed to those who might actually be able to do something about it. The preferred approach seems to be to lay it out for the world to view, comment on, get upset about, and on and on...versus going directly to the source for a solution.

For example, on the recent thread regarding global warming and the winter AW issue, it seems to me that the most effective way to have this concern addressed would be to get in touch with the AW editor (Carl Voss) and the AAW's Publications Committee, who are: Jean LeGwin (chair), Bill Haskell, Malcolm Tibbetts, Malcolm Zander and Kay Haskell.

BTW, contact info for all of these folks is located here.

And, if you’re not happy with the response you get from the AAW’s leadership, consider running for a Board seat so you can influence policy directly. Click here to learn about becoming a Director of the AAW.

 

[Ruth Niles]

For example, on the recent thread regarding global warming and the winter AW issue, it seems to me that the most effective way to have this concern addressed would be to get in touch with the AW editor (Carl Voss) and the AAW's Publications Committee, who are: Jean LeGwin (chair), Bill Haskell, Malcolm Tibbetts, Malcolm Zander and Kay Haskell.

BTW, contact info for all of these folks is located here.

And, if you’re not happy with the response you get from the AAW’s leadership, consider running for a Board seat so you can influence policy directly. Click here to learn about becoming a Director of the AAW.

Ed,

Isn't this the AAW Forum?

Don't any of the board members (besides by buddy Malcolm Tibbetts) read and participate here?

Haven't all of us expressed our concerns and opinions? Now you want us to email Carl and all those people just to repeat everything said here?

Re-read every post and tell me there's a "majority" of any opinion there. If we all went to those guys, what in the world would they decide except no one agrees?!?!

And suggesting if we're not happy with the response from the leadership that, if we run for the board, get elected, all the other people on the board are going to say "whoa, now we have to change everything to his/her way". Ok, I know that's not what you meant and you're saying if you're on the board you can do more than just talk about something. That's what we do here: discuss, debate, express opinions and suggest. The board members should be required to read their own forums to see what the membership is saying.

Ruth

 

[Ron Sardo]

Imagine if we all turned the same size and shaped bowl from the same kind of wood and we turned nothing else but this same form. Turning would become pretty boring.

We are having a debate, no one is going postal.
What is wrong with expressing differing opinions?

 

[Ron Sardo]

Ed,

Isn't this the AAW Forum?

Don't any of the board members (besides by buddy Malcolm Tibbetts) read and participate here?

Haven't all of us expressed our concerns and opinions? Now you want us to email Carl and all those people just to repeat everything said here?

Re-read every post and tell me there's a "majority" of any opinion there. If we all went to those guys, what in the world would they decide except no one agrees?!?!

And suggesting if we're not happy with the response from the leadership that, if we run for the board, get elected, all the other people on the board are going to say "whoa, now we have to change everything to his/her way". Ok, I know that's not what you meant and you're saying if you're on the board you can do more than just talk about something. That's what we do here: discuss, debate, express opinions and suggest. The board members should be required to read their own forums to see what the membership is saying.

Ruth

Well Said Ruth

 

[Norm Smith]

Robert, I had one occasion where a rude woodturner addressed a post of mine by responding with one word (daw) He was obviously an ***. I responded in kind. However 99.99% of the woodturners that I have had contact with are great people. A lot of turners like me love to debate an issue and sometimes a response may sound rude when actually it is only an honest opinion and wasnt meant to offend. Dont give up on this site, there are too many nice people here.
Norm

 

[robert davis]

thank you ,ed ,you echo my opinion

With all respect, guys...what I don't get about these opinion-laden threads is that the underlying issue, concern, complaint, or whatever is never directly addressed to those who might actually be able to do something about it. The preferred approach seems to be to lay it out for the world to view, comment on, get upset about, and on and on...versus going directly to the source for a solution.

For example, on the recent thread regarding global warming and the winter AW issue, it seems to me that the most effective way to have this concern addressed would be to get in touch with the AW editor (Carl Voss) and the AAW's Publications Committee, who are: Jean LeGwin (chair), Bill Haskell, Malcolm Tibbetts, Malcolm Zander and Kay Haskell.

BTW, contact info for all of these folks is located here.

And, if you’re not happy with the response you get from the AAW’s leadership, consider running for a Board seat so you can influence policy directly. Click here to learn about becoming a Director of the AAW.

looks like i only added fuel to the wildfire.

 

[Sean Troy]

Ed,

Isn't this the AAW Forum?

Don't any of the board members (besides by buddy Malcolm Tibbetts) read and participate here?

Haven't all of us expressed our concerns and opinions? Now you want us to email Carl and all those people just to repeat everything said here?

Re-read every post and tell me there's a "majority" of any opinion there. If we all went to those guys, what in the world would they decide except no one agrees?!?!

And suggesting if we're not happy with the response from the leadership that, if we run for the board, get elected, all the other people on the board are going to say "whoa, now we have to change everything to his/her way". Ok, I know that's not what you meant and you're saying if you're on the board you can do more than just talk about something. That's what we do here: discuss, debate, express opinions and suggest. The board members should be required to read their own forums to see what the membership is saying.

Ruth

They must be reading it Ruth, 4 of my responses to these two threads have been removed. I guess you can only post what makes the AAW look good and agree with thier position.

 

[hockenbery]

Ed,

Isn't this the AAW Forum?

Don't any of the board members (besides by buddy Malcolm Tibbetts) read and participate here?

Haven't all of us expressed our concerns and opinions? Now you want us to email Carl and all those people just to repeat everything said here?

Re-read every post and tell me there's a "majority" of any opinion there. If we all went to those guys, what in the world would they decide except no one agrees?!?!

And suggesting if we're not happy with the response from the leadership that, if we run for the board, get elected, all the other people on the board are going to say "whoa, now we have to change everything to his/her way". Ok, I know that's not what you meant and you're saying if you're on the board you can do more than just talk about something. That's what we do here: discuss, debate, express opinions and suggest. The board members should be required to read their own forums to see what the membership is saying.

Ruth

Ruth,
Board members do read the forum Bill Haskell and Malcolm both commented on the environmental thread. I read it but didn't have anything to add. Sean Troy a recent board member also commented. Angelo Iafrate posts frequently too. I make no attempt to read all the posts every day and when When I travel I may miss a week or two of the forum.
Ed was talking about making a personal suggestion with attribution to a board member.
I personally don't take anonymous suggestions nearly as seriously as I do ones made by members willing to discuss them.

Happy turning,
Al

 

[Barry Elder]

Ruth, I think you hit the nail directly in the middle of the head. And if the AAW Forum is not required reading then it should be. How else are the Board members going to know what we disagree on! Some days it would only take about 30 seconds to cover every item. Other days...............well,.....................you know!

 

[Richard Baker]

What's a Bliss Ninney?

 

[Bill Grumbine]

For example, on the recent thread regarding global warming and the winter AW issue, it seems to me that the most effective way to have this concern addressed would be to get in touch with the AW editor (Carl Voss) and the AAW's Publications Committee, who are: Jean LeGwin (chair), Bill Haskell, Malcolm Tibbetts, Malcolm Zander and Kay Haskell.

I wrote Bill Haskell yesterday. I still have not heard back from him yet. I'm not being impatient, just stating that I have followed this route.

Bill

 

[GeorgeH]

What's a Bliss Ninney?

A Bliss Ninny is someone who is obsessively optimistic. They typically try to defuse a heated discussion by introducing humor.

 

[Ron Sardo]

They typically try to defuse a heated discussion by introducing humor.

That can be a good thing.

 

[MichaelMouse]

That can be a good thing.

Or not. Purple polka dots are as likely to get the bull's (pun intended) ire up as solid red.

Older folks like myself recognize "Pollyanna" and have to look up the other.

 

[John Van Domelen]

Come on guys...

What - we should all be Bliss Ninnys

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blissninny.htm

I even posted a link in my post for the Bliss Ninny challenged ...

 

[Ron Sardo]

Or not. Purple polka dots are as likely to get the bull's (pun intended) ire up as solid red.

Older folks like myself recognize "Pollyanna" and have to look up the other.

Bulls are actually color blind.

 

[MichaelMouse]

Bulls are actually color blind.

In the sense that they see only in B/G/W, yes. No cones.

Guess you don't need color vision to tell if the grass is "ripe."

 

[Steve Worcester]

They must be reading it Ruth, 4 of my responses to these two threads have been removed. I guess you can only post what makes the AAW look good and agree with thier position.

I don't know how and I actually take offense to this. I have looked at the logs, which show all activity by moderators. There are two moderators on this forum, Ken and I. We are the only ones with delete rights. Even if someone had the rights (including Supermoderator) it would show up in the logs.
No threads have been deleted at all since 11-20 and those were want ads that were marked sold and one a test message to check editing capabilities.

I have only censored one post in the last year and it was because someone wrote the AAW office and complained about the use of abbreviations that were offensive (to them).

We decided shortly after the forum opened that no threads would be censored or deleted because we didn't like what they said, regardless of whom it was directed at. We have only ever deleted threads that were spam posts and stand by that rule.

 

[Ken Grunke]

A Bliss Ninny is someone who is obsessively optimistic. They typically try to defuse a heated discussion by introducing humor.

I happen to like humor, it feels good and makes me laugh (usually)
I wouldn't define myself as being obsessively optimistic in the least but I think humor is a good antedote for negativity.

 

[John Nicholas]

Older folks like myself recognize "Pollyanna" and have to look up the other.

Oh! My! God! Do I recognize myself with this quote?!?!

I am old to go with my bald head

John

 

[Richard Baker]

Bliss Ninny

Thanks Nu. Checked your link Jovan. Thanks for the reminder to the link-challenged.

 

[KEW]

Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to try to figure out what happened.

Sean,
Did you verify that your posts were in the thread for a while before they were deleted? I'm just looking for the logical (and non-conspiracy) explanation!
I could see how it might be easy, if in a rush, to hit "Preview Post" instead of "Submit Reply" and move on before realizing the post was not made.

 

[JerrySambrook]

A couple of other forums I am on changed the naming convention for the members.
If someone wanted to keep there "handle", then their real name had to automatically appear in the text of any message they created.
Otherwise, the handle is their name.
That stopped quite a bit of the trash talking and rudeness almost overnight, and those that did not want to follow the new convention were blocked form replying or creating, but not from reading.
Maybe if things do get bad in here, that should be what happens.

And sorry to you moderators for bringing that up, because I know that it creates more work for you

Jerry

 

[Ken Grunke]

I find it difficult to take seriously what anyone with an anonymous handle says and am all for this kind of thing. Someone with a real name has more credibility, and is probably more likely to be civil.

 

[Peter Skellenger]

aaw members and their duties

I respectfully disagree that aaw board members should have to read the crap that has been posted about the article in the new issue. Some of the people on this forum are not even members of the AAW and regardless of that, the postings about global warming and the issue were WAY off topic.
I fully agree that the people with such strong opinions about what should or should not be in the issue should at a minimum contact a board member directly and they should surely run for a seat. Suggesting that by doing so would make all the "other" members upset because they have to do something his or her way... bummer. That's the way it is or you would not get elected. It is an election not a dictatorship. I only got through the first cpl pages of that huge thread and I was really turned off by a lot of it. To say that some of the posts were rude is an understatement. I will be sure to NOT waste time meeting the people who authored some of those posts. Opinions are great but some people might want to try writing them down before posting them.

 

[odie]

I find it difficult to take seriously what anyone with an anonymous handle says and am all for this kind of thing. Someone with a real name has more credibility, and is probably more likely to be civil.

Ken......

I don't use my real name, and I have my reasons for that. This doesn't mean I won't be civil with anyone on this forum......I've never treated anyone here with contempt or disrespect, even though there are times where I disagree with some of the comments here.

I value the input you and others have given. Since I've been totally secluded from other woodturners for about 25yrs of turning, I'm getting a lot of insight and help from other turners......I REALLY appreciate that!

I guess I thought I knew it all, before discovering this forum! Maybe I do know a thing or two, but I'm discovering I'm far behind the curve with a few other aspects of my turning.

Anyway, I don't agree that giving a real name is necessary.......being civil IS!

We have moderators here. When someone gets out of line.....they can be banned......that's their job, when it becomes necessary.

otis of cologne


BTW: I am NOT a member of AAW......and I may not become a member. I'm not a club kind of person, it's not what's important to me. I'm getting everything I want to get from the regular members of this forum......but, I really don't want the camaraderie of a club.

Once in awhile, I do think I might join AAW......for the newsletter, but I haven't yet. I would like to go to one of the conventions, and see first hand, some of the other turnings you AAW members are producing, but like I said......I have no interest in club type activities.

OOC

 

[George Guadiane]

BTW: I am NOT a member of AAW......and I may not become a member. I'm not a club kind of person, it's not what's important to me. I'm getting everything I want to get from the regular members of this forum......but, I really don't want the camaraderie of a club.

Once in awhile, I do think I might join AAW......for the newsletter, but I haven't yet. I would like to go to one of the conventions, and see first hand, some of the other turnings you AAW members are producing, but like I said......I have no interest in club type activities.

OOC

Odie,
I'm not normally a joiner either, but I am a member of several organizations now, and glad and proud of it...
Consider the possibility of what you can GIVE, not just what you can get from joining in - - The odd thing is, how much I have felt I have gotten in the "giving process, it's kinda nice (JMHO).

 

[Bill Grumbine]

I respectfully disagree that aaw board members should have to read the crap that has been posted about the article in the new issue. Some of the people on this forum are not even members of the AAW and regardless of that, the postings about global warming and the issue were WAY off topic.

Interesting. In a thread decrying rudeness on the board here, we have Mr. Skellenger referring to the opinions of others as "crap". Do I understand you correctly Mr Skellenger? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what you mean by "crap that has been posted". Are the only legitimate opinions positive ones? Or perhaps, the only legitimate opinions are those with which you agree.

Opinions are great but some people might want to try writing them down before posting them.

Why might that be? Are some opinions more equal than others? It seems that way from what you are writing. Perhaps you should heed your own advice. You know, I have a strong opinion on just about everything. I also recognize that other people have strong opinions, and that their opinions may not even be close to mine. But that does not mean I fail to recognize their right to express it and hold to it, within the boundaries of polite society of course. I don't see how calling what other people write "crap" stays within those boundaries though. Perhaps you could educate me on that.

Oh yeah, I wrote Bill Haskell a week ago about this and still have not heard back.

Bill

 

[KEW]

I find it difficult to take seriously what anyone with an anonymous handle says and am all for this kind of thing. Someone with a real name has more credibility, and is probably more likely to be civil.

One thing to consider is that many members don't use their name simply because they are being cautious. When I signed on I used my initials, not because I knew of a danger, but I did not feel knowledgeable enough about the risks of presenting my identity on the internet (even in the AAW forum). About 4 months ago, I decided the risks were low and it made sense to use my name in my signature.

I think a lot depends on individual backgrounds.
I understand and appreciate that you do not readily assign as much credibility to people with aliases, but wanted to make sure you recognize that not all members who do not use their name intend to make mischief.

If I were a celebrity, say like Richard Raffan, I might also enjoy the anonymity of signing on under an alias. This would allow me to provide candid responses without upsetting relations with vendors, for example.

Lastly, if names were required, I believe a body could still sign on under an alias as long as it sounded like a real name. Is this correct?

 

[Jake Debski]

.....................Lastly, if names were required, I believe a body could still sign on under an alias as long as it sounded like a real name. Is this correct?

You mean like my friend, Morris N. Tennon??

 

[Ken Grunke]

First, I want to make it clear that I was speaking only for myself, offering my personal opinion, and not as a moderator or rep of AAW. I don't set new user policy and have not discussed this with Steve.
If I were the one to set that policy, I wouldn't require real names be used, but would only suggest it to be a better idea than using an anonymous handle.
Otis, George, and Kurt, you guys ARE using your real names (I assume)--first names and initials are OK as far as I'm concerned and I have no doubts regarding your credibility. Thanks for your input, guys.

 

[odie]

Otis, George, and Kurt, you guys ARE using your real names (I assume)

.

Actually.....not!

If the truth be known, Odie was a favorite dog of mine. Because of that once popular cartoon character, "Odie Colognie", the amorous skunk that never got the girl because he was a little too stinky.....Odie took on his moniker for a time, but evolved into "otis of cologne".......!

Heh,heh,heh!

otis of cologne