SEM editorial

Gordon Wright has again used his position to have a pop at this newsgroup. He was apparently "horrified" to read that eight years ago a comment was made to the effect that David Edgington was slow to answer readers' enquiries, and "even more aghast" to learn that this comment is still there eight years later. He finishes by saying "Like the Church of Scotland, reputable Internet News Groups and Forums etc, have 'Moderators' to police them. I do hope the Moderator of the Stationary Engine Internet News Group takes action to remove this comment immediately". What he refers to is a section in DWE's Engine Torque which misquotes a post and also fails to mention that the poster subsequently apologised for any distress his comments may have caused.

All he has done is demonstrate that he doesn't understand the medium - a thread on this NG like a chat you might have at a club evening, with the important differences that; a)everybody can overhear, and b)the conversation is recorded. There is no moderator, Usenet is largely an anarchy in the original - non pejorative - sense of the word. The archived posts - now held by Google - are a matter of historical record and I believe it is generally agreed that attempting to distort history is a bad thing reserved for totalitarian regimes such as Stalinist Russia.

I find GW's negative attitude toward this newsgroup, and in fact the internet in general, rather disturbing. As a long time subscriber and occasional contributor, I would not be without SEM. But I do fear somewhat for it's future if it fails to embrace new technology - Perhaps Kelsey is no longer a suitable vessel for such a precious cargo?

-- NHH

Reply to
Nick H
Loading thread data ...

Nick, Totally agree with your comment, I think we should all point out the fact that this was taken out of context in SEM. One simple comment, that was subsequently rescinded, smacks of inadequate research and knowledge of the subject - something that has become more apparent in SEM in recent years.

Regards Dan

Reply to
Dan Howden

Nothing has changed!

I dropped SEM five years ago as it was not really providing anything in the way of new information, just a lot of rehashed stuff. The pictures were getting bigger and bigger and the written content smaller and smaller.

I still read the back numbers, the best in my view being pre-GW when DWE was editing and producing the mag.

Peter

-- Peter & Rita Forbes Email: snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk Web:

formatting link

Reply to
Peter A Forbes

"Peter A Forbes" wrote :-

Don't get me wrong, I still find SEM a good read and an invaluable permanent record.

Going for a soaking at Lamport over the holiday?

Reply to
Nick H

..........................

Eight years? Rather elephantine or has he nothing more newsworthy to editorialise about. As to wanting to have posts on usenet expunged, how will he achieve expunging his above quote from the record? After all, it demonstrates that one Gordon Wright, editor of Stationary Engine Magazine (SEM)is an ill-informed tosser! That BTW is for posterity.

BTW if SEM wasn't such a mickey mouse outfit and had a functioning website that allowed direct communication, Gordon Wright would be in receipt of my view, rather than the list. Ironic?

Tom

Reply to
Tom

No, we have plenty of stuff to get out at the factory for the end of the month, so will be there over the weekend. April and May are a pain from a production point of view, full of holidays!

Peter

-- Peter & Rita Forbes Email: snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk Web:

formatting link

Reply to
Peter A Forbes

Gentlemen, With the permissions of the persons involved I would like to write to SEM asking that the FULL article be printed to show that what has been printed and what was actually said are two different things. Its bad enough when the national press print their own version of events than the truth about something's, I can only assume that it must have been quiet for editorial this month. DW also forgets that the Web acts as a very good instant library so the good and the bad has easy access, so so the written word which may have been left forgotten because of the time to go through back numbers.

Reply to
campingstoveman

Talk about not blowing your own trumpet.

SEM & DE have just created a bigger problem for themselves by highlighting a point of view(which we are all entitled to) from someone many many moons ago.

Also to state the following

"Nowdays we live in the Internet age where everyone expects answers or goods by return"

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What people like is to know that they are being dealt with and that is different.

Doesn't paint a good picture of people in the hobby does it.

Dikster

P.S Whatever next

""Stationary engines and Politics on the same page"

Reply to
dikster1

T> Eight years? Rather elephantine or has he nothing more newsworthy to T> editorialise about. As to wanting to have posts on usenet expunged, how T> will he achieve expunging his above quote from the record? After all, T> it demonstrates that one Gordon Wright, editor of Stationary Engine T> Magazine (SEM)is an ill-informed tosser! That BTW is for posterity.

T> BTW if SEM wasn't such a mickey mouse outfit and had a functioning T> website that allowed direct communication, Gordon Wright would be in T> receipt of my view, rather than the list. Ironic?

GW's email address is in the magazine and as a matter of courtesy I copied my post to him (with a small apology for the rather provocative last sentence!). I don't think a tirade of abuse is likely to enhance the NG's standing in his eyes though.

nickh=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 2.2.0.8

Reply to
nickh

Nick You started this with your post to the list, neglecting to mention your copy to Gordon Wright. I suggest your post may have been better served if you had waited to see what Gordon Wright's response was. Next time you don't want Gordon Wright described as an ill-informed tosser, I suggest you keep Gordon Wright's deficiencies to yourself, and not go fishing for comments. Going on what "you" posted, said Gordon Wright fits the description in a conversational manner. Maybe you tend to mingle in more prissy circles, that tend toward circumlocution, that's up to you. As for Gordon Wright's email address, I don't subscribe to SEM and further more if Gordon Wright had any intestinal fortitude why didn't he address his concerns direct to the list. BTW, Nick, it's a bit late to be wanting to be found sitting on the fence. Also, Nick, if Gordon Wright's editorial wasn't a tirade, it made for a pretty good imitation.

Tom

Reply to
Tom

"Tom" wrote

Must admit it was only after I had posted that I thought it would be polite to copy him in, it is after all unlikely that he actually reads this NG or he might have checked his facts. I look forward to a personal response - for the moment all I have is an automated 'out of the office' message.

Ill-informed maybe, but I don't see how my post might suggest that he is a 'friend of Onan'

Fair comment - I would indeed tend to use more moderate language 'on the record'

As above, AFIK GW does not read this NG - he has certainly never contributed.

I hope that's not the way it came over.

I guess the bit about moderators may just about fall into that catagory.

Night night.

Reply to
Nick H

I think he does, and so does DWE on occasions (which is how the original subject came about, DWE had seen something on this newsgroup which he took offence at)

There was a mention of 'web-crawlers' to Roland Craven from GW in a response to something along this thread's lines IIRC.

Nothing preventing both him and DWE being lurkers, but it would make fairer commenting if both contributed or replied to matters that related to them both..

Peter

-- Peter & Rita Forbes Email: snipped-for-privacy@easynet.co.uk Web:

formatting link

Reply to
Peter A Forbes

If it helps, the stationary engine fraternity can take solace in the fact that they are not the only ones with these chaps in their hierarchy. I believe a committee member of the NTET (steam) has stated the internet should be 'burned.' And AFAIAA the NTET refuse to participate in any web based discussion groups.

Julian.

Reply to
Julian

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.