Chris Heapy Site

Pete Lawrence wrote:
Yes but if Hanlon's Razor applies, surely to God the chap doesn't
deserve to be cast into the pit of hell for evermore.

Who's cast him into a pit of hell. A question was asked, I answered it.
I expressed my opinions. Others have expressed theirs. Mine may be in
the minority, but it is a sorry day when minority opinions will be
censored on this NG. I'm not trying to suppress anyone else's opinions
or stop anyone using the Canadian spammer's site if they want to. Each
of us is different, expresses his own opinions, and makes his own
choices -- what the heck is so bad about that?

Would you boycott Tesco because they put adverts on the TV that are
difficult to interpret as anything other than an attempt to attract
people away from Sainsbury's, etc.

False analogy.

I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that if AstroBuySell had not
trolled/spammed/whatever, the argument would have been - why was it
necessary to set up another site anyway, AstroAds was fine!

Yup, I agree with that.


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Pete Lawrence wrote:
Exactly my point when the competition to Chris' site was set up.

But now that there is only one, you wont use it!

Au contraire! Someone has kindly initiated one, probably as a
consequence of Chris's one going tits-up, and I *am* using it.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:14:45 +0000, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Pete Lawrence wrote:
Yes but if Hanlon's Razor applies, surely to God the chap doesn't
deserve to be cast into the pit of hell for evermore.

Who's cast him into a pit of hell. A question was asked, I answered it.
I expressed my opinions. Others have expressed theirs. Mine may be in
the minority, but it is a sorry day when minority opinions will be
censored on this NG. I'm not trying to suppress anyone else's opinions
or stop anyone using the Canadian spammer's site if they want to. Each
of us is different, expresses his own opinions, and makes his own
choices -- what the heck is so bad about that?

You should know more than most, that your opinion is highly regarded
within this newsgroup. As such when you vocalise the fact that the
Canadian guy is non-trustworthy because he's an active spammer, your
position of respect in the group has greater clout and the label
sticks.

People start believing that the AstroBuySell site is spam-evil and
full of spamming intent just because you say so (hell, I was even
beginning to believe it myself). This is unfair - the guy made a
mistake 2 years ago. He's set up a non-profit site that works and
looks quite good into the bargain.

By using your position of respect in this way - *you* have cast him
into the pit of second hand astro sales hell. Look at how you descibe
him above - "...using the Canadian spammer's site if they...". He did
it 2 years ago! Is he still actively doing it now (as spammer would
imply)? You're like a dog with a bone. Mr Tonkin.

You obviously don't like the chap due to the fact that he mistakingly
spammed in the past and that he dared set up in parallel with Chris
Heapy. My personal opinion, which I'll voice as I like, is that the
latter fact is the main reason why you don't like him.

Chris did a sterling service in the past, but the way he dropped the
site without a word was not too useful was it.

As for trying to censor you - when did I do that? All I've done is
express what a number of others are feeling too.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net

Pete Lawrence wrote:
[...]
You should know more than most, that your opinion is highly regarded
within this newsgroup.

Actually, I don't know that; ISTM that I am frequently disagreed with,
which is absolutely fine and as it should be. There is exactly zero
reason why my opinion on something on which I am patently obviously not
(and have never claimed to be!) an expert, i.e. the processes of buying
and selling second hand astro kit, should carry any more weight than
anyone else's. In fact, I firmly believe that opinions should be
evaluated independently of the person expressing them -- it is the
perceived worth of the opinion that is important, not the perceived
worth of he person expressing it. Trying to personalise opinions in this
way is, IMNSVHO, /argumentum ad hominem/ in its proper sense.

As such when you vocalise the fact that the
Canadian guy is non-trustworthy because he's an active spammer,

You are putting words into my mouth, Pete. Please don't! I did not say
that he was non-trustworthy, I said that *I* find it difficult to trust
people who have behaved in a manner that I *interpreted* to be
underhand. Those are two very different things, i.e. what I said was
something about me and my interpretation; you have (I presume
unintentionally) misrepresented it to make it appear that I said
something about him. Similarly, you are putting the word "active" into
my mouth.

[...]
People start believing that the AstroBuySell site is spam-evil and
full of spamming intent just because you say so (hell, I was even
beginning to believe it myself).

Again, you misrepresent me; I did not say that the site was spam-evil
and full of spamming intent. I said that the person running it had
spammed people, which is a perfectly true statement. Again, there is a
distinction. I am quite prepared to stand by what I actually said, but I
am not going to be suckered into defending a statement that I did not
make.

This is unfair - the guy made a
mistake 2 years ago. He's set up a non-profit site that works and
looks quite good into the bargain.

Good for him; good for those who choose to use it.

By using your position of respect in this way

Again, I am not "using a position of respect" (you appear to perceive
something about me that I don't!), I am expressing a point of view that
is on an exactly equal footing with everyone else here. I have even gone
out of my way to make it clear that what I state is my *interpretation*,
the intended implication of which is that the whole affair is open to
interpretation, and that interpretations other than mine are valid.
There is no hierarchy here (and neither should their be).

If you want to know the history of it this time around, somebody asked
about why there was an issue about this site, I emailed him with the
Google URL of the previous thread about it (i.e. I tried not to drag it
up publicly), the "somebody" again asked *publicly* why it was perceived
as a problem; this time I expressed my opinion publicly.

- *you* have cast him
into the pit of second hand astro sales hell.

********. Not only I am not responsible for another person's deeds, a
brief look at his site suggests that it is not exactly unpatronised by
names that I recognise from here. The other users of this NG are
intelligent people who are quite capable of making up their own minds,
as is evidenced by your later comment: "All I've done is express what a
number of others are feeling too."

Is he still actively doing it now

I have no idea and no way of knowing, but I presume probably not.

(as spammer would
imply)?

Whilst you may have inferred it, what I said does not imply that.
Spammer, quite simply, describes someone who has sent spam. I suspect
you know this, which is why you injected the adjective "active" above;
"active spammer" would indeed describe someone who is actively doing it
now, but that is your word, not mine!

You're like a dog with a bone. Mr Tonkin.

Possibly, I don't know; presumably that is how you perceive me. However,
that has absolutely no relevance as to whether I have said or implied
the things that you have misrepresented me as doing. Obviously, you can
choose to infer what you wish from what I have written in this NG or
elsewhere, but please do not attribute opinions or motives to me unless
I have actually stated them. Please try to distinguish between your
inferences and the actual statements that I have made.

You obviously don't like the chap due to the fact that he mistakingly
spammed in the past and that he dared set up in parallel with Chris
Heapy. My personal opinion, which I'll voice as I like, is that the
latter fact is the main reason why you don't like him.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but, in this instance, it
is incorrect. The reasons that I will not use his site a
(a) The reasons that I stated in Message-ID:
with respect to my interpretation of what
had happened.
(b) The fact that he tried, in a subsequent email (therefore I won't
republish it here), to justify his spam.

Chris did a sterling service in the past, but the way he dropped the
site without a word was not too useful was it.

No, not at all. Although I can understand, given the hard time some
people were giving him about it, how some wuzzock could have done
something that was absolutely the last straw.

As for trying to censor you - when did I do that?

I inferred that, as you objected to my having expressed my opinions, you
felt that I should not have written it. If you were not implying that, I
apologise (but would be grateful for an explanation of why you think
it's worth making a fuss about me expressing my opinions if you do not
object to my expressing them).

All I've done is
express what a number of others are feeling too.

If other people are feeling this, is this not ample evidence that people
in this NG are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and that
my opinion on the matter is not nearly as weighty as you like to
imagine?

This is getting OT -- best to email if we are going to continue it?

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:47:14 +0000, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Ok this is long but probably final. I summarise at the bottom in a
way that will promote world peace and astro-harmony ;-)

Pete Lawrence wrote:
[...]
You should know more than most, that your opinion is highly regarded
within this newsgroup.

Actually, I don't know that; ISTM that I am frequently disagreed with,
which is absolutely fine and as it should be.

Well let me state that you are being naive here. You're knowledge and
expertise are recognised and held in high esteem whether you accept
that fact or not.

[...]
In fact, I firmly believe that opinions should be
evaluated independently of the person expressing them -- it is the
perceived worth of the opinion that is important, not the perceived
worth of he person expressing it. Trying to personalise opinions in this
way is, IMNSVHO, /argumentum ad hominem/ in its proper sense.

Although I would agree with you. However, I don't think that's how the
world actually works!

As such when you vocalise the fact that the
Canadian guy is non-trustworthy because he's an active spammer,

You are putting words into my mouth, Pete.

Please don't! I did not say
that he was non-trustworthy, I said that *I* find it difficult to trust
people who have behaved in a manner that I *interpreted* to be
underhand.

It was not my intention to put words into your mouth. It was my
inference that you were stating that the chap was non-trustworthy. I
don't think I am alone in this inference either. However, if you
didn't mean he was non-trustworthy, then I apologise for the
mis-inference.

Similarly, you are putting the word "active" into
my mouth.

Active comes from the term phrase you used: "...using the Canadian
spammer's site if...". Perhaps my understanding is wrong but
"Canadian spammer's site" infers that you regard him as a "Canadian
spammer" - i.e. someone that is still spamming - in other words
active. perhaps you should have used the term "Canadian ex-spammer's
site".

People start believing that the AstroBuySell site is spam-evil and
full of spamming intent just because you say so (hell, I was even
beginning to believe it myself).

Again, you misrepresent me; I did not say that the site was spam-evil
and full of spamming intent.

No you didn't say that. What you said + your standing provides that
inference. When this originally cropped up, I half read the arguments
and inferred this. Ok - so I should have sat down and read the
original objections in detail (ha - you think I have the time ;-) ),
but I didn't. I'm sure that others would have interpreted thngs in
this way too.

Is he still actively doing it now
I have no idea and no way of knowing, but I presume probably not.
(as spammer would imply)?

Whilst you may have inferred it, what I said does not imply that.
Spammer, quite simply, describes someone who has sent spam. I suspect
you know this, which is why you injected the adjective "active" above;
"active spammer" would indeed describe someone who is actively doing it
now, but that is your word, not mine!

Now you are infering things about me that are not true. Easy isn't it
;-). I have explained myself on this matter above. If you said "You
are a spammer Pete" (I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SAY THIS!) I would interpret it
as you staing that I actively spam people. If you said "You have
spammed Pete" (I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SAY THIS!) then, I would interpret
this as you saying that I have spammed in the past.

If it's my interpretation that's wrong then I apologise. However, IMO
it's not.


You're like a dog with a bone. Mr Tonkin.

Possibly, I don't know; presumably that is how you perceive me.

Well you're well known for several long argumentative threads along
dog-with-a-bone street aren't you ;-)

However,
that has absolutely no relevance as to whether I have said or implied
the things that you have misrepresented me as doing. Obviously, you can
choose to infer what you wish from what I have written in this NG or
elsewhere, but please do not attribute opinions or motives to me unless
I have actually stated them. Please try to distinguish between your
inferences and the actual statements that I have made.

That's easy - everything I have said in this thread is based on my
inferences of your argumentative stance. I think a number of others
are infering in the same way as me too. Perhaps everyone is wrong to
do this and you are correct ;-)

As for trying to censor you - when did I do that?

I inferred that, as you objected to my having expressed my opinions, you
felt that I should not have written it. If you were not implying that, I
apologise (but would be grateful for an explanation of why you think
it's worth making a fuss about me expressing my opinions if you do not
object to my expressing them).

Ha ha - is there an eMirror in here? I have no right to object to
anything. All I was doing was expressing my opinion too.

All I've done is
express what a number of others are feeling too.

If other people are feeling this, is this not ample evidence that people
in this NG are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and that
my opinion on the matter is not nearly as weighty as you like to
imagine?

You obviously cannot possibly judge how much weight your opinion
carries ;-)

This is getting OT -- best to email if we are going to continue it?

Nah - I think it's relevant to the ng. However, I have no direct beef
with you and I think we've now put the record straight. I'm not going
to get into symantics of who inferered what and I never said you were
wearing a bloody dress ;-) ! It's pointless and I haven't the time,
quite frankly. My interpretation was innocent and how I stated it, as
I saw it. If you think I'm trying to put you in a bad light then you
are wrong. I have too much respect for you to do that (and too many
of your bloody books!).

My stance - The chap spammed a couple of years ago. IMO he made a
naive mistake and has been openly chastised more than enough for it.
Support his site and let's start swapping some good s/h gear again!

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Global Projects - http://www.globalobservers.net

[Heavily trimmed -- not intended to QOOC, so check previous IYCBB]

Pete Lawrence wrote:

Ok this is long but probably final.

Probably this one too. :-)

Well let me state that you are being naive here. You're knowledge and
expertise are recognised and held in high esteem whether you accept
that fact or not.

I have some knowledge of optics and of astronomy, but damn all about
buying and selling -- I make perpetual losses on these transactions!

[...]
Now you are infering things about me that are not true. Easy isn't it
;-).

Ah, but I voiced a suspicion, not a declarative statement.

[...]
If it's my interpretation that's wrong then I apologise. However, IMO
it's not.

TMCK it is!

Well you're well known for several long argumentative threads along
dog-with-a-bone street aren't you ;-)

Who? Me?

[...]
Perhaps everyone is wrong to
do this and you are correct ;-)

You mean I can claim a Galileo-persecution complex?


[...]
Ha ha - is there an eMirror in here? I have no right to object to
anything.

Nope, didn't say that...

[...]
You obviously cannot possibly judge how much weight your opinion
carries ;-)

If my teenage kids are any measure, next to bugger all!


This is getting OT -- best to email if we are going to continue it?

Nah - I think it's relevant to the ng. However, I have no direct beef
with you and I think we've now put the record straight.

Agreed. Anything else is fine-tuning.

If you think I'm trying to put you in a bad light then you
are wrong. I have too much respect for you to do that

I'm flattered. Seriously. To my perception, your astropinions (on all
matters but this :-) ) are more worthy than mine; your astrodeeds
certainly are.

(and too many
of your bloody books!).

It's hardly my fault you have sufficient knowledge to keep winning
astro-quizzes!

My stance - The chap spammed a couple of years ago. IMO he made a
naive mistake and has been openly chastised more than enough for it.

Agreed, which is why I initially replied to a query by email.

Support his site

In my case, no.

and let's start swapping some good s/h gear again!

Aaarghhh! More financial losses in the pipeline!


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +