Keith Starosta
12-14-2004, 5:17 PM
A couple of weeks ago, there was some light conversation about some comments that were made in the WJ Ezine that goes out as an e-mail to subscribers. It referenced what the author called a "Dead-End Thread". Well, apparently there were some folks that took acception to it, and let Rob et al know about it. For those that don't subscribe, here is the text of the reply....
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest in a Teacup
The last issue of Websurfer's Review contained a piece called “Thread to Nowhere” which elicited some heated responses, some of which were directed at Rob. While, as the editor, Rob does bear ultimate responsibility for the contents of the eZine, I would like to add that I am responsible for the initial choosing, editing, and affixing of comments to the Websurfer's Review section. Therefore, I will answer these comments here.
Michael Dresdner
Apparently, some people took great offense at my running the “Thread to Nowhere.” Chris Pine, for one, said I was taking “cheap shots at the various woodworking forums.” He went on to assert that “ninety-nine percent of the time” Saw Mill Creek was “very supportive and informative.”
Actually, I agree that most of what appears on Saw Mill Creek is excellent.
Michael Cody offered this comment: “I have to say some of the more sensitive folks seem to take it you were picking on their backyard. They are almost as touchy as Badger Ponders were.” Glenn Clabo also raised a very fair and valid question. “Can you tell me the purpose of this column?” he asked. I think that deserves a straight answer, Glenn, and here it is.
First and foremost, please understand that my choosing a dead-end thread from Saw Mill Creek in no way reflects the quality of that particular message board, nor is it a commentary on the folks who post there. A thread like that could just as easily have been taken from any of the other boards I regularly read. Good, poor, and excellent threads show up on all message boards. That's the nature of free and open conversation, both in person and online. If you want proof of my respect for them, simply look back at past issues in which I selected other threads from Saw Mill Creek, always of very high caliber.
Why, then, did I choose a thread to point out, in what some see as a heavy-handed manner, that not all information on the Internet is worth trusting? Thomas Salisbury, who identifies himself both as a guitar maker and a lawyer, wrote the following, also in response to the same segment. “As a guitar builder, I loved this short piece. It is a real insight to how assumptions can lead to major problems.”
Well said, Thomas. One of the most dangerous assumptions we can make is that everything we read online is gospel. Week after week we have been bringing you distillations of some of the best information and most interesting threads on various woodworking bulletin boards. It would be all too easy to infer that nothing but absolute wisdom exists there, and we could well be accused of propagating that falsehood. As a way of providing some balance, and with a nod to reality, I decided to run a thread that was not, as my kids would say, “all that and a bag of chips.”
Perhaps it is time to generate a new adage to join the famous “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware.) I hereby offer an appropriate equivalent for today's computer-savvy message board denizens: “Caveat lector -- let the reader beware.”
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempest in a Teacup
The last issue of Websurfer's Review contained a piece called “Thread to Nowhere” which elicited some heated responses, some of which were directed at Rob. While, as the editor, Rob does bear ultimate responsibility for the contents of the eZine, I would like to add that I am responsible for the initial choosing, editing, and affixing of comments to the Websurfer's Review section. Therefore, I will answer these comments here.
Michael Dresdner
Apparently, some people took great offense at my running the “Thread to Nowhere.” Chris Pine, for one, said I was taking “cheap shots at the various woodworking forums.” He went on to assert that “ninety-nine percent of the time” Saw Mill Creek was “very supportive and informative.”
Actually, I agree that most of what appears on Saw Mill Creek is excellent.
Michael Cody offered this comment: “I have to say some of the more sensitive folks seem to take it you were picking on their backyard. They are almost as touchy as Badger Ponders were.” Glenn Clabo also raised a very fair and valid question. “Can you tell me the purpose of this column?” he asked. I think that deserves a straight answer, Glenn, and here it is.
First and foremost, please understand that my choosing a dead-end thread from Saw Mill Creek in no way reflects the quality of that particular message board, nor is it a commentary on the folks who post there. A thread like that could just as easily have been taken from any of the other boards I regularly read. Good, poor, and excellent threads show up on all message boards. That's the nature of free and open conversation, both in person and online. If you want proof of my respect for them, simply look back at past issues in which I selected other threads from Saw Mill Creek, always of very high caliber.
Why, then, did I choose a thread to point out, in what some see as a heavy-handed manner, that not all information on the Internet is worth trusting? Thomas Salisbury, who identifies himself both as a guitar maker and a lawyer, wrote the following, also in response to the same segment. “As a guitar builder, I loved this short piece. It is a real insight to how assumptions can lead to major problems.”
Well said, Thomas. One of the most dangerous assumptions we can make is that everything we read online is gospel. Week after week we have been bringing you distillations of some of the best information and most interesting threads on various woodworking bulletin boards. It would be all too easy to infer that nothing but absolute wisdom exists there, and we could well be accused of propagating that falsehood. As a way of providing some balance, and with a nod to reality, I decided to run a thread that was not, as my kids would say, “all that and a bag of chips.”
Perhaps it is time to generate a new adage to join the famous “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware.) I hereby offer an appropriate equivalent for today's computer-savvy message board denizens: “Caveat lector -- let the reader beware.”