There's already two members on that list. I wonder if you can change the lauguage setting from English to MicroSpeak? :)
-TH --- In [email protected], "Bjorn Schultheiss" <bjorn.mailingli...@...> wrote: > > Agreed.. > > Welcome flexcoders-scott-barnes > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders-scott-barnes > > I didn't really feel like it fit under the tech category so i placed it under "online relationships". > > Enjoy > > We now have a place for all of our Scott Barnes loves Adobe conversations. > > > > > --- In [email protected], Maciek Sakrejda msakrejda@ wrote: > > > > Can we perhaps have a separate flexcoders-scott-barnes list to discuss > > whether or not Scott Barnes should be allowed to post to flexcoders and > > to what extent? Every post by Scott generates three to five posts > > discussing whether or not his commentary/evangelism is welcome > > here--this is unarguably more off-topic noise than his actual > > contributions. > > > > -Maciek > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cole Joplin cole_joplin@ > > Reply-to: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Ribbon in FLEX > > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > More importantly, I have a concern. There is plenty of room in RIA and > > > Microsoft-oriented forums and groups to make their case. I'm even fine > > > with some open debate in Flexcoders. What I don't want to see is > > > Microsoft's Rich Platforms Product Manager, let alone other > > > Microsofties, spamming our Flex group with spin on thread after thread > > > after thread. > > Given the traffic on this list, I hardly think that the 2-3 on-topic > > posts I've seen from Scott in the past week classify as spam. > > -- > > Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur > > > > Jeffry, no fair editing out the next sentence: > > > > "More importantly, I have a concern. There is plenty of room in RIA and > > Microsoft-oriented forums and groups to make their case. I'm even fine > > with some open debate in Flexcoders. What I don't want to see is > > Microsoft's Rich Platforms Product Manager, let alone other > > Microsofties, spamming our Flex group with spin on thread after thread > > after thread. I'm not saying we are there, I'm saying I'm concerned > > about it. Just reading the language, the last couple of posts are > > certainly exploring that territory. I think there are more appropriate > > venues for that than Flexcoders." > > > > Being on-topic does not change the nature of the content. Take the third > > example. Looking over the body of threads of this group, I can't recall > > seeing a nice bullet-formatted explanation like the one offered by Scott > > of why IE does not want to support SVG. I'm not saying this was a > > copy-paste thing, but it is visually very different. Adobe, Microsoft, > > and others have plenty of propoganda (or spam) posts, and no one is > > arguing that point. But I'm not going to pretend this particular content > > is of the same casual nature of the posts typical members of this group > > make. Scott uses Microsoft's participation in standards bodies and > > knowledge of gui research that clearly expresses an authority posture to > > legitimize his point. The typical posts here are overtly subjective > > developer opinions taken with a grain of salt. Clearly not the same > > content. > > > > Secondly, this is not a response from a Flex developer, doing Flex stuff > > every work day. (...imagining Scott with a Flex sticker on his laptop as > > Steve Ballmer walks by...) This is a corporate-sounding explanation, > > from actual Microsoft management, on an Adobe Flex group, suggesting we > > use ribbons in Flex, ignore SVG and thank Microsoft for their h.264 > > standards compliance. Any part of that sentence not accurate? I'm sure > > Scott is not programming in Flex, and could not possibly be confused as > > a member of the Flex community or an objective observer. Therefore, his > > responses in this group must be viewed in the approriate context, in a > > truthful light. Clearly not a typical poster. > > > > If Flexcoders' threads become an active corporate information outlet for > > Adobe competitors, I don't think that's a good thing for the group. That > > is my point, and I think it's a perfectly legitimate one. > > >
