I don't think an apology is necessary. Your post generated healthy introspection, and was itself both respectful and kind.
I think it's great that you're a listener and now, by way of constructive criticism, you are also a contributor. Keep spreading the word! On 25 April 2021 9:39:26 PM NZST, nstr <n...@riseup.net> wrote: >On 21-04-24 20:02, BK Navarette wrote: >> Funny, why does the blog writer not do show? Give an example of >quality. Or >> if they are shy use espeak or a volunteer to read i out, I'd be >willing to >> help with either. >> >> Brian-in-ohio >> > >Hello, I'm the author of the post. > >I regret writing this post in hindsight. 'Quality' was a bad choice of >words. I also enjoy the DIY rawness of HPR and I certainly don't want >it >to be more polished, in some professional sense. I've should have >replaced 'quality' with 'to my subjective interest' or something along >those lines. > >The main point was to bring up the question of perhaps keeping empty >slots empty. As a non-contributing listener it's not my place to try to >impose my ideas on the project. Therefor I choose to post it on a >personal blog rather than, for example in this mailing list. > >As for the reason I'm not submitting a shining example of a quality >show I've been a listener since at least hpr0980 :: Broadband for Rural > >North and I've considered this many times and attempted it a few but >I'm >terrible at podcasting and after this I don't want to be known as the >asshole who complained about HPR quality but still submits shows. > >It was not my intent to offend anyone and I regret my choice of words. >I have huge respect for all of the contributors and I want to apologize > >to all of you. I'm sorry. > >All the best -- Klaatu _______________________________________________ Hpr mailing list Hpr@hackerpublicradio.org http://hackerpublicradio.org/mailman/listinfo/hpr_hackerpublicradio.org
