Bitter? spouting "venomous rants that clog all of our in-boxes"? Are you and I even reading the same emails? For the most part everyone engaged in this thread was making fair observations, attempting to call-it-as-they-see-it; and if wrong, honest enough to stand themselves corrected.
But maybe now is a good time for a reality-check. On Thursday 29 January 2009, Andrew Crawford wrote: > I got as much feedback and communication as anyone could expect from a > hiring team. I'm glad you have had a good experience in contrast to others. But it is no less subjective than anyone else's; it is not authoritative. > Secondarily I have purchased equipment from them and don't mind the fact > that they don't have a "showroom". Logic Supply is not just a computer > hardware store. They are in the business of providing complete solutions > for embedded, energy efficient computing in niche markets, sometimes > paired with custom software development/deployment. I'm glad YOU don't mind or feel the need for a showroom, no one said they had to have one; only that it would be nice if they did. Nobody suggested, even vaguely, that they HAD to HAVE one. And yes, they are a computer hardware store (in my mind); no matter how you care to spin it; it's just that they are an online store, no walk-ins. > On the Third Note, Forest clearly outlined the contributions both he and > others in his workplace have made to FOSS projects, we should be > grateful for that and frankly they set the bar quite high. Forrest should not and does not need any apologists here, AFAIK. How high LS sets the bar is in the eye of the beholder, but no one personally attacked any of their employees or owners; or even claimed that they made no contributions, only an inquiry as to what they were. And, I'm positive, everyone here is grateful to any and every contributor to opensource. > I sincerely hope that people can learn to talk directly to organizations > if they have a legitimate problem with them or their hiring process, and > not spout venomous rants that clog all of our inboxes. You think for a moment that this thread resulted from an aversion to talk directly to corporations? How about it stemming from repeatedly ATTEMPTING to talk DIRECTLY to corporations and the frustrations that ensue? Or the prevailing mentality in the hiring process and dealing w/HR? You're trying to make your sentence sound analogous to "Can't everyone just LEARN to play nice?" Trust me, though this list is all about learning, learning to talk is not the issue. Most everyone here expresses themselves quite succinctly. Speaking for myself alone, when you and a couple others ascribe superlative negative adjectives to what seems an otherwise reasonable dialog you're lowering the bar as to what the rest of us feel may be acceptable subject matter. You assoc being critical as a negative in and of itself and then assert that the 'tone' makes it so. That's a straw man argument. Sure, I think this list is great for Q-n-A. And I realize that a fair number of members are not of an advocate frame of mind, so that subject matter may have a short shelf-life. But is this group supposed to be criticism-free now? Or can we only target M$, and the State, and PHB's? Your post seems awfully thin-skinned, and you can always use filters to unclog your inbox. But, if your sentiments are shared by a majority of readers here then it should be made clear HERE-n-NOW so I and anyone else so inclined to be critical will think twice next time. Rion > > TTFN > > -Andy >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
