Re: Unethical groups?
Re: Unethical groups?
- Subject: Re: Unethical groups?
- From: Yan Feng <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 22:50:17 +0800
Bill Martens (email@hidden) wrote to us on 25 05 2003 22:35
>
While I agree with the lack of action at times on the part of Apple, I dont
>
agree with just saying a group is not a group just because they dont meet in
>
the physical realm. We do online and also have physical meetings once in a
>
while. I personally am also a member of other online groups.
>
>
But does this make us any less of a group? Not likely, considering we have
>
been around since 1978 (in one respect or another). Our current presence is
>
online and our magazine is in online format. (This is both for ecological
>
reasons as well as for speed purposes).
Apple also has a page for online groups. My intention was not to slam online
groups at all. A user group - an ethical one - on or offline - is a gift to
the Mac community; it's something to be valued.
>
>
While we also at times talk about rumors, our group has always tried to
>
focus on the items which are in existance. However, every group at one time
>
or another has fed on a rumor. I would suggest not totally slamming SpyMac
>
until you know all the facts about their group.
Your opinion qualified - to an extent. Personally, I'm afraid SpyMac has
started out as a rumour site and they just - in crude terms - went into the
dumpster with their iWalk story. I did a bit of research online; to my eyes,
the general consensus was that the iWalk story really tarnished their
credibility.
>
(What next? Do you come
>
after groups like us? and then maybe even groups that have meetings in town
>
halls and libraries?) Groups like ours have meetings, elections, officers
>
and other aspects of daily User Group life all online with everything in the
>
realm of convenience and available at any time, not just during the meeting
>
time.
No - I won't come after groups like you. Sleep well. ;-)
It's okay for a user group to talk about rumours. It's another thing when
rumours appear to be the main theme of a group.
My personal (and potentially - in some folks' view - erroneous) viewpoint on
SpyMac is that they appear to have 'rumour site' written all over them, and
if you look at some of the content on their site, it qualifies my viewpoint.
Lately, they have done some community-like stories, but rumours continue to
be a main theme (if not the main theme) at their site.
While I disagree with some of your views, I respect them. At the end of the
day, user groups - in my view - are supposed to be ethical and sound, and
beneficial groups of people. They are supposed to be beneficial both
internally to their membership and externally to the Mac community at large
and, ultimately, Apple.
Personally I knew I'd come in for a bit of slamming and (heaven forbid)
flaming, and I was ready for both, as this topic could become pretty
contraversial, and could ultimately be headed for OT kamikaze. I did,
though, wish to air my views, and I thought hard on if the rest of the group
should hear my views, or should have this being brought to their attention.
I stand by my original viewpoints - just my personal views, which people are
free to qualify or disqualify - but I also respect other people's views. My
views were, quite simply, to comment on this, and to give my opinions. It
was, and shall not be, an attack or an act of unauthorised policing. As said
before, the ultimate fate of their group does not lie in my hands.
Respectfully,
Yan Feng.
_______________________________________________
augd mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/augd
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.