Re: Attempts to ban constructive criticism...

[KILPATRICK@Tank.CYBERphile.co.uk (Richard)]

In article <4s3c0s$a3p@blackice.winternet.com>, nathan@parka.winternet.com (Nathan Mates) says:
<SNIP>

>   "I'm not mentioning people in specific except for Nathan." Then
>just come out and say you disagree with me, none of this "sensitivity"
>towards my feelings that makes you look worse.

No Problem by me...

>>And I am NOT blaming anyone for doing this, but from what I know and from what
>>I have learned on my own BBS, is THAT WE SHOULD NOT BLAME OR FLAME PEOPLE!
>>Once this has happened, don't expect them to EVER post a message again! 
>
>   It's called constructive criticism. I don't just say "you suck.
>POAD, newbie," I say "tip: press return every 70 characters to make it
>easier to quote you." If you can't tell the difference between those
>two, you need help. In the first, it's a pure flame, which I tend to
>aim at those who've shown themselves incapable of listening to
>constructive criticism. The second identifies a problem of their, and
>offers a solution. 

I made this mistake. I don't need 'Daddy' to tell me. I'm not stupid.
Neither are most CSA2 Users.

>   People must be able to take criticism. If they are insulated from
>it in school, online and the like, when they get their first job, they
>need to be able to be told "this sucks. Redo it!" and not spaz out.
>Grades in school are the same way-- a 'F' or a 'C' tells you that you
>are not perfect, and need to do better. Eventually in their life (and
>afterlife), people _will_ be criticized, people _will_ have to accept
>it, and grow from it. You 're trying to deny this basic fact.

So we can expect a polite reply from you, then? Are you a teacher?

>   Further, except when they're very offensively clueless from the
>start, I don't do a line length flame, spelling flame, grammar flame,
>or .sig flame without helping them as well. That is, I help them at
>the same time I educate them. Nobody's perfect, but we can strive
>for excellence, not merely feeling good.

Of course. But some of us accept that, without forcing it out in front
of other users. Most intelligent people can _overlook_ errors and
interpret what the original meaning was.


># And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the
># Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in
># parables" Mark 4:11, NRSV      

PS - Is this biblical piracy? Or is the Bible PD now...

Regards, and seiously no offence intended, just _constructive_ critique.
Richard