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 flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Maciek Sakrejda <msakre...@...> 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_jop...@...> > Reply-to: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > 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. >
