Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
So, essentially, throwing muck at Quanta is part of the problem. It's an information and opinion overload that prevents any concensus. half the people are for something. Half the people are against something. There's lots of overlap. Paralysis! In a business there is only one who takes decisions. Can be dangerous but also very successfull. In a democracy people are elected on a program, and then they more or less do what they said. Are the decisions at Quanta top level made according to one of these schemes? Arnould WebMail / Magic OnLine http://www.magic.fr ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
Dave Park writes: My own personal opinion about futures of platforms isn't based on their strengths, but their weaknesses. As such, I don't feel the urge to create fixes for problems that don't really exist any more. However, I do feel there are two or three key areas that are costing the community dearly. The availability of new, performance hardware at a reasonable price. The connectivity issue. The huge variety and assortment of toolkits and add-ons required to do even simple things - such features belong in the OS package (not necessarily integrated into the OS, but standard kits included in the package) so everyone has a compatible and predictable system. This is perhaps something that could be sorted easily and quickly. TK2, for example, should be universal. After that it gets difficult: Some people may not want to move on from microdrives. They wont want PE or anything newfangled like that, otherwise Id suggest that the following products were also considered a fundamental part of the system for ALL platforms: TK2 PE(2) HOT_REXT (Hotkeys, Things and all that) Fileinfo2 Some common printer utility (yet to be written) QMenu by JMS MenuConfig (JMS) the only configurator that supports level 2 cfg blocks System toolkit (yet to be written) containing the functions MACHINE PROCESSOR HOSTOS EMULATOR DISP_TYPE .. possibly other common, necessary items, eg SCR_XLIM/YLIM Plus some optional basics: Turbo_tk QLib_run Qptr toolkit ptrmen_cde (EasyPtr toolkit) TCP/IP driver (yet to be completed) sernet (a working version) Couldnt the commercial stuff be bought out and be made free to all QUANTA members? Perhaps a 3-month's trial membership could be offered for say £5 to encourage non-Quanta members to get the basic package too. Or the package could be sold at a reasonable price. I dont think this would be unfair on those who had already paid for the software, as it would be in the common interest. The above would make writing software much simpler thus, hopefully, generating more of it. The first and third have been my biggest obstacles to getting back into the QL scene over the last 3 years or so. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
- Original Message - From: Duncan Neithercut Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Before I answer your comments a personal opinion. During the time I have been in Quanta I have not seen a chairman make such a serious blunder as this one. He clearly has no idea where the boundaries of his power and responsibilities lie. I would expect any chairman who has made a blunder of this magnitude to do the honourable thing and consider his position. Unfortunately this chairman has compounded the error by not being man enough to apologise, but instead has tried to pretend he has done nothing wrong by using the weasel word term that this list is a Quanta Forum. Has he thought through the full legal implications of this? Does he really wish to see the assets of Quanta lining the pockets of our learned friends? They could well do yet. Now to deal with your points: BTW leaving aside who owns this list which has been clarified by Bruce Nicholls there are troubling elements in Mr Masons email : 1) The precise timing of the emails referred to and in particular the 4 minute response to the original email that upset Mr Mason - the nearest I have in timing in my archive (deleted folder) is one thanking the sender of the first for his work in setting up the meeting and indicating that he is looking forward to it. Whats upsetting about that? You are not the only one having difficulty in this. Even I have and I wrote the damn things. What is clear from the whole mailing is that accuracy is not one of the chairman's strengths. (Or maybe the reason the committee are out of touch with the members is because they live in a different time warp from the rest of us.) My reconstruction is that my email was sent at 20.00 on 12th October 2004. (What John Mason did not tell us was that this email was a response to one complaining that Quanta had not replied at all to a request for information for the QL2004 mailshot. ) There was then a reply from Marcel at 20.34 in which there was nothing that could be regarded as offensive. The next came in at 20.52 from Tony Firshman. Tony included the line I would like to be a fly on the wall at committee meetings. I can only assume that this is the email that John Mason was referring to and this was the reason for his vitriolic and irrelevant outburst against Tony. If the chairman is so sensitive that he cannot take a little bit of banter like that, then god help us all. 2) The almost defamatory email of saturday 12th November : Which saturday the 12th November was that email sent. We haven't had a saturday 12th November this year. Again I think you have to enter the Quanta time warp to understand what happened. I think he means 13th November sent 18.20. I am not sure what has upset him in this email. I thought I had identified it, but I have had second thoughts. (You need a degree in Kremlinology to penetrate the thought processes of the Dear Chairman.) Thus you are on your own if you want to find the naughty bit. Just a hint, I suspect it is in the nice things I wrote rather than the nasty. BTW now you know why your moderator idea never had a chance of getting off the ground, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
The question actually is which one of these schemes do QL users want : I think the democratic version Duncan Neithercut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of - Aucun - Sent: 23 November 2004 09:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH So, essentially, throwing muck at Quanta is part of the problem. It's an information and opinion overload that prevents any concensus. half the people are for something. Half the people are against something. There's lots of overlap. Paralysis! In a business there is only one who takes decisions. Can be dangerous but also very successfull. In a democracy people are elected on a program, and then they more or less do what they said. Are the decisions at Quanta top level made according to one of these schemes? Arnould WebMail / Magic OnLine http://www.magic.fr ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
I disagree with your last comment : some one with a clear objectively based mandate from a major section of QL users who sits on the Quanta committee has a lever that can move mountains despite personal differences. (You can have some fun as well the chairman thinks this list is Quanta's and if so any opinions represent the membership) All you need to do is pick up the mandate that is drifing in this list and make it objective have some names who will help out with bits (I dont need to tell you this as you organised QL2004) and this is the clever bit give some thought to the topology of discussion before you start - as long as a discussion is run on your topology you win. This is based on experience in a massive organisation as the director of one of its competing components. Best Wishes Duncan Neithercut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of gwicks Sent: 23 November 2004 20:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH - Original Message - From: Duncan Neithercut Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Before I answer your comments a personal opinion. During the time I have been in Quanta I have not seen a chairman make such a serious blunder as this one. He clearly has no idea where the boundaries of his power and responsibilities lie. I would expect any chairman who has made a blunder of this magnitude to do the honourable thing and consider his position. Unfortunately this chairman has compounded the error by not being man enough to apologise, but instead has tried to pretend he has done nothing wrong by using the weasel word term that this list is a Quanta Forum. Has he thought through the full legal implications of this? Does he really wish to see the assets of Quanta lining the pockets of our learned friends? They could well do yet. Now to deal with your points: BTW leaving aside who owns this list which has been clarified by Bruce Nicholls there are troubling elements in Mr Masons email : 1) The precise timing of the emails referred to and in particular the 4 minute response to the original email that upset Mr Mason - the nearest I have in timing in my archive (deleted folder) is one thanking the sender of the first for his work in setting up the meeting and indicating that he is looking forward to it. Whats upsetting about that? You are not the only one having difficulty in this. Even I have and I wrote the damn things. What is clear from the whole mailing is that accuracy is not one of the chairman's strengths. (Or maybe the reason the committee are out of touch with the members is because they live in a different time warp from the rest of us.) My reconstruction is that my email was sent at 20.00 on 12th October 2004. (What John Mason did not tell us was that this email was a response to one complaining that Quanta had not replied at all to a request for information for the QL2004 mailshot. ) There was then a reply from Marcel at 20.34 in which there was nothing that could be regarded as offensive. The next came in at 20.52 from Tony Firshman. Tony included the line I would like to be a fly on the wall at committee meetings. I can only assume that this is the email that John Mason was referring to and this was the reason for his vitriolic and irrelevant outburst against Tony. If the chairman is so sensitive that he cannot take a little bit of banter like that, then god help us all. 2) The almost defamatory email of saturday 12th November : Which saturday the 12th November was that email sent. We haven't had a saturday 12th November this year. Again I think you have to enter the Quanta time warp to understand what happened. I think he means 13th November sent 18.20. I am not sure what has upset him in this email. I thought I had identified it, but I have had second thoughts. (You need a degree in Kremlinology to penetrate the thought processes of the Dear Chairman.) Thus you are on your own if you want to find the naughty bit. Just a hint, I suspect it is in the nice things I wrote rather than the nasty. BTW now you know why your moderator idea never had a chance of getting off the ground, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
I have decided to forward this message as I think all Quanta members should read it. Derogatory comments about a third person have been removed. - Original Message - From: john mason To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Mason ; Geoff Wicks ; John Gregory ; Roy Brereton ; John Gilpin ; John Southern ; Tony Firshman Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH From: Chairman QUANTA To: ALL Subscribers QUANTA FORUM - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: Geoff Wicks, Tony Firshman, QUANTA Committee DTO: 201104:2030Z ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Despite what got said in and about this letter, I don't consider it offensive in the form which was forwarded. There are issues of 'netiquette' (shouting etc) which someone fairly new to the list might not be expected to be aware of. A lot of strong things got said, and I suspect there was an underlying intention to provoke replies and action, as opposed to intentionally offending. While there have been some strong words exchanged, let's be positive - response has been forthcoming, there's strong feelings and strong feelings generally indicate a willingness and wish to get something done, so let's grab the bull by the horns and communicate with each other to lay the foundations for a strong period of QL furtherance by co-operation between the Quanta hierarchy and the most active of people on the QL scene. There's been enough ideas thrown around here recently, the list has been at its most active for ages, so let's hope it all leads to some really positive things (e.g. Wolfgang's Proforma printing thingie and any ideas submitted to Quanta for future projects etc) Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
Bruce Nicholls wrote: I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. The welcome instructions setup a long, long time ago. :- Welcome --- Welcome to the QL/SMS mailing list! This list is for any discussion related to QL/SMS be it news, help, queries, for sale etc. It's possible John Mason was thinking of an email list set up by Robin Barker some years ago (not sure if it was pre-data protection act). The purpose of this was to keep a record of who was on email and what their email addresses were. It wasn't a newsgroup or discussion list like this one, although IIRC the names were similar. It's already been said that John Mason is fairly new to this list, go easy on him guys! He is a long standing Quanta committee member, though. Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Despite what got said in and about this letter, I don't consider it offensive in the form which was forwarded. There are issues of 'netiquette' (shouting etc) which someone fairly new to the list might not be expected to be aware of. As one of the persons named in the letter (or rather not named, but everyone knew whom John meant) I agree fully with the above sentiment. We have slagged Quanta off and thus they have a right to reply. Equally John must accept there will be robust reactions. I do take exception to the section on Tony that John still included in his version especially after his preaching to me about the legal implications for Quanta in making personal comments. As far as etiquette was concerned, after I received John's email personally, I wrote a friendly email to him explaining several points of the etiquette, and pointing out that he was not to know these on his first posting to the group. He did not reply, but from comments elsewhere I think he appreciated this and accepted it in the spirit that it was sent, Best Wishes, Geoff ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, gwicks wrote: As one of the persons named in the letter (or rather not named, but everyone knew whom John meant) I agree fully with the above sentiment. We have slagged Quanta off and thus they have a right to reply. Equally John must accept there will be robust reactions. Well, yes... I haven't said anything... Personally, I think Quanta is irrelevant. All that matters is what people do, and what developments become available to the community. People like the Grafs actually make real products and move things forward. People like Nasta, who have the capacity to make GREAT products get virtually no REAL support. Yes, it costs money, lots of money. The heart of the problem is that the userbase is not attracting new members, and is losing older and experienced members by attrition (some of us were old when the QL was released) and by need for more applicable platforms in daily use. I don't blame the Quanta committee for not doing anything. They take input from so many people with so many opinions, and all have their own different needs. No single course of action has majority support. Every decision is high risk for them. In my company, the solution for this is to decide on three or four clear courses of action. Allocate each member with ten points, and allow them to allocate the points in any proportion to the proposed paths. At the end of this exercise you have a clear understanding of which projects have the most and least support. However, this makes the wildly dangerous assumption that the users know what is best for the platform. My own personal opinion about futures of platforms isn't based on their strengths, but their weaknesses. As such, I don't feel the urge to create fixes for problems that don't really exist any more. However, I do feel there are two or three key areas that are costing the community dearly. The availability of new, performance hardware at a reasonable price. The connectivity issue. The huge variety and assortment of toolkits and add-ons required to do even simple things - such features belong in the OS package (not necessarily integrated into the OS, but standard kits included in the package) so everyone has a compatible and predictable system. The first and third have been my biggest obstacles to getting back into the QL scene over the last 3 years or so. So, essentially, throwing muck at Quanta is part of the problem. It's an information and opinion overload that prevents any concensus. half the people are for something. Half the people are against something. There's lots of overlap. Paralysis! So, really, the way forward (and I advise the Quanta committee from a very humble position) is to identify 4 or 5 projects that are within Quanta's technical and financial scope, and offer the membership a cost for each, and let them decide within the available resources which one(s) to pursue. Once the decision is made, Quanta should simply expend their effort in achieving those wishes using the resources as efficiently as possible. In My Very VERY Humble Opinion, Dave Park ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
Dexter P wrote: i. The availability of new, performance hardware at a reasonable price. ii. The connectivity issue. iii. The huge variety and assortment of toolkits and add-ons required to do even simple things - such features belong in the OS package (not necessarily integrated into the OS, but standard kits included in the package) so everyone has a compatible and predictable system. The first and third have been my biggest obstacles to getting back into the QL scene over the last 3 years or so. The third has a newish users has caused me problems to (as has the first), what you seem to be saying is that we need a SMSQ/E distro perhaps called the Ginger Ninja Distribution. -- Tarquin Mills ACCUS (Anglia Classic Computer Users Society) http://www.speccyverse.me.uk/comp/accus/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave P [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes SNIP The heart of the problem is that the userbase is not attracting new members, and is losing older and experienced members by attrition (some of us were old when the QL was released) and by need for more applicable platforms in daily use. You have to have something to attract them with and that is where the problem lies. We have fun playing with it but that is not enough to attract a new user. The availability of new, performance hardware at a reasonable price. A vital point and one that I have urged Nasta towards. The huge variety and assortment of toolkits and add-ons required to do even simple things - such features belong in the OS package (not necessarily integrated into the OS, but standard kits included in the package) so everyone has a compatible and predictable system. This was the whole of my reasoning in the licence argument. I would like to see more of these items added to SMSQ/E to make it more coherent. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 at 19:37:07, gwicks wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Original Message - From: Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Despite what got said in and about this letter, I don't consider it offensive in the form which was forwarded. There are issues of 'netiquette' (shouting etc) which someone fairly new to the list might not be expected to be aware of. As one of the persons named in the letter (or rather not named, but everyone knew whom John meant) I agree fully with the above sentiment. We have slagged Quanta off and thus they have a right to reply. Equally John must accept there will be robust reactions. I do take exception to the section on Tony that John still included in his version especially after his preaching to me about the legal implications for Quanta in making personal comments. I did too. However John has emailed me since in soothful tones, and I have calmed down (8-)# I am very near a working form now. http://firshman.co.uk/scripts/qq.cgi (Yes John M S, you did not need to add the www.) I -think- the error checking is pretty complete. There -will- be problems so I would be grateful if people could try and break it. The underlying code was much more complex than I had imagined. I was up until 4am, and have spent most of today on it! I had forgotten that not only did I have to maintain variables for the items and error line, but also CHECKED and SELECTED for all the SELECT and CHECKBOX items. It didn't help that I still haven't worked out how to use indirection in perl (hard and symbolic references). I did all variables using HASH arrays, which works fine. The submit, if the form is parsed OK, will go nowhere right now. I will email John S and also save the results locally, and sometime write a program to add to an archive database. It will interesting to try it using JH's perl for QL, when we get a QL webserver (8-)# As far as etiquette was concerned, after I received John's email personally, I wrote a friendly email to him explaining several points of the etiquette, and pointing out that he was not to know these on his first posting to the group. He did not reply, but from comments elsewhere I think he appreciated this and accepted it in the spirit that it was sent, Is he subscribed now? If so, that is one excellent result. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Roy wood wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Dave Park wrote: The availability of new, performance hardware at a reasonable price. A vital point and one that I have urged Nasta towards. The real problem for Nasta is such a simple one. He has a complete design ready to go - he just needs the time and resources to follow it through. Some of us have sourced and are holding components for his projects but without a couple of months away from yucky jobs, and the resources to get everything made to a suitable standard, it won't happen. For me, the misfortune of Nasta's work is that the resources aren't there to do something TRULY revolutionary. I have these quaint ideas of miniATX motherboards using standard everything and a pair of 68060s - all this is possible if it's funded. The only organization with the funds is a private organization that is only allowed to benefit its members - Quanta. Maybe they misinterpret the rules and think that benefit means do business with - they can do business with any QLer... Dave ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
[ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
I have decided to forward this message as I think all Quanta members should read it. Derogatory comments about a third person have been removed. - Original Message - From: john mason To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Mason ; Geoff Wicks ; John Gregory ; Roy Brereton ; John Gilpin ; John Southern ; Tony Firshman Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH From: Chairman QUANTA To: ALL Subscribers QUANTA FORUM - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: Geoff Wicks, Tony Firshman, QUANTA Committee DTO: 201104:2030Z ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Some seven years ago Quanta Committee decided that it would be good for QL'ers to have their own Internet based Forum. Robin Barker, then Chairman, very kindly undertook the task of setting this up. At the same time he rationalised email contact with Committee Members by providing a system of email addresses which automatically forward to Committee Members no matter how many times they themselves change or how many times their personal email addresses do so as well. There were problems with the first chosen ISP, and another was found. The QUANTA email Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] site has more than proved its value to Quanta members as a place to present news, exchange ideas, solve problems, and perhaps most importantly debate issues of interest to the QL fraternity. Most topics are constructively discussed but not surprisingly occasionally debate gets quite heated. Fortunately, up to now, Quanta Committee have not had to intervene since the Forum has proved to be self regulating, and itself dealt quickly with any offender. That, unfortunately, cannot be said to be the position since mid October last. An email was posted on the board in which a subscriber alleged that Quanta is out of touch with the QL community, boasted that I had hijacked the QL2004 idea, said I don't regret doing it because we are going to have a bloody good time on Sunday , continued it would not have happened if we had left it to Quanta. Carried away by his own verbosity he carries on for some time making yet more allegations. Eventually saying Another thought I am having is what is the point of Quanta making another £1,000 profit if it never spends its money on anything and finally remarks Having written that I should remind everyone that I am a member of the Quanta committee and I accept a degree of responsibility, Within four minutes of this email being sent a second subscriber responded - adding to not, unfortunately, rebuking the first. Seemingly mistaking Quanta Committee's Freedom of Speech tolerance policy for something else the dialogue continued with the same slant, and eventually, on Saturday 12th November, an assertion was made naming a member and capable of being interpreted as being defamatory. In so doing they have put both themselves and QL Users and Tinkerers Association at risk. If they desire to do so to themselves that is one thing; but to imperil Quanta is another. Committee has, over the years, dealt with a number of situations in which members have put themselves very close to the line. Fortunately, for Quanta as a whole, Committee have not had, so far, to invoke the Constitution to resolve same. I have no intention of responding to the assertions made on a point by point basis. That would be even more destructive. I would be, however, failing in my duty to all Quanta Members if I did not seek to correct some of that which has been portrayed as being ascertainable fact. 1. It is true that Geoffrey Wicks was elected to this year's Committee at the Quanta Annual General Meeting held in Manchester on Sunday 18th April 2004. The Meeting was fully aware that he had the status of a QL Trader. 2. It is true that Geoffrey Wicks did attend the meeting of Quanta Committee held at Hove on Sunday 23rd May 2004. Further he did participate freely in the matters then considered, and moreover agreed that Roy Brereton should continue to be responsible for the Quanta International Workshop to mark the 21st Anniversary of both the QL and of QUANTA . The workshop to be held in the Portsmouth area, and at a time which would permit the inclusion of the Annual General Meeting for 2005. 3. It is true that neither at the Hove Committee Meeting nor since has he made any attempt to approach either Roy Brereton or myself, as common courtesy expects, with an offer to assist in any way with the QL is 21 proposed Quanta International Workshop. 4 paragraphs of derogatory comment removed*** ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Quanta Committee has and will, as always, continue to welcome constructive contributions on the topic of a Quanta International Workshop in 2005; but as and from the Sent date and time of this email any further attempts to extend the recent non-constructive
Re[2]: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
Hello All, I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. The welcome instructions setup a long, long time ago. :- Welcome --- Welcome to the QL/SMS mailing list! This list is for any discussion related to QL/SMS be it news, help, queries, for sale etc. Off topic discussions (not related to QL/SMS) are not appreciated. Being a member of this list is a privilege and you may lose that privilege if you abuse your subscription. I maintain the list. Bruce (Quo Vadis Design) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Sunday, November 21, 2004, 2:11:23 PM, you wrote: WL On 21 Nov 2004 at 13:46, gwicks wrote: I have decided to forward this message as I think all Quanta members should read it. (...) WL I have up to now pretty much kept out of the Quanta debate itself, more out WL of boredom than anything else. Two questions only as to this messahe: (...)The QUANTA email Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] site (...) WL What? This here is a Quanta list? WL (...) but as and from the Sent date and time of this email any further attempts to extend the recent non-constructive line will be regarded as being an abuse, and not tolerated. WL Oh yeah? And just what does this gentleman propose to stop people WL talking/emailing? WL As for the rest of that message : grow up - please! WL Wolfgang WL WL www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com WL ___ WL QL-Users Mailing List WL http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: Re[2]: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On 21 Nov 2004 at 15:24, Bruce N wrote: I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. Thanks for making this clear, Bruce! Wolfgang www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 at 15:24:37, Bruce N wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hello All, I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. The welcome instructions setup a long, long time ago. :- Welcome --- Welcome to the QL/SMS mailing list! This list is for any discussion related to QL/SMS be it news, help, queries, for sale etc. Off topic discussions (not related to QL/SMS) are not appreciated. Being a member of this list is a privilege and you may lose that privilege if you abuse your subscription. I maintain the list. Bruce (Quo Vadis Design) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ... especially as I think only two of the committee subscribe. John Mason's message did not arrive as he has not subscribed. I have never thought of it as a QUANTA FORUM I am glad it didn't as John's personal comment about me (which was wrong in fact) was remove - thanks Geoff. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 at 19:08:53, john mason wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Dear Bruce, Further to our telephone conversation this afternoon re above I am as intrigued as you are as to why the email I forward below has not appeared in ql-users Inbox. I have not received any unable to deliver message Surely it was because you were not subscribed? You are now, so I guess Bruce added you. Welcome. Thank you for clarifying the impression I had got from the Quanta website that ql-users is Quanta property. I note that you have updated Quanta website to clarify the situation - I would be more than happy for the site to offer a link to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you would like prospective ql-users to be able to do so ie this group is -not- a QUANTA FORUM Surely a quoted address [EMAIL PROTECTED] is worng? Secondly the end of the bottom line of item 7 in my ascertainable facts section I originally said I do hope, that he enjoyed it!. From a private email Tony F sent me he appears to have taken it to be sarcasm. It was not intended to be so! So I have amended it slightly in attempt to reduce pain to -I do hope, and I do mean sincerely hope that he enjoyed it - nothing anything more Accepted, but I do not understand why you needed to mention me at all. Before the Italian meeting we worked on the assumption that the Quanta AGM was provisional. I unfortunately (for family reasons) could not do both shows. My week with friends in Larchmont was effectively cheap -hotel- so I could do Worldnews.com work in NY, and that, of course, needed to link to the USA show. I did not arrange it to create a clash with the Quanta AGM. As to HTML - my draft was done in WORD, copied, and pasted in Always disastrous. You need to copy to a text editor, and then into an email. Mind you is your mailer configured to send plain text? It might have done the html conversion. The user group needs to always be plain text. - Original Message - From: john mason To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Mason ; Geoff Wicks ; John Gregory ; Roy Brereton ; John Gilpin ; John Southern ; Tony Firshman Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH From: Chairman QUANTA To: ALL Subscribers QUANTA FORUM - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: Geoff Wicks, Tony Firshman, QUANTA Committee DTO: 201104:2030Z ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH snip 7. Tony Firshman, himself, reveals what actually happened in QL-Today Vol 9, Issue 2, dated July/August 2004 where reporting on the QL show - Orlando, Florida, USA. May 04 - he says - I flew to New York a week before the show with bicycle to stay with friends in Larchmont, NY. It would appear, therefore, that his perceived conflict was due to his own choice of holiday dates and not anything else - I do hope, I do sincerely mean hope that he enjoyed it - not anything more snip -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 tony@surname.co.uk http://www.firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: Re[2]: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
Thanks Bruce, I am glad to hear it, I get really incensed with people the Quanta Chairman, he should drop off his chair onto his sword, please. Regards Mike MacNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bruce N [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: Re[2]: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Hello All, I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. The welcome instructions setup a long, long time ago. :- Welcome --- Welcome to the QL/SMS mailing list! This list is for any discussion related to QL/SMS be it news, help, queries, for sale etc. Off topic discussions (not related to QL/SMS) are not appreciated. Being a member of this list is a privilege and you may lose that privilege if you abuse your subscription. I maintain the list. Bruce (Quo Vadis Design) [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Sunday, November 21, 2004, 2:11:23 PM, you wrote: WL On 21 Nov 2004 at 13:46, gwicks wrote: I have decided to forward this message as I think all Quanta members should read it. (...) WL I have up to now pretty much kept out of the Quanta debate itself, more out WL of boredom than anything else. Two questions only as to this messahe: (...)The QUANTA email Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] site (...) WL What? This here is a Quanta list? WL (...) but as and from the Sent date and time of this email any further attempts to extend the recent non-constructive line will be regarded as being an abuse, and not tolerated. WL Oh yeah? And just what does this gentleman propose to stop people WL talking/emailing? WL As for the rest of that message : grow up - please! WL Wolfgang WL WL www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com WL ___ WL QL-Users Mailing List WL http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
RE: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
I agree, in a democracy there is only one healthy response when the humble servant of the membership who has been honoured with the post of chairman of a hobby club tells people what to think and say and that is to think: resign Mr Chairman resign now and vote against him at the next election. BTW leaving aside who owns this list which has been clarified by Bruce Nicholls there are troubling elements in Mr Masons email : 1) The precise timing of the emails referred to and in particular the 4 minute response to the original email that upset Mr Mason - the nearest I have in timing in my archive (deleted folder) is one thanking the sender of the first for his work in setting up the meeting and indicating that he is looking forward to it. Whats upsetting about that? 2) The almost defamatory email of saturday 12th November : Which saturday the 12th November was that email sent. We haven't had a saturday 12th November this year. The size of the outburst along with the use of precise detail which is inaccurate, language and capitalisation can be taken to indicate a colossal stress level in the sender so perhaps a change of chairman should be contemplated for the good of Mr Masons health? Best wishes Duncan Neithercut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jeremy Taffel Sent: 21 November 2004 18:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH What an extraordinary outburst!! I'd be intrigued to know what the censored 4 paras said! This looks like an attempt to intimidate us all into silence by pretending that this is a Quanta list. Does he think we are totally stupid? Thank's Geoff for posting this and letting us see how unfit Mr Mason is chair Quanta. Perhaps we should all rejoin Quanta forthwith, just so that we can take the satisfaction in voting him out of office N.B. I left many years ago in protest in their misuse of members funds (honoraria). In my opinion, they are still mis-using the funds ; i.e. not using them. What is the point in a non-profit making organisation in making year upon year profits, and hoarding the cash whilst membership dwindles and the product slowly dies? anyone else up for a coup? Jeremy gwicks wrote: I have decided to forward this message as I think all Quanta members should read it. Derogatory comments about a third person have been removed. - Original Message - From: john mason To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John Mason ; Geoff Wicks ; John Gregory ; Roy Brereton ; John Gilpin ; John Southern ; Tony Firshman Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:57 PM Subject: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH From: Chairman QUANTA To: ALL Subscribers QUANTA FORUM - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copy to: Geoff Wicks, Tony Firshman, QUANTA Committee DTO: 201104:2030Z ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH Some seven years ago Quanta Committee decided that it would be good for QL'ers to have their own Internet based Forum. Robin Barker, then Chairman, very kindly undertook the task of setting this up. At the same time he rationalised email contact with Committee Members by providing a system of email addresses which automatically forward to Committee Members no matter how many times they themselves change or how many times their personal email addresses do so as well. There were problems with the first chosen ISP, and another was found. The QUANTA email Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] site has more than proved its value to Quanta members as a place to present news, exchange ideas, solve problems, and perhaps most importantly debate issues of interest to the QL fraternity. Most topics are constructively discussed but not surprisingly occasionally debate gets quite heated. Fortunately, up to now, Quanta Committee have not had to intervene since the Forum has proved to be self regulating, and itself dealt quickly with any offender. That, unfortunately, cannot be said to be the position since mid October last. An email was posted on the board in which a subscriber alleged that Quanta is out of touch with the QL community, boasted that I had hijacked the QL2004 idea, said I don't regret doing it because we are going to have a bloody good time on Sunday , continued it would not have happened if we had left it to Quanta. Carried away by his own verbosity he carries on for some time making yet more allegations. Eventually saying Another thought I am having is what is the point of Quanta making another £1,000 profit if it never spends its money on anything and finally remarks Having written that I should remind everyone that I am a member of the Quanta committee and I accept a degree of responsibility, Within four minutes of this email being sent a second subscriber responded - adding to not, unfortunately, rebuking the first. Seemingly mistaking Quanta Committee's Freedom of Speech tolerance policy for something else the dialogue continued with the same slant, and eventually
Re: [ql-users] Fw: ENOUGH is ENOUGH and MORE THAN ENOUGH
OK, now I'm confused. What IS the history of this list? The reason I ask, is that going back through my inbox I found that that a couple of years ago, the address for the list was [EMAIL PROTECTED], and that the welcome email suggests that Bruce's email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED] So was the list originally owned by Quanta, and run for them by Bruce, or did Quanta just provide the domain names for the email? Jeremy On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 at 15:24:37, Bruce N wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hello All, I would just like to stipulate this is NOT a Quanta List. The welcome instructions setup a long, long time ago. :- Welcome --- Welcome to the QL/SMS mailing list! This list is for any discussion related to QL/SMS be it news, help, queries, for sale etc. Off topic discussions (not related to QL/SMS) are not appreciated. Being a member of this list is a privilege and you may lose that privilege if you abuse your subscription. I maintain the list. Bruce (Quo Vadis Design) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
