[atlantaprog] Re: atlantaprog Digest V2 #47

OK, I know you said to stop it, but I just HAD to make a few quick
comments here...

When I read this, my opinion was the same as Ken's.  Someone else
started the thread.  John responded in a 'generic, but I know from
experience' kinda way.  I could have posted some very similar things and
I'm not in any of his bands or anything, and read his post thinking
"damn right" in more than a few spots.  I had no idea that this may have
been directed specifically at former LO band members.  That old Carly
Simon song comes to mind...

I think Allan was right to put a stop to it when he did.  Regardless of
how someone viewed John's post, Allan stopped it when it became obvious
that it was going to escalate into a flame war.  I think Allan did the
right thing at the right time.

And Allan when you say "this isn't the kind of thing that list members
want to read" I disagree.  It was just starting to get juicy, like a
soap opera! (kidding.  Well sort of...).


Now have fun and play nice...




> AWG,
> 
> Why would it take you this long to come down on it? Why NOW? 
> You shouldv'e said something about it to John....not wait for 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: <kmacleish@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: John Turner Overdrive
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:44:09 +0000
> 
> OK, wait a minute here.
> 
> Unless I missed something (always a distinct possibility with 
> advancing years), John's post made no mention of anything or 
> anybody specific to Lord Only. If issues that he touched on 
> ------------------------------
> 
> From: <princesssalmacis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [atlantaprog] Re: John Turner Overdrive
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:48:18 -0500
> 
> Ken, 
> 
> I'm not "privy" to LO's "inner workings" and I got it right 
> off the bat!  I think more 'got it' than would admit to it 
> though! ;) lol
> 
> Beth
> 
> 

> If you have any problems with the way I choose to moderate 
> this board, 
> please email me directly. This isn't the kind of thing that list 
> members want to read. For the record, Ken was right. Many members 
> likely don't even know who John or Lord Only are. And despite its 
> rather transparent premise, John's post contributed valuable 
> discussion 
> to the thread Phil started.
> 
> No more public discussion of this, please?
>

Other related posts: