i might be throwing myself before the firing line here, but i honestly don't mind when people post their requests for having a turned-down wall paper critiqued by the community. afterall, this is a forum for discussion. yes---you can say its a matter that must be taken up with an admin---but lets face it, the admins are busy; they don't send decline emails out because of the flak they generally get, and by comming to a hub of site activity you know you have a shot at the best of the best reviewing your work.

maybe i feel this way because every other day i spend 8 hours in a studio with my work on a wall, having stones thrown at me from 20 different people. but hearing opinions is what makes your work better; especially finding out what 20 different people like and dislike about it. when everybody flips out 'this is not the place for this question....' i think they're wrong, and it only makes the community here look elitist.

if people here have a problem with this statement, then i offer up my e-mail addie for those that drop by wanting an honest opinion of their work.

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Feb 23, 2004

Public posts get differing responses from different people.  Some are obliged to be 'politic' or at least 'PC', others like to score 'points' at others' expense.

Generally these 'why was this wall' threads can only be answered by the 'ones who done it', and the optimal arena is the modesty of email.

Public airing invites public scrutiny, some 'may' be beneficial advice, others may be an excuse to voice agenda/s regarding their own failed submissions....and a chance to do publicly what was done privately resulting in the abandonment of rejection emails.

If someone wishes for 'help' relating to a wall then the thread topic should be 'how do I improve this', not 'why was it kicked'....)

on Feb 24, 2004
"Flamed?" If you think you were flamed in this thread you must not get around much on the internet. Nothing that I've seen in this thread qualifies as a "flame." Try some other forums or usenet and see the difference.

Or perhaps Chas was right, after all...simply disagreeing with a poster results in an accusation of "flaming."
[Message Edited]
on Feb 24, 2004
naturally, jafo. i agree i about the thread names should be clearer, absolutely, as well.

no, sig. i don't take offense to disagreement...only to comments written for the sole purpose of being insulting.

edit: nor did i specify that i was, in fact, flamed.
[Message Edited]
on Feb 24, 2004
I think it's a craptacular idea!



[Message Edited]
on Feb 24, 2004
jk btw p


wth...I can't wink
[Message Edited]
on Feb 24, 2004










Powered by SkinBrowser!
on Feb 24, 2004
Hey Hiya Purrrr...
on Feb 24, 2004
"...on another note - sig, 'what did i expect?'? to be flamed? sort of. regardless of wether you even replied to ME, it looks like i got a good ratio of civilized responses yet it is indeed sad that i was expecting comments like yours."

"no, sig. i don't take offense to disagreement...only to comments written for the sole purpose of being insulting."

Ah, but it appears that you do think you have received uncivilized insulting remarks in a thread of almost Victorian decorum (except for the winky episode). You see insult where none was intended. If I had intended to insult you it would be quite direct and unmistakable. That was not my intent.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
on Feb 24, 2004
*shrugs*

hmm. emoticon fatal exception.
[Message Edited]
on Feb 24, 2004




Powered by SkinBrowser!
on Feb 24, 2004
jk btw pwth...I can't wink [Message Edited]


join the club
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4