Guest JackRiver Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 What's with the weird PM (private message)? Yours Jack River
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Folks, The PM service is there, but please do not use it to contact others after a debate. You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks!
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks! The reason why I didn't publicly ask Jack a question is that I'm timid and afraid to post publicly on this board... yeah right, that would be the day! Truth is, Sanjeev asked everyone to stop posting on that thread. It's not like I was going to get any kind of an answer given that circumstance! I forgot any mention of a networking only feature. Here is the context of that private communication: Online (publicly) I told OEC2000 that I felt he betrayed Jack's trust, that he used Jack. Offline I asked Jack if he thought that was so (because I'm curious). If anyone bothered to read that long drawn out soap opera of a thread, you might find a post where Jack essentially reassured me that I was crazy to find hostile intent within OEC's remarks -- Jack directly asked me not to "jump ugly" with him. Right, so... I didn't like how Jack's misunderstanding of OEC's tone and hostile intent led him to conclude that I would "jump ugly" with a polite rational person. The end of the soap opera brought us to a confession from OEC2000 that he actually was deliberately being hostile in those comments, but rather it was due to his misunderstanding my meaning of the term "sandbox" (he thought it was in a hostile context). So given all that, I kind of want to know Jack, did you feel used? He was happy to let you accuse me of "jumping ugly" at innocent comments (certainly didn't pause to correct you did he?). He could have said, "In all fairness to Eric, yes Jack, I really was getting hostile with my comments in retaliation for the sandbox remark." Personally, I don't like thinking you are out there figuring I just go and "jump ugly" at perfectly reasoned people. It really bothered me that you felt that way. Now that you know the truth, I just wanted to find out how that changes things. Last time we discussed it, you were firmly convinced that I was getting heated up over a pleasant conversation.
Guest kawikaho Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Well, looks like i've been missing out on some interesting threads on here lately. Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. BTW, I think it's highly lame to expose someone's PM like that. If you don't like it, don't respond.
Mungerville Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Good God. By the way Jack River, if you have two reasons BNI is such a great deal and you have bought all your damn shares that you are going to buy, and you are not sure about one reason then why the hell don't you spill the beans on the other one at least. And on the one you are not sure of, just say you are not sure. But that would be too simple wouldn't it? You like to play little games instead. Is that it? Do you get off on keeping little secrets?: I know something really really important but I'm not telling you people. I stopped doing that in 1st grade personally. Nothing personal, other than that it sounds like you are intelligent and have a lot to bring to this board.
ragu Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Good God. By the way Jack River, if you have two reasons BNI is such a great deal and you have bought all your damn shares that you are going to buy, and you are not sure about one reason then why the hell don't you spill the beans on the other one at least. I can't speak for Jack but I tried to figure out the "certain" reason from his hints in the other thread. The first place to look was the CEO presentation that he referred to: http://www.bnsf.com/investors/presentations/pdf/2009jpmorgan.pdf Slide 15 refers to the increasing volume of imports from Asia since 2000. Between 70%-80% of the imports come in through the West Coast of the US. From BNSF's website(http://www.bnsf.com/markets/asia/network.html): "BNSF freight moves over the shortest route from the Pacific Northwest to Chicago, the Northern Transcon, and the shortest route from Southern California to Chicago, the Southern Transcon." (emphasis supplied) I believe this to be the source of BNSF's sustainable competitive advantage over the other rails for the foreseeable future. Best, Ragu
prevalou Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 It is what boosted the stock price of BNI versus UNP in the past years (growing trade with China). I am not sure it is as relevant in the future...
Guest JackRiver Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Ragu That wouldn't be something new (or a new perspective) to a person who follows BNI. Yours Jack River
Guest JackRiver Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 kawikaho I didn't post the actual PM so maybe it's just lame instead of highly lame. I agree. I should have taken the 2 seconds it would have taken to figure out how to PM back. Yours Jack River
JAllen Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I didn't hear anything in that presentation that hasn't already been discussed widely except for the fact that it might actually be more desirable to have the least amount of captive traffic which BNI has.
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. Kawikho, just because something isn't in the Terms of Use, doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate one's actions. Eric didn't say anything particularly negative or bizarre, but I'm asking that people use the PM feature for positive exchanges rather than negative. Otherwise, the feature gets turned off across the board. Cheers!
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 kawikaho I didn't post the actual PM so maybe it's just lame instead of highly lame. I agree. I should have taken the 2 seconds it would have taken to figure out how to PM back. Yours Jack River I would have posted it myself rather than summarize it, but the personal message feature doesn't have a "sent" folder so I can no longer find an exact copy of the text. I find the lack of that feature as "highly lame" :D
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. Kawikho, just because something isn't in the Terms of Use, doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate one's actions. Eric didn't say anything particularly negative or bizarre, but I'm asking that people use the PM feature for positive exchanges rather than negative. Otherwise, the feature gets turned off across the board. Cheers! My thinking was that I was asking Jack a personal question that really is only relevant to his relationship with me, and that other readers on this board wouldn't be interested in it. So I sent him a "personal message". Sanjeev, you make the rules and I will post such messages publicly in the future. Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again?
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Sanjeev, I've re-read the Terms of Use, and there's nothing in it that clarifies the terms of using PM. As long as the PM follows the terms of use for the general board (no vulgar, hostile, SPAM, etc...), I think it should be used for anything that the sender deems private. Kawikho, just because something isn't in the Terms of Use, doesn't mean common sense shouldn't dictate one's actions. Eric didn't say anything particularly negative or bizarre, but I'm asking that people use the PM feature for positive exchanges rather than negative. Otherwise, the feature gets turned off across the board. Cheers! My thinking was that I was asking Jack a personal question that really is only relevant to his relationship with me, and that other readers on this board wouldn't be interested in it. So I sent him a "personal message". Sanjeev, you make the rules and I will post such messages publicly in the future. Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again? Additionally, the only way I found that "personal message" feature in the first place was from the "personal message" icon embedded in every single post. My common sense led me to believe that by putting the icon in every thread, it is suggestive that it's okay to use it to discuss some issue that came up in the thread. Do you see how I could be led to believe that? I think it's common sense that if it's not for that reason then it belongs somewhere else. Not sure if you have control over that though. Still, you don't want it used for that purpose and I won't do it again. Somebody else will likely make the mistake again if that icon isn't placed somewhere else.
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again? Dude! You contacted him privately to bash another member. In that you are asking him if he felt used by the other boardmember. That may not having anything to do with common sense, but it sure as hell was immature. Leave it alone. Like I said, next topic please. Thanks.
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Afraid I'm going to disagree with you in saying I lacked "common sense". What is the name of that feature again? Dude! You contacted him privately to bash another member. In that you are asking him if he felt used by the other boardmember. That may not having anything to do with common sense, but it sure as hell was immature. Leave it alone. Like I said, next topic please. Thanks. I did not contact him to bash anyone. I'm trying to sort out a misunderstanding as I pointed out. Jack, please post it (I don't have a copy).
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Lest I be misunderstood, I'm asking him to post it because now you are saying I was bashing somebody. People can compare what I said privately to what I said publicly and determine for themselves whether you are right that I am being malicious.
cheapguy Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Everyone, let us move on. All of you are great posters and bring value to this board. So please don't get hung up on this storm in a tea cup type scenario. Can you all call it peace and move on to more productive topics. It is not worth using all this brain power on this topic anymore!!
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Lest I be misunderstood, I'm asking him to post it because now you are saying I was bashing somebody. People can compare what I said privately to what I said publicly and determine for themselves whether you are right that I am being malicious. Eric, bashing may be a bit strong, but you were clearly suggesting that Oec was using Jack, and then asking Jack how he felt about it. It's just not a useful way to spend your time is it? It's just a pointless exercise that won't give you any satisfaction, and serves no value to anyone. Anyway, here is the original message you sent to Jack, which I requested a copy of last night, due to his original perplexed post. Please let's move on from this whole subject. At the same time, I would also ask Jack to just tone down the posts. Some of your posts come across a bit acrimonious...if not a bit hostile. Thanks! Jack, You spent a good amount of ink explaining to me that OEC wasn't being hostile. He let you continue with this for quite some time. In the end, he basically capitulated and said "yeah, but considering how hostile your 'sandbox' comment was, you can't complain about my comments". This is essentially him saying, "sure it was hostile but I didn't cast the first stone". The explanation of the sandbox misunderstanding by nodnub confirms that it would indeed have pissed him off... prior to that, I was wondering what could possibly be wrong with this guy. Then at the end he thanked you for backing him up! It sounds to me like he was intentially getting his digs in due to a perceived slight about kiddie play in a sandbox, but let you go on and on about how proper his intentions were. Did this make you feel used? That's all I want to know. I'd be pretty annoyed if I defended somebody for a long time, only for him to admit guilt in the end. Your mileage may vary. - Eric
Guest ericopoly Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Eric, bashing may be a bit strong, but you were clearly suggesting that Oec was using Jack, and then asking Jack how he felt about it. The word "using" is exactly the word I used publicly before the two of you called me out for contacted him offline. Therefore, in no way was I attempting some underhanded campaign offline. It was merely using the precise word that I used publicly in a message to OEC. It is exactly because of my high ethical standards that I am trying to clear this up -- it bothers me that your first instinct was to mistake me for a lowlife. It truly bothers me! That wouldn't be the case if I was guilty of malice.
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 The word "using" is exactly the word I used publicly before the two of you called me out for contacted him offline. Therefore, in no way was I attempting some underhanded campaign offline. It was merely using the precise word that I used publicly in a message to OEC. It is exactly because of my high ethical standards that I am trying to clear this up -- it bothers me that your first instinct was to mistake me for a lowlife. It truly bothers me! That wouldn't be the case if I was guilty of malice. Dude, you shouldn't have contacted him regarding that stuff in the first place. This is a friggin' message board for God's sake. You're like 40 years old like me. Why would you bother asking him that? Incidentally, I didn't call you out. Jack posted the original perplexed post, and I just made a comment that all users should debate with each other in the open: Folks, The PM service is there, but please do not use it to contact others after a debate. You clarify positions in the open board and say what you have to say. The private message system is there for people to network only. Thanks! You then decided to pursue the issue. And I'm almost certain you will have something to say after this post as well. If not, then great we can all move on to the next topic. Cheers!
Smazz Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Sanj, in your Admin rights you should have the ability to "lock" threads (or delete if you want). That would have stopped most of the drama.
UhuruPeak Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Too many people having too much time on their hands. Darn I wish I was retired ;D
Parsad Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Thanks Smazz! I just found a way to lock topics. Cheers!
Recommended Posts