atcsundevil wrote:

This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself. That discussion can be found here.

viewtopic.php?p=20115149

Users are also reminded to please not post the same comment to multiple threads.

✈️ atcsundevil

Hi atcsundevil, this from Egerton

I note your post, above.

1. I declared that my post #35 was a duplicate: "I posted this on the first thread on "Emirates signs a commitment for 38 A380 etc" on 19th Jan. This now runs to over 400 posts. The later thread of (22 Jan?) "GE Engine Venture etc" was therefore not open at that point, it was opened with old news from Bloomberg, which was there on 19th.

2. Do you think that I have offended against your comment "This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself"?

3. Do you agree with me that the 19th Jan thread is currently dealing with much the same points as the 22 Jan thread?

4. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think it was a mistake by mods to permit the 22nd Jan thread to get going, considering:
a. It was raising old news already being discussed?
b. the title showed the no knowledge of the subject matter?

5. Do you think I should not have posted my duplicate bearing in mind I could easily have changed the wording and not declared it as a duplicate?

6. Do you consider that it is right that has taken 6 hours for the Mods to decide they did not like my duplicate?

7. Do you think I should have started a new thread instead of posting my initial thoughts on the 19 Jan thread?

8. Do you consider as I do that

a. threads of 200+ post encourage some folk to just start at the end (not the beginning) so creating multiplication?
b. that a small subscription would benefit serious readers?
c. that the the owners of A.net should act on a subscription to avoid serious readers walking away?

Egerton wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself. That discussion can be found here.

viewtopic.php?p=20115149

Users are also reminded to please not post the same comment to multiple threads.

✈️ atcsundevil

Hi atcsundevil, this from Egerton

I note your post, above.

1. I declared that my post #35 was a duplicate: "I posted this on the first thread on "Emirates signs a commitment for 38 A380 etc" on 19th Jan. This now runs to over 400 posts. The later thread of (22 Jan?) "GE Engine Venture etc" was therefore not open at that point, it was opened with old news from Bloomberg, which was there on 19th.

2. Do you think that I have offended against your comment "This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself"?

3. Do you agree with me that the 19th Jan thread is currently dealing with much the same points as the 22 Jan thread?

4. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think it was a mistake by mods to permit the 22nd Jan thread to get going, considering:
a. It was raising old news already being discussed?
b. the title showed the no knowledge of the subject matter?

5. Do you think I should not have posted my duplicate bearing in mind I could easily have changed the wording and not declared it as a duplicate?

6. Do you consider that it is right that has taken 6 hours for the Mods to decide they did not like my duplicate?

7. Do you think I should have started a new thread instead of posting my initial thoughts on the 19 Jan thread?

8. Do you consider as I do that

a. threads of 200+ post encourage some folk to just start at the end (not the beginning) so creating multiplication?
b. that a small subscription would benefit serious readers?
c. that the the owners of A.net should act on a subscription to avoid serious readers walking away?

It seems that you're reading a little too deeply into my comment to that thread.

This — “Users are also reminded to please not post the same comment to multiple threads" — was not directed at you. A user posted the exact same comment to two different threads. Doing so is not only lazy, but it risks duplicating discussion. I'm not sure what made you think that was directed towards you, but it wasn't. I hadn't even seen your posts prior to now.

Furthermore, while there is crossover between the discussions, I felt that they were independent enough to exist separately. I could have merged the topics into one, but chose not to. Some users dislike the large, cumbersome, broad topics that involve multiple lines of discussion, so I personally have made an effort to allow different (but similar) discussions to exist separately where possible. Judgement calls like this are an everyday part of being a moderator, despite the fact that some users will often believe they would made a better or different choice. However, we have the ability to see a more complete picture with regard to user feedback, reports, etc., so we choose the option we believe is best. I will stick with my choice on this thread until I believe the topic has lost its unique discussion, or another moderator feels the topics should be merged.

My post was an attempt to keep this thread on topic so that the two discussions didn't become the same discussion, because then I would have to merge the topics. It was not, however, directed in any way towards you.

atcsundevil wrote:

Egerton wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself. That discussion can be found here.

viewtopic.php?p=20115149

Users are also reminded to please not post the same comment to multiple threads.

✈️ atcsundevil

Hi atcsundevil, this from Egerton

I note your post, above.

1. I declared that my post #35 was a duplicate: "I posted this on the first thread on "Emirates signs a commitment for 38 A380 etc" on 19th Jan. This now runs to over 400 posts. The later thread of (22 Jan?) "GE Engine Venture etc" was therefore not open at that point, it was opened with old news from Bloomberg, which was there on 19th.

2. Do you think that I have offended against your comment "This thread is for discussion of the engine contact, not the EK order itself"?

3. Do you agree with me that the 19th Jan thread is currently dealing with much the same points as the 22 Jan thread?

4. With the benefit of hindsight, do you think it was a mistake by mods to permit the 22nd Jan thread to get going, considering:
a. It was raising old news already being discussed?
b. the title showed the no knowledge of the subject matter?

5. Do you think I should not have posted my duplicate bearing in mind I could easily have changed the wording and not declared it as a duplicate?

6. Do you consider that it is right that has taken 6 hours for the Mods to decide they did not like my duplicate?

7. Do you think I should have started a new thread instead of posting my initial thoughts on the 19 Jan thread?

8. Do you consider as I do that

a. threads of 200+ post encourage some folk to just start at the end (not the beginning) so creating multiplication?
b. that a small subscription would benefit serious readers?
c. that the the owners of A.net should act on a subscription to avoid serious readers walking away?

It seems that you're reading a little too deeply into my comment to that thread.

This — “Users are also reminded to please not post the same comment to multiple threads" — was not directed at you. A user posted the exact same comment to two different threads. Doing so is not only lazy, but it risks duplicating discussion. I'm not sure what made you think that was directed towards you, but it wasn't. I hadn't even seen your posts prior to now.

Furthermore, while there is crossover between the discussions, I felt that they were independent enough to exist separately. I could have merged the topics into one, but chose not to. Some users dislike the large, cumbersome, broad topics that involve multiple lines of discussion, so I personally have made an effort to allow different (but similar) discussions to exist separately where possible. Judgement calls like this are an everyday part of being a moderator, despite the fact that some users will often believe they would made a better or different choice. However, we have the ability to see a more complete picture with regard to user feedback, reports, etc., so we choose the option we believe is best. I will stick with my choice on this thread until I believe the topic has lost its unique discussion, or another moderator feels the topics should be merged.

My post was an attempt to keep this thread on topic so that the two discussions didn't become the same discussion, because then I would have to merge the topics. It was not, however, directed in any way towards you.

Thanks for your response, with which I concur.