# Stop the pile ons



## MesquiteMan (Jan 19, 2009)

Folks,

In the past few weeks there have been numerous pile-ons here at IAP. This has to stop, PLEASE! If you see something that is out of hand, do not deal with it yourself by piling on and trying to moderate the forum There is only one moderator here at IAP and that job has been entrusted to me by Jeff, the owner of the site. 

In case some of you do not know, there is a feature where you can report a post to the moderator. It is located in the box where the poster's name is shown in a thread. If you look toward the bottom, you will see a number of different icons. One is a yellow triangle. If you click on that, it will allow you to give a reason and will send a message to me. The icon looks like this:






Please start using it instead of jumping down another member's throat in a thread. I really do not want to start banning people but in the last few weeks, we have had a number of folks talk about canceling their membership because of hostile posts. No one like to be told what to do by their peers. That is why we have a moderator. Instead of posting something chastising someone for a perceived "infraction" use the above referenced tool and let me deal with it.  Things will go much more smoothly around here.

Thank in advance for you cooperation.

I am going to leave this thread open for a while. If you have comments, feel free to make them.

Curtis O. Seebeck
IAP Head Moderator


----------



## DocStram (Jan 19, 2009)

Great post, Curtis.  Thanks for stepping up to the plate and addressing this.


----------



## bitshird (Jan 19, 2009)

Curtis, I've noticed that most of the dog piles are either started by or escalated by only a small segment of members. If there is a need to dress someone down, either send them a PM or email, It probably massages the Ego of the person that starts the flaming, but then the mob mindset takes over.


----------



## Mudder (Jan 19, 2009)

Hey!


Wouldn't replying to this thread also be a pile on? :wink:


----------



## GaryMGg (Jan 19, 2009)

Curtis,

Any problem if we're having PM conversations with individuals to discuss some of these things so long as the discussions stay civil and the discussion is not about a 3rd party?


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Jan 19, 2009)

Are the Steelers and their fans off limits?


----------



## edman2 (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks Curtis. That's a good reminder of a system already in place for us to use. We do need to manage the dogpiles better and this will allow us to do so. Thanks for all you do to moderate in a consistent and fair manner.


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jan 19, 2009)

I'd like for you to have more time to make Worthless Wood blanks to sell in the classifieds, so I'll try to behave.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 19, 2009)

GaryMGg said:


> Curtis,
> 
> Any problem if we're having PM conversations with individuals to discuss some of these things so long as the discussions stay civil and the discussion is not about a 3rd party?


 
Gary,

That is up to your discretion.  I do strongly advise, however, that anything that has to do with IAP rules or policy come from me or Jeff.  Some folks don't like to be told what to do by their peers.  We certainly do not monitor PMs (actually can not even see them) so if you think it is appropriate, go for it as long as it stays private and folks don't get run off.


----------



## woodboys (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for telling me what the yellow flag was for. I wondered but didn't want to seem dumb and ask.


----------



## wdcav1952 (Jan 23, 2009)

woodboys said:


> Thanks for telling me what the yellow flag was for. I wondered but didn't want to seem dumb and ask.



Billy,

The yellow flag is for when the race is under caution. :wink:


----------



## woody350ep (Jan 23, 2009)

Have I missed something recently?  I wasn't aware that there were any real major issues going on and want to make sure I am not part of any problems.  I don't see why I would be (I mean, who wouldn't like me? ), but I haven't noticed anything to warrant a posting such as this either, so maybe I am oblivious to what is going on around me.  Thanks for clearing me up.......


----------



## ed4copies (Jan 23, 2009)

wdcav1952 said:


> Billy,
> 
> The yellow flag is for when the race is under caution. :wink:


 
I don't think we should tolerate RACIAL remarks!!!


----------



## GaryMadore (Jan 23, 2009)

woody350ep said:


> Have I missed something recently?  I wasn't aware that there were any real major issues going on and want to make sure I am not part of any problems.  I don't see why I would be (I mean, who wouldn't like me? ), but I haven't noticed anything to warrant a posting such as this either, so maybe I am oblivious to what is going on around me.  Thanks for clearing me up.......



The only one that comes to my mind is when a whole big lot of us rushed to support Al  and his post with a link to his book.

I am guilty of "piling on" in that thread, but I gotta say that I ain't sorry.

That said, I'll definitely watch what I say/do in the future.

Cheers!

Gary


----------



## DocStram (Jan 23, 2009)

GaryMadore said:


> The only one that comes to my mind is when a whole big lot of us rushed to support Al  and his post with a link to his book.
> 
> I am guilty of "piling on" in that thread, but I gotta say that I ain't sorry.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Gary.  I really appreciated your support as well as others who spoke up.  However, that's not what Curtis is talking about when he says' piling on. 

I'll let Curtis speak for himself .... but, when he says "piling on" I think of things like the following:

1. Somebody says something controversial .....  then, somebody steps in with a rebuttal that crosses the line of common courtesy.  There's a way of responding with out throwing fuel on the fire.  Rubbing a person's nose in the dirt is another way of piling on.   Know what I mean?

2. A more common example of "piling on" .....  somebody says something controversial .... or, maybe even outside the rules of IAP etiquette .... then, one person after another jumps in with an overly critical remarks without anybody bothering to use the brakes or letting the original poster come up for air.   

The bottom line is this ..... when we see somebody making an offensive post ......  just hit the yellow caution icon over there on the left.  That will alert Curtis so that he can deal with it. 

In most cases, piling on would be prevented if everybody would just take a deep breath before hitting the "submit reply" button.  Get it?  :biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## woody350ep (Jan 23, 2009)

ok, so if I understand you correctly, an example would be like when that kid a couple months back got the wood from someone for free to work with and he was thinking about selling it, and many people jumped his case about how it was for him to use, not profit from?  Personally, I had no issues with it, but there were quite some heated debates related to that.  Is this the type of thing?


----------



## jeff (Jan 23, 2009)

woodboys said:


> Thanks for telling me what the yellow flag was for. I wondered but didn't want to seem dumb and ask.


You can hover over any icon at the site and a tooltip will pop up saying what it's for.


----------



## cozee (Jan 24, 2009)

Piling on is also seen when someone (usually a newbie) asks a question and others (usually seasoned members) verbally pummel them for not using the search feature.


----------



## leehljp (Jan 24, 2009)

DocStram said:


> 1. Somebody says something controversial .....  then, somebody steps in with a rebuttal that crosses the line of common courtesy.  There's a way of responding with out throwing fuel on the fire.  Rubbing a person's nose in the dirt is another way of piling on.   Know what I mean?



There seems to be some confusion on that statement versus forum policy here:
http://www.penturners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35645 > http://www.penturners.org/forum/aup.php (Acceptable Use Policy)
Policy:_"*No personal Attacks.* Criticize ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated. Broad, negative statements about individuals or businesses are not permitted."_

If a person posts an offensive picture and is reminded that the picture is offensive, - then according to this policy, it is OK to criticize the idea or picture, just not the person. 

An acceptable use - as that policy states - would be something like this in a simple rebuttal: "That picture/statement is offensive or uncalled for". 
 . . . It does not criticize the person or call him a name, but it does criticize the idea / statement / picture. HOWEVER, that can be seen (subjectively by a moderator) as "flaming" or "throwing fuel on the fire" as you mentioned. It could also be considered as "piling on" according to what Curtis wrote.

So, Which is it? What is the "Acceptable use" versus "throwing flames on the fire / piling on"?

It is not my intention to dispute rules, but I would like clarification. I like rules, generally. :biggrin:


----------



## GaryMadore (Jan 24, 2009)

leehljp said:


> It is not my intention to dispute rules, but I would like clarification. I like them, generally. :biggrin:



TROUBLEMAKER!

(oops, was that a personal attack? my bad!)

hee hee

Cheers!

Gary


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 24, 2009)

Hank,

If you read what I posted above, it is best the leave the moderating to me or Jeff. It is best to not even post in a thread that violates the rules. Each member should only be worried about moderating themselves. That will stop all of the pile ons.


----------



## sptfr43 (Jan 25, 2009)

*dog pile*

I see nothing wrong with a good dog pile. In fact I think it is a good thing!!.


----------



## leehljp (Jan 25, 2009)

MesquiteMan said:


> Hank,
> 
> If you read what I posted above, it is best the leave the moderating to me or Jeff. It is best to not even post in a thread that violates the rules. Each member should only be worried about moderating themselves. That will stop all of the pile ons.



Curtis,

I read it. Thanks! Gotcha.  But it seems to me that what you wrote conflicts with policy:
*Policy:"No personal Attacks. Criticize ideas, not people.*

IN other words, shouldn't there be a statement within policy for what you are saying. Having "criticize ideas" as an OPEN policy in generic circumstances (ideas) is very wide open in meaning, especially with this being an international forum and English being vague as it is. 

That *policy* "loophole" allows for criticism of ideas, which is fine for critiquing pens, tools, methods, jigs etc, but "ideas" is a big target - as in concepts, philosophies, thoughts, statements, etc. I believe "critiquing ideas" as in "pen related critiquing - is what that is intended to be, but that is _not_ what it says. When "criticize ideas" applies to concepts, ideas, philosophies, thoughts and statements, - Conflicts do arise. This is what should be eliminated and clarified.

And by the way, I am glad to see this manner of conduct being stipulated.

Hats off to you and Jeff!


----------



## marcruby (Jan 25, 2009)

It seems to me that you are mixing contexts, or I'm just not getting your point.  The policy is about remembering that personal attacks are an inappropriate form of argument.  I think the caution about piling on is a reminder that just because you're not calling the target a name doesn't mean that you are engaging on open dialogue.

We're blurring the lines a bit about what is 'piling on.'  In other forums I've seen it called a 'harpy attack' and a good bit of the time the people involved don't really know that they are doing it.  Which is why Curtis's point about staying out of the 'discussion' and signaling for the referee is so valid.

The only person we are responsible for is ourselves.  If we tend that field the issue should disappear.

Marc



leehljp said:


> Curtis,
> 
> I read it. Thanks! Gotcha.  But it seems to me that what you wrote conflicts with policy:
> *Policy:"No personal Attacks. Criticize ideas, not people.*


----------



## Mudder (Jan 25, 2009)

*Rant Alert!*



MesquiteMan said:


> I do strongly advise, however, that anything that has to do with IAP rules or policy come from me or Jeff.  Some folks don't like to be told what to do by their peers.




Curtis,

Some folks don't like to be told what to do by anybody.



In this case I have to agree with Hank and ask for a clarification of the policy.

On the subject of rules and policy I feel that I have something to say. In my "real life" I am a quality supervisor in a factory that is ISO certified. Part of my job is to perform internal audits and also audits of our vendors. The reason I bring this up is because the whole premise of ISO is "say what you do and do what you say". I can walk into a company and tell within 15 minutes if they practice the ISO guidelines simply by talking to the upper management. If upper management supports and abides by the policies that they have set then there is a trickle down effect and the whole company operates by the policies. I'll bet you are wondering why I bring this up? Well, It's because I see some policies of the site that are not being enforced and that gives a dangerous signal to the group as a whole. A policy or rule not enforced is not a policy or rule at all. If it is not going to be enforced then why have it as a policy at all?

Lets take a look at the signature guidelines as an example.

Here is what is posted in the Acceptable use policy:

"Signature Guidelines:

Signatures shall contain no more than 5 lines of text (includes blank lines), and that content is subject to the same restrictions as post content.

Signatures may contain one static or animated image no larger than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall.

Links in signatures are permitted provided they point to your personally owned web site(s). Obscured links such as TinyURL pointers, spelled-out URLs, etc., are not permitted."


The first sentence is rarely if ever enforced because I have seen signature lines that contain more than one image and  some signatures that contain so many lines that they are usually longer that the person's post. It also states that the content is subject to the same restrictions as post content. Lets see what some of the restrictions are.

"Discussions of politics and religion are not allowed."

This is open to interpretation; I guess that technically speaking a signature line is not a discussion so the folks who put in political and religious content can argue successfully that they are not in violation.

(Before you all start calling me the Anti-Christ please remember that this is just one example, it is not meant as an attack on anyone's religion or political viewpoint. I also have a religion and political viewpoint but I try to keep it off this forum.)

One more general observation; according to the Acceptable use policy:

"Post only appropriate content. Material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, or which infringes upon the intellectual property, contractual, or fiduciary rights of others is not permitted."

The words otherwise objectionable are extremely broad. Any member could use those words as a basis of a complaint for anything said on this site that they do not agree with.


I agree that self moderating is a great thing but if we do not have policies  that are clear and consistently enforced we will never see the problem of "pile ons" will go on and on.


I know that the counter to this will be that "common sense" should dictate but you have to remember that we are an "international" group and what seems perfectly acceptable to one will not be for another.


----------



## Texatdurango (Jan 25, 2009)

Mudder said:


> .......I agree that self moderating is a great thing but if we do not have policies that are clear and consistently enforced we will never see the problem of "pile ons" will go on and on.
> 
> I know that the counter to this will be that "common sense" should dictate but you have to remember that we are an "international" group and what seems perfectly acceptable to one will not be for another.


 
In my opinion, self moderating never has worked and never will.  There will always be those who feel it is their "right" to be above written rules simply because they think they can successfully argue their position if ever challenged.

Still using the signature lines as an example, I can remember several months ago when the signature line debate was going on.  Rather than putting some teeth behind enforcing the rules, the decision was to just let everyone be aware of the rules and use their own good judgement.  Well, we see that didn't last too long!   

I have no doubt that those who are guilty of violating the policy are well aware that they are but could care less since they see no ramifications involved if they do get caught... again... and again...and again!  

With so many having that mentality, why should they worry about things like dog piling, it's just another rule they'll have to argue their position against if and when they get caught!

I haven't seen anyone booted from the forum for any reason since I joined in April of 2007 but have certainly seen some colorful things going on again and again and again!

Just my observations.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 25, 2009)

Scott,

The signature rules is a hard one.  Last night, I spent 2 hours going through posts, looking at signatures.  The folks that had too many lines were politely asked to reduce them to comply with the AUP.  I guess I need to hire a signature police since I really do not have the time to go through each signature to see if they comply.  When I see one that is out of order, I send a message.

As for religious or other tag lines in the signature, it has been our position that having a tag line with a religious theme is not discussing religion any more than having a tag line with a link to a personal website where stuff is for sell is selling.  If the membership feels that we need to start banning religious and other tag lines then maybe we need to just do away with all tag lines.  I don't want to do that because the tag line is an insight into who we are conversing with and allows us a little bit of personal expression.

I will have to disagree with you on the consistently enforced part.  I think the policies are consistently enforced as "infractions" are noticed or reported.  In order for things to be 100% consistently enforced 100% of the time, we would have to have a staff of 25 moderators with shifts to make sure there is always a moderator on line looking at each and every new post the minute they are posted.  I don't think that would go over too well, knowing that big brother is always looking over your shoulder!

The point to this whole thread is for folks to stop trying to moderate the forum and stop adding to the flames.  If you see something that you perceive to be out of line, don't comment on it and keep it going.  Report it via the yellow triangle and let Jeff or I deal with it.  That stops the bad threads from escalating.

When moderating, Jeff and I have to look at things and decide what is in the best interest of IAP based on the policies that have been implemented.  That leaves some subjectivity on our part, unfortunately.  If we had rules that covered every potential problem, IAP would be a ghost town due to everyone abandoning ship because they were afraid to post.  Everyone would feel they were walking on egg shells.  

I will be the first to say that I certainly do not always get it right and have changed my position after conversing with the person that I moderated.  I can only go by what I see and what I perceive is the intent of the post.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 25, 2009)

George,

You have not seen anyone booted becasue we really don't like to boot people.  Even if we did boot someone, you would not know it unless you happened to notice they were missing and happened to see the "banned" tag under their username.  I did temporarily suspend someone at the beginning of December.  That is between me, Jeff,  and that member and will never be announced publicly.

There are 2 groups on IAP.  One group thinks that any and all moderation is bad and the other thinks that we should be moderting everything.  We have to try to find a happy medium.

I asked for folks to self moderate and then gave the means for reporting perceived violations.  It is CERTAINLY not every member's job or right to moderate another member by chastising them in the forum.

You should see some of the hate mail I receive when I do something as simple as deleting a bad post!  It always gets worked out but folks get real bent out of shape for having a thread or post deleted.


----------



## Mudder (Jan 25, 2009)

MesquiteMan said:


> As for religious or other tag lines in the signature, it has been our position that having a tag line with a religious theme is not discussing religion any more than having a tag line with a link to a personal website where stuff is for sell is selling. If the membership feels that we need to start banning religious and other tag lines then maybe we need to just do away with all tag lines.  I don't want to do that because the tag line is an insight into who we are conversing with and allows us a little bit of personal expression.



First, up until very recently you banned links to members with ebay stores.

Second, if the tag line is used to get to know someone or used for personal expression then it IS part of the discussion and should follow the forum rules. 

Third, In researching for my first post I noticed that you claim trademark on the phrase "The Original Cactus Pen Blank" but I cannot find where you have registered that trademark and that could loosely be tied to being unethical because you seem to be telling us something that may or may not be true. But since you are one of the two who make those decisions I guess you have determined that it is okay, and that leads me into the next point.




MesquiteMan said:


> I will have to disagree with you on the consistently enforced part.  I think the policies are consistently enforced as "infractions" are noticed or reported.  In order for things to be 100% consistently enforced 100% of the time, we would have to have a staff of 25 moderators with shifts to make sure there is always a moderator on line looking at each and every new post the minute they are posted.  I don't think that would go over too well, knowing that big brother is always looking over your shoulder!



I must strongly disagree with this paragraph.

In the last year alone I have seen blatant abuses of the acceptable use policy. Email addresses and personal conversations have been posted on this site and they have been swept under the rug because the person(s) involved have been "great contributors to the site". As a matter of fact a part of one of my emails was quoted on this site and I was not asked. How many of the folks who's pictures appeared on the site from local chapter meetings have given their permission to have their photographs posted? I don't recall anyone asking me at the last meeting, not that I care but it is a glaring example of inconsistent enforcement.

I guess it's all in how you want to look at it. Like you, All I want to do is make the IAP a better place for all. If you would like to discuss this privetely, you know how to reach me.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 25, 2009)

Mudder said:


> Third, In researching for my first post I noticed that you claim trademark on the phrase "The Original Cactus Pen Blank" but I cannot find where you have registered that trademark and that could loosely be tied to being unethical because you seem to be telling us something that may or may not be true. But since you are one of the two who make those decisions I guess you have determined that it is okay, and that leads me into the next point.


 
Scott,

Your implications that I am doing something unetical with the ™ on my "Original Cactus Blank"™ line is unfounded. Here is a direct copy and past from the US Trademark office:




> Is registration of my mark required?
> 
> 
> No. You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark. However, owning a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages, e.g.,
> ...


http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm


----------



## jkeithrussell (Jan 25, 2009)

Curtis,

You have tremendous restraint.  Thanks for moderating the site.


----------



## rlharding (Jan 25, 2009)

I would welcome the removal of all religious tags. They don't belong on a pen turning forum and they rile me each time I see them.  When I 1st joined the board I assumed that they were acceptable: they have, after all, been around for the couple of years I have been a member. 

Curtis, I think you have a contradiction going on. While I fully understand your desire for just you and Jeff to moderate, you go on to say that you can't read all posts.  While we don't always behave like adults, we are adults. I certainly don't feel I want to run to big brother when I see something that is outside of the guidelines.

This is a good discussion.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 25, 2009)

Ruth,

It is not running to big brother. Here is an example...

You see someone you think is breaking into a house. Do you call the police or do you go over and try to arrest them or tell them they are breaking the law? If you tell them they are breaking the law, you may end up worse off then if you just called the police.

What happens if the whole neighborhood comes over and beats the living heck out of the supposed perp because they think he is breaking the law? What happens if the person you think is breaking the law is actually the son of the person that owns the home and has just lost his keys and is trying to get back in? Now you have beaten an Innocent man and all heck will break loose in the community. 

That is the point I am trying to make here. If you see a problem, report it rather than try to take matters into your own hands.

Please do not take it upon yourself to tell another member that he/she is violating a rule. That job should only be done by the folks that are responsible for keeping order.


----------



## Mudder (Jan 25, 2009)

MesquiteMan said:


> Scott,
> 
> Your implications that I am doing something unetical with the ™ on my "Original Cactus Blank"™ line is unfounded. Here is a direct copy and past from the US Trademark office:
> 
> ...




Curtis,

You are correct. 

I was wrong and I stand corrected. I had always thought that the trademark symbol was a sign of registration, now I know better.

I offer my apology.


----------



## marcruby (Jan 25, 2009)

I wish I could figure out who was the target of all this piling on...


----------



## ldb2000 (Jan 25, 2009)

Right now I would say Curtis , for trying to do his job .


----------



## hunter-27 (Jan 25, 2009)

I have just read the entire thread. First off, Curtis, heck of a job.  Second, as long as there are rules, folks will try and "bend" them.  There have been several references to "conflicting rules".  I would imagine yes there are some, if someone would like the job of getting with Jeff and Curtis to obtain a copy of ALL rules and regs and then go through and sort each and every thing to be sure nothing "conflicts", I am sure they would take you up on that.  My OPINION is there is no team of lawyers in existance that could sort out ALL rules on most anything that has rules, which also deals with general public opinion as well, to be sure there is never a "conflict.  If we all grow up a little(I group myself here at times) we would not rush to judge a new turner or insult the intelligence of a seasoned one.  This was my two cents worth, take it or leave it.  Thanks for taking the time to read it.


----------



## marcruby (Jan 25, 2009)

Funny how that happens, ain't it?

Marc



ldb2000 said:


> Right now I would say Curtis , for trying to do his job .


----------



## ldb2000 (Jan 25, 2009)

It would be if it weren't so sad .


----------



## rdunn12 (Jan 25, 2009)

Guys,let's just let it go.We are ALL friends here.We all come here because we all have a common interest.Making pens.Curtis,outstanding job.


----------



## rdunn12 (Jan 25, 2009)

And to add to that.Yeah I have jumped on the pile on bandwagon from time to time.Not gonna lie and say I have'nt.Times are tough enough right now without us fighting one another.So we should ALL just do what we came here to do in the first place,share ideas,get ideas,show your work and advance the art of penmaking!!!


----------



## Billman (Jan 25, 2009)

marcruby said:


> I wish I could figure out who was the target of all this piling on...


If I had to guess based on nothing more than timing, Curtis' post is the result of a reply I made seconding the need for a non-pen/turning related topic that has now been removed.

Curtis, your points are duly noted.


----------



## MesquiteMan (Jan 26, 2009)

Folks,

This message is not related to any specific post or any spefic member. If it was, I would have PMd you directly. This is just a general warning. In the last month or so I have seen more and more of this type of behavior and have received so many PMs about it that my head is spinning! We have also had a number of members ask to have their membership removed due to these types of pile ons.

I think many of us are on edge a little.  Possibly due to the election, possibly due to the economy.  That is the nice thing about IAP...you can log in and enter a different world and leave all your troubles at the door!  We all share a common bond, penturning.


----------



## wdcav1952 (Jan 26, 2009)

MesquiteMan said:


> Folks,
> 
> This message is not related to any specific post or any spefic member. If it was, I would have PMd you directly. This is just a general warning. In the last month or so I have seen more and more of this type of behavior and have received so many PMs about it that my head is spinning! We have also had a number of members ask to have their membership removed due to these types of pile ons.
> 
> I think many of us are on edge a little.  Possibly due to the election, possibly due to the economy.  That is the nice thing about IAP...you can log in and enter a different world and leave all your troubles at the door!  We all share a common bond, penturning.



Damn Curtis, get some sleep!! :biggrin:


----------



## Monty (Jan 26, 2009)

wdcav1952 said:


> Damn Curtis, get some sleep!! :biggrin:


Now you done it Cav....you went and woke Curtis up early this morning after only 4 hours of sleep. Now we're all in for it.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## Boomer (May 11, 2009)

Well I have read this thing from start to finish.  WOW  I for one would like to get back to doing some pen turning.  And this is the reason I joined this site so I could learn more about pen turning.  I am sure that there are tons of different ideas from every member on here about how to do something.  I appreciate all the help someone gives me on here. It has helped me learn.  All the negative discussions like this just cause me to not visit as much.  What do you say folks lets get positive and turn some pens.


----------



## NewLondon88 (May 11, 2009)

Boomer said:


> What do you say folks lets get positive and turn some pens.



Well .. we did.. about 4 months ago. :biggrin:


----------



## Jgrden (May 11, 2009)

Go Ducks


----------

