Re: Critique, Please

Killian ...

I am going to say something .. and take it for what it is .. my opinion! ..

You seem to make personal attacks on anyone/everyone that submits a site for
critique .. or at least those that you bother to check out .. Seldom do I
find you making constructive suggestions .. only espousing that which you
don't feel that we have done to the standards that you have set for yourself
.. and apparently others.

I must say, your web site is beautiful .. no doubt about it .. but it's not
something that I want to create .. that doesn't keep me from appreciating
the effort that you've put into designing it .. nor does it make me dream of
the day that I might also be able to create something close ..

I would imagine that with the abilities that you have that you would be more
than capable to assist each and every one of us that has put a site up for
critiquing .. but instead .. you choose to demean our work .. our efforts ..
and .. most probably .. some of our dreams! .. Keeping in mind that that
would also mean that we've given you more power than you deserve .. but the
words that you use .. and the way that you say them .. is definitely on the
offensive! ...

Why not, when aiming at shooting us down .. don't you find SOMETHING either
positive to say .. even if you have to reach to do so .. OR .. even better
.. tell us HOW we could go about making our site better? ...

Roxi

-----Original Message-----
From: killian jenkins <killian(at)ilikethis.cz>
To: netimken(at)erols.com <netimken(at)erols.com>
Cc: Starr Wolf <starrwolf(at)texoma.net>; hwg-critique(at)hwg.org
<hwg-critique(at)hwg.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Critique, Please


>Mr. Nelson....
>
>I trust you are a religious person and consequently more sensitive to my
post
>than rational. It appears to me that you take more issue with my religion
digs
>than my actual critique of the website in question.  In this case, i
commiserate
>with you... religious people are very sensitive in this way. But. perhaps,
a
>fair critique of the respective site would be more appropriate on this
list.
>Otherwise you are spitting in the wind.  Granted, i found the religious
>signature inappropriate and a welcome matt for comment... but more
significant
>was the website itself.  Most tragic in every aspect.  I am sorry you do
not
>like me... but rest assured i will burn in hell so don't worry about my
destiny
>as a soul or designer.
>
>Nelson E. Timken, Esq. wrote:
>
>> Killian:
>>
>> Since I joined this list, I have read comments from you, so-called "site
>> critiques", and formed my own opinions, which, until now, I have kept to
>> myself. I feel after reading this latest thread that I should no longer
hold
>> my tongue.
>>
>> Your response in this situation to Ms. Starr was harsh. Your references
to
>> this person's religion were nothing short of obnoxious and personally
>> offensive. Your lack of tolerance for the views of others is typified in
>> each and ever post you make to this list. Your lack of religious
tolerance
>> in this instance was inexcusable. Simply that. You dabbed these attacks
with
>> traces of stylistic criticism, but basically, you show a sheer lack of
>> grace, tact, eloquence and charity in the way that you approach and
critique
>> others. You come across as a heavy-handed, arrogant and a pompous ass.
This
>> is hardly the person I would hire to do my web site or that of my
company,
>> which in fact seriously warrants a makeover. In fact, after reading your
>> posts, and picking up the flavor of your attitude towards others, I
suggest
>> that you seek some sensitivity training and counseling as to why you seem
to
>> feel the need to bolster your own insecurities by tearing others apart.
>>
>> In short, you sicken me. Don't let the door slam on the way off this
list.
>>
>> Nelson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-hwg-critique(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-critique(at)hwg.org]On
>> Behalf Of killian jenkins
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 7:13 PM
>> To: Starr Wolf
>> Cc: hwg-critique(at)hwg.org
>> Subject: Re: Critique, Please
>>
>> Starr Wolf wrote:
>>
>> > Killian:
>> >
>> > What was the point of your reply? You did a good job of showing how
much
>> > pointless venom you can spew. How about adding some professional advice
..
>> > or, is that asking too much?
>> >
>> > I'd like your feedback in the following areas, please. If you can't be
>> > professional and objective in your reply .... don't bother:
>> > >
>> > >Quit frankly your love for God doesn't have anything to do with web
>> design
>> > and just for the record... i know many devil worshipers whose websites
are
>> > incredible.  I wonder who inspires them... ;-)
>> > >
>> > [How did you stray to this commentary when nothing in my website hints
>> > toward religion? Your assertions are shallow and irrelevant. I wanted
your
>> > opinion of my website ... not your views on religion.]
>>
>> Is not your signature a sitting duck.  A professional designer would keep
>> their
>> faith to themselves.  Trust me... the Lord will not rescue in this one.
>>
>> > >3. The absurd advertising of your association with HTML writers guild
>>  and
>> > other web this and that badges) as though it compensates for plain
>> terrible
>> > design or validates your worthiness as a designer.
>> > >
>> > [I happen to be proud of the HWG and what it stands for as an
>> organization.
>> > If you aren't get off the list. I am here to learn and I have learned
>> > greatly from the listmembers. I will proudly display the logos on my
pages
>> > whether you approve or not. However, I would like to know why you find
>> them
>> > so offensive?]
>>
>> It is a cliche... a gimmick... a way of boosting bravado.  Good designers
>> don't
>> need badges unless they come from the IPPA or such.. This does not
validate
>> your
>> worthiness to anybody as a designer so lose it.
>>
>> > >4. The terrible download time.
>> > [Well, DUH!! I told you I was open to speed suggestions. Do you not
have
>> > anything POSITIVE to add?? What measures do you recommend?]
>>
>> Yes... lose the huge insignificant graphic.
>>
>> > >5. The ineffective mouseover.
>> > [How so? Input??]
>>
>> Just plain ineffective.  The tiny window with yet another dog does
nothing
>> to
>> advance your site.
>>
>> > >6. The annoying dog clip art animation.
>> > >
>> > [I'm sorry you don't like it. It stays ... get over it.]
>>
>> Your choice... many which are debatable.
>>
>> > 8. The amatuer copy.
>> > [Can you add a little more useable input here? How do I improve it?]
>>
>> First of all...  the site must compliment the content.  By testimony of
your
>> site, you know very little about webdesign... your copy is poorly written
by
>> somebody who knows writing but nothing about web desing as well.  And i
>> already
>> said... it is pithy... terrible...
>>
>> > >9. The absurdity of 'offering packages'.
>> > >
>> > ["Absurdity" .. excuse me? You don't think there are people in the
world
>> who
>> > like this type of thing? I have yet to be approached by a new client
who
>> > doesn't ask if I have a "package deal". Several clients have given me
>> input
>> > about how the packages relieved them of the burden of trying to decide
>> what
>> > they wanted. They stay.]
>>
>> My apologizes... my clients know what they want. ANything you want can
>> 'STAY' it
>> is not my website... thank GOD
>>
>> > >[snip] ... being presumptious enough to think your 'packages'
accomodate
>> > all.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >11. No URLS for any of the supposed testimonials.
>> > >
>> > ["Supposed" ... EXCUSE ME .. are you insinuating they are fabricated??
I
>> > didn't know whether I should list the URL's together with the text or
not,
>> > so, I chose not to and wait for input. However, I can assure you I DO
NOT
>> > appreciate your loathful attempt at impuning my integrity.]
>>
>> Seems common sense... flaunt a reference give us a URL.
>>
>> > >12. Worrying about validating code that is too simple for a validater.
>> > >
>> > [What is this supposed to mean? Are you trully into "cheap shots"
enough
>> to
>> > throw something like this out there? How can any coding be "too simple
for
>> a
>> > validator"? Explanation?]
>>
>> Simple... the HTML you use is so basic a validator is unwarranted.
>>
>> > >I appreciate your effort but you have much to learn. All i can say is
>> > goodluck and "god help you".
>> > >
>> > [Obviously I'm not getting any help from you.]
>>
>> I tried.  And had some morbid fun ;-)  Going to hell i know... and
>> anticipating
>> it.  As a matter of fact... i just signed a deal with the devil for his
>> website
>> ;-)
>>
>> > In closing I'll add that you sure shoot off your keyboard as if you're
an
>> > authority and your code doesn't stink!! If you are so "great" show me
your
>> > work. Where are some websites you've created? I'd like to see what
you're
>> > about. I'd like to see what the list says about your work. I've never
>> heard
>> > of you before today.
>>
>> Where have you been?  My work is traceable through my signature or have
you
>> not
>> learned about those yet?  Everybody here has a problem with my
critiques...
>> i am
>> surprised you have missed all the fun ;-)
>>
>> > If you're as good as you are opinionated perhaps you could teach a
>> youngster
>> > like me how to better ourselves ... that is if you can gain as much
>> > satisfaction being positive as you obviously do being negative.
>> >
>> > Starr
>>
>> Please please.... lose God and find me ;-)  Just a joke... though i am a
>> cynic
>> by nature. If anything i have mentioned above is not clear i'll gladly
>> expound.
>> Honestly though, Starr, good luck... sorry to be such a hard ass... but a
>> few of
>> us exist... you are welcome to rip apart my work... and i am willing to
>> learn.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Killian Jenkins
>> Web Designer
>>
>> i like this!
>> for stellar Internet presence
>> http://www.ilikethis.cz
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>
>Killian Jenkins
>Web Designer
>
>i like this!
>for stellar Internet presence
>http://www.ilikethis.cz
>
>
>

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA