Actually, I didn't sign my dings because I gave them in the first week or so of the new system. This was before anyone started signing the blings or dings. I standy behind the dings I've given, because they were to parasites. ;).

Same here. Happily, I think us DL types are a very laid-back bunch.

Mary, very few people -- if any -- signed dings and blings in the first days. I know I considered it a secret vote at that point.

However, I do resent you referring to me as a parasite. I don't deny it -- I just resent it. :p

That's for sure. Anybody who has endured a trans-oceanic flight in Delta coach (with the added insult of having to pay for the booze you need to survive it) is not going to let a ding or two bother him.

And perhaps you may get a surprise. ;)

None of the BB techno whizzes among us have refuted this:

I would not get upset if all past dings were identified but I would ask people to keep in mind that it was never even suggested that we sign them. Do not think that someone who dinged you and did not sign his name was trying to avoid the responsibility for the ding.

Obviously, this would not apply to someone who attached flaming messages or, even worse, signed someone else's name.

Not so sure. As a courtesy to Randy I emailed Dan a day back just in case he was working and there might be a quick fix or redirection he could pull, to save possibly urgent and commercially important messages (mine was neither!) also being bounced. Every businessman's nightmare.

The email to Dan at the same domain did not bounce. And I tried re-sending to Randy just now - over 24 hours later and it bounced again. Go figger.

I only raised the fact Randy's mailbox seemed full in this context below and I believe this will be proven true - the first point already being evident:

Oz, let me ask you this: Do you think somebody has the right to complain simply because he was dinged? (Obviously, I am not referring to a ding accompanied by a flame or signed with somebody else's name.)

If someone did not like a post I made, and gave it a negative rating, I would not see that as any kind of infringement of the TOS or of my own rights.

I don't believe that very many people will have any valid complaint to send to Randy.

vasantn...good observation. Now that I consider my blings, virtually none came from the DL forum. And that's where I do 75% of my posting. The majority came from something I posted in OMNI.
Guess the DL folks are primarily interested in miles and points!!? What's with THAT? ;)

I disagree, especially if you got flamed or a kind of "I know where you live" type of unsigned message.

Be real interesting to see if Randy expands the feedback box to 10 or 20 or whatever the limit is (someone mentioned 70, for most, your full feedback history!).

I will probably get dinged for this, but who cares? Certainly not I
Seems we are dealing with a number ( or a few ) of people with pretty thin skins and even lower self-worth.
The length and contents of this thread just helps to prove the point.

Who gives a crap if someone dislikes your post? Would you have posted differently? I sure hope not.
I thought the whole " reputation thingy" a bit hair-brained anyway.
Perhaps if a system were devised where Randy or a panel at at Inside Flyer were able to award some "stars" to particularly informative, timely or useful posts or posters then OK. But after a while on these board we all know who we trust for useful info and advice and those we rather avoid entirely.
We also learn to separate the OMNI persona for the " other board Ftalker"
Perhaps one green should be equal to two reds.
But the whole thing should be done away with its too much a distraction.

So there! ding away.
mike

As the person who dinged you for that, I didn't take offense, but I simply wanted to reflect that someone who posts opinions on a subject really shouldn't be taken seriously if they don't even know the name of the airline they are talking about. Nothing personal against you at all!

Point taken and acknowledged, B747-437B. :)

Above is a perfect example (and there are many far more pronounced) of the divisiveness and angst and mild ill-will that would NOT have occurred a month back.

In this case it seems to have largely been resolved. ^

There will be 1000s of similar cases where it will not be is my guess. :td:

IMHO SEA_Tigger is a valuable and knowledgeable contributor, especially to the UA board. And IMHO B747 is is a valuable and knowledgeable contributor to just about (;)) all threads he posts on.

I'll bet a month back Sean would not have necessarily posted anything on BOARD about the spelling of Qantas, and no-one would have hurt feelings. B747 is 100% correct re the spelling of course, but IMO the point made in the thread was still valid despite the spelling error. Tough to say it can't be "taken seriously" due to that.

Some of the most valuable things posted on FT have been written by folks whose English and spelling are not perfect - but the ideas are. ;)

(FWIW I internally fume to see 'Quantas' typed on FT, but I mostly have managed to ignore it. Plus it is so common why waste the energy!)

This new feature has hurt someone's feelings here. On balance is that a plus or a minus for FT? People all react differently to criticism. Fact of life. The board TOS urge us not NOT to criticise the poster on threads. But these dings allow it. And will continue to allow it in future it seems?

Just my 2c.

Yikes .. double post. :mad: