|
|
Posted by Bear Bottoms on 08/12/07 19:44
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:33:49 -0500, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <op.twyfyxr2jo4m88@bwwlxc1>,
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:12:46 -0500, Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2007-08-12, Albert Wiersch <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:op.twx121b2jo4m88@bwwlxc1...
>> >>>
>
>> >>> as a novice to these methods easily determined it is a better tool
>> than
>> >>> W3C makes me very suspicious of your agenda.
>> >>
>> >> And you should be very suspicous of Ben's agenda!
>> >
>> > What's my agenda? I'm not the one trying to sell software here.
>>
>> You are trying to trash a very good program that was generously offered
>> free for one day on GOTD.
>
> Saying someone has an agenda in the way you did sounds like they
> have a hidden one. As far as I can see, Ben C was perfectly
> upfront with his criticisms, all fair comment whether you agree
> or not. He told you his "agenda", he has nothing hidden behind.
>
So you think going around usenet trashing the program because of a
disagreement over the definition of a term is justified when it is an
excellent program? One would think that definition disagreement could be
civilly opined without trying to castrate the program itself. That is very
extreme for such a minor argument lending the speculation that more is
going on with a hidden agenda than BenC wants to let on. Besides, CSE does
contain a validator as has been explained.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|