|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/12/07 20:29
In article <op.twyo4o09jo4m88@bwwlxc1>,
"Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:33:49 -0500, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > 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?
Try to keep very calm. It is very unhelpful to assume in an
argument what it is that is under controversy as you do in this
last statement. Let us put this aside though. You make it sound
as if the definition was _the_ most central point. It was not
liked by some people because of the alleged false impression it
gave. But Ben did give you some actual downsides of using the
program, never mind things about the definition of words,
advertising and so on.
> One would think that definition disagreement could be
> civilly opined without trying to castrate the program itself.
I can assure you, it _is_ pretty civil by the standards of the
riots that quite often erupt here.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|