Posted by Neredbojias on 10/25/07 17:09

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:34:17
GMT Andy Dingley scribed:

> On 24 Oct, 15:49, Neredbojias <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I really can't understand why you find that so offensive. It may not
>> have been the most deft of comments but it was hardly a falsehood or
>> obfuscation
>
> It certainly is obfuscation, because they've constructed a false
> dilemma and dressed it up as the law of the excluded middle.
>
> Their position is that you can choose EITHER: dedicated servers
> (expensive) or self-hosting (unreliable).
>
> The reality is that there's a perfectly satisfactory middle ground of
> shared-server hosting. This is both cheap and reliable. So long as
> your demands are modest, then it suits most sites (and the majority of
> sites are static and modest) very well.

Bah! Not addressing "the middle" does not equate to excluding it. Here
is the relevant portion of the OP's original message:

>>
....then he decided to say this:

People with high incomes can afford paying for a dedicated server.
Their time is precious and they do not get their hands dirty for doing
something manually. People with low incomes can not afford paying for
a server, and that is why they think of various excuses to justify
hosting a website at home.
If you have money, you will purchase a dedicated server.
>>

Zilch was said one way or the other about people with moderate incomes.
I find nothing larcenious in the remark and believe the OP was merely
being over-sensitive in conjunction a less-than-excellent logical
perspective. You may not agree with the conclusion of the referenced
remark (and I don't), but it isn't a scam or spam or anything seriously
untoward, and it wasn't obfuscated in the least.

--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.

[Back to original message]