You really are prolonging this aren't you?
Not at all. I'm just not naive enough to fall for the rhetorical trick where you pretend to have an entitlement to some sort of "last word" merely because you write you're "done with xxx" or similar.
How does accusing someone of being dishonest correlate with not supporting them?
I'm not accusing anyone. I am stating flat out that they seem dishonest since they choose to ignore the fact that several people was before others, yet they didn't receive the offer the latter come'rs did. That's dishonest in my book. It would just be dumb luck if it was an error, but to ignore it. That's dishonesty.
You are one of the people trying to argue that one shouldn't be harsh to someone whose core market segment is people on here, and especially not an upstart. And since that is all you, it should be quite easy for you to see why I wrote that you want people to only be positive towards this (or other) upstarts.
If you can't see the problem in that attitude and how it invites positive-only remarks and people being taken in, it's your loss.
Give an opinion by all means, but measure your response according to the facts in hand.
I did, and I do. Unlike you, I don't make up apologist argumentation because the company in question targets us and that the product is about another product we love.
And please stop whingeing about only giving positive remarks; nobody and I repeat nobody, is saying that.
Perhaps you should reread the posts. First of all, I'm not whingeing. Secondly, if you cannot see that if we were to follow your argumentation and "advice", that is all we would be left with, then - again - that is your loss.
Many people have expressed unsupportive opinions and questioned the new publication; but only one person has incurred the wrath of at least three others with the way he has conducted himself and by littering his protestations with profanities. Maybe that gives you some indication?
It gives me the indication that some of you are way holier than thou when you whine about me using "profanities", when you think you get to dictate just how I wrap my arguments, and it gives me an indication of just how entrenched you are when you can't see an argument when it's staring you in the face, but have to resort to attacking the style:
I mean, when all else fails, why not use an argument of popularity and claim that because you and two others doesn't like the way I present my arguments, therefore I must be wrong.
Yup, that's the indication I'm getting.
