"Brian Moseley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "utterly useless"
Uh.. but since I never organize my past showing mostly the past _IS_ utterly useless for me. How is stating this fact belittling or confrontational? > "hysterical about week- and month-overviews" The sentence continued with a clarification of what I mean by that. I might be wrong in that they aren't really dead locked on one way of doing things but instead just haven't thought about any alternatives. Therefore I should have written "seem to me to be" instead of "are". Still, I can't see how this is belittling or confrontational. > "can't fathom not having the same limitations" If you think e.g. that me implying that someone is so used to some particular way of doing something that they can't see any other way of doing it is belittling or confrontational then you're reading wrongly between the lines. > "morons at MS" That I already admitted, but if you're not one of those morons then why do you care? Also, it was in parenthesis and almost beside the point. > "I don't think you've thought this through" How is that belittling or confrontational? > "complete moron" This one I also admitted, but really, this was an imaginary person doing an imaginary thing in an imaginary way, and if this imaginary person really did this imaginary thing in this imaginary way then it really must have been a moron as I already explained. There's really not much belittling nor confrontational about that, especially not towards you or anyone else reading this. > if you really think that we are going to be receptive to the attitude > conveyed by this kind of language, you're mistaken. What attitude? You're the one accusing me of belittling _everyone_ and being confrontational, yet you offer no proof of your claims. This is absurd! > we're interested in ideas for improvement Good. However, your first answer was like: "you're wrong and it's confusing and it's not useful most of the time and it's not natural". So, if we're talking about bad attitudes then how would you rate yourself? > but what you're doing is the equivalent of bursting into a room > shouting expletives and generally acting like a boor. I disagree. I think you're reading stuff between the lines that isn't really there. > show some respect Towards the people who forced the whole presentation software industry to take a 10-year step back by saturating the market with their badly designed PowerPoint? Or towards that imaginary person that did that imaginary thing? > and moderate your tone if you want to be taken seriously. I think you're reading way, way more than I actually wrote. Try reading my first message again, and instead of imagining an angry person wanting to insult everyone try to imagine that the person is confused by the state of things and would like things to make more sense to him. I am truly sorry if somebody was offended by something I wrote. I think you've been much more insulting in your replies than I've been in my messages (still, I haven't really been offended by you in any way, just as I'd never have been offended had someone else written what I wrote), but maybe I'm misunderstanding you too. In any case there has clearly been some errors in our communication, which is unfortunate. I wish you all the best. "Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It also doesn't help that this thread is off-topic for the > Chandler-Dev list. I believe feature idea discussion and > prioritization belong on the Chandler-Users or Design lists. Chandler-users is hardly the right place, but this "Design" list is probably exactly where I should have posted my message. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a list. I've been on this list for years, and I don't think there was a design list when I joined this list. Or maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, sorry for posting to the wrong list, and thanks for correcting me! Best regards, Marcus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
