On 27 Sep 2002 at 15:13, David H. Bailey wrote: > No, I never suggested that your criticisms of Finale is inconsistent > with using and liking the program. It is just your assertion that the > manner in which YOU think things should work should be the default.
I have given logical reasons for why this is so, rather than just arbitrarily concluding things should be done the way I want them. > I even supported your suggestion that Finale allow an option to show > measure numbers ALWAYS with the region indicated. But you insist that > your view should be the default view and I disagree with that. There is no utility in having the region number there only some of the time in multi-region pieces > Because of that you insist I have some mental illness. ??? > And your assertion that all who can work with Finale with a minimum of > frustration and a maximum of ease and who aren't afraid to say so in the > face of criticism of the program have Stockholm Syndrome (I didn't know > you were a licensed psychotherapist, too!) is indefensible. People who defend clearly described shortcomings of a program seem to me to be sympathizing with those who implemented the shortcomings. I'm a programmer. I understand how these things happen. But Finale is a mature product, and instead of getting easier to use, it is getting more complex. The document settings dialog in WinFin2003 is wonderful, since it organizes everything in one very easy-to-use location. But, nonetheless, some of the things that are in document settings really ought to be elsewhere. Changing the UI (or adding a user preference) does not alter the underlying disorganization. > You have a hard time with certain aspects of Finale. Fine. Raising > objections to them, sending messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is > fine. I have never said that I thought people shouldn't criticize Finale. > > What I object to is your assertion that the Fenton way is the ONLY way > and that anybody who disagrees is wrong. I have never asserted such as thing without also providing logical reasons why I believe it to be the case. Had I arbitrarily asserted that my way was "correct" without explaining why the Finale way was flawed, you would have a point. As that is not the case, I don not understand your vehemence. > So perhaps, since we are all playing psychoanalysts today, we should > coin a new syndrome: Fenton Syndrome -- the syndrome of thinking that > your way is the only way and all who don't agree are sick. That would be slanderous, as you are making things up out of whole cloth. > I admitted that my way of being able to deal with the measure number > display may well not be the only way and I have been willing to admit > that other options should be allowed. > > Why are you not so flexible? Flexibility is not always a good way to do things. I could tell you I think murder is OK and then ask you why you're not flexible, since murdering someone is a personal choice (we'll ignore the flaw in my basic analogy that murder has an impact on another person). Some things can be objectively reasoned out and it can be shown that one way is really superior to others. My point is that making a user preference to get around a flaw in the program is not really improving the program. -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
