bambam said:
(e-mail address removed) (BillR) wrote in
bambam said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
I myself was interested in
hearing what commercial programs might be available for the
price of a magazine. Rather than split hairs (please), it was
simply free-enough-for-me-ware.
I thought you were one of the good guys?
[but since you disagree with me you're not, so you're a bad guy.]
I didn't make the rules, it's not me he is disagreeing with, it's the
group.
"I thought you were one of the good guys?" I read that in one of two
ways. First, as a somewhat tongue in cheek humorous plaint. Second,
as demonizing. If he is not "good" then he is ???? If the former, no
problem. My mistake. Apology/excuse below. Much of the time in acf
there is no question. Something I find quite unfortunate.
He _may_ be disagreeing with the group, but it is you who posted the
comment.
REMbranded is indeed a very productive member of this group, one of
the best. This is why I was so surprised at his support for the
posting of commercial programs provided for the price of a magazine.
Why is it undeserved? Are questions not allowed to be asked of
"productive members"?
We aren't moderated yet.
Questions, yes. Insults, no. Well, perhaps with sufficient
provocation. If any of several active members of this group ever
directly looses their attitude in my direction ....
"Are questions not allowed" -- of course. And disagreement. But not
just by you or those in your narrow faction. Is dissension in the
ranks allowed? Can some of us admit that even if we agree with a
policy, we don't have to like all of the consequences? ("Narrow
faction" -- I'm not addressing whether you are generally in the
majority on a single specific well defined binary question;
ultimately we are all factions of one.)
If your comment was of the "friendly disagreement" type, my sincere
apologies. I know that I have become quite sensitive to such nuances
(at least by others) after my latest immersion in acf.
BillR