Things you want in OpenOffice

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dariusz
  • Start date Start date
And said:
I gave him informations. I pointed him to a better source
of informations.

ANd if you'd stopped there, we wouldn't be wasting all this
bandwidth.

I found it interesting to read someone else's experience of OOo.
But I don't care enough about OOo to read the groups dedicated
to it.


--
:-) Christopher Jahn
:-(

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/xjahn/Main.html

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
 
Christopher said:
Bernd, your tone isn't helping your cause, unless you WANT to be
killfiled and ignored, instead of read and respected.

The two posters I responded to, IMO did not have a better "tone".
One made imputations instead of asking ("screwing lines up"). He
compared free software to payware. He made up his opinion, so did I.
After all I gave him hints to solutions of his problems. Still nobody of
those who criticise me of saying "absolutely offtopic" contributed any
informations!
Saying two hard words ("off topic", "not able ...") but still giving
informations is IMHO much better than jumping on these words ("net cop",
"lame", ...) and giving no informations. If those people killfile me, I
don't care. In this point I agree to those you defend "Can't please
everyone and wont try to.".

The other one bashed satisfied OOo-user ("limited needs"). I responded
"you are funny" - if this was too hard in your opinion, killfile me. I
don't think that I hurted him very much.

If you defend people telling their opinion, you have to respect mine as
well or killfile me. If I say OT and do an FUP and you disagree you can
answer yourself, no need to waste your time arguing. My post did not
hinder anybody to answer, but nobody did.

I still read and answer the questions (if I can do so) of people who do
not have the same opinion as I. I did so two times in this thread. So I
think I am constructive. All those who criticise me of saying
"absolutely off topic" instead of "imho off-topic" and giving no
informations "on topic" should reflect their own postings whether they
were acurate or unmistakeably (maybe you all are much better in english
conversation than I). I did not use invectives on anybody, my tone was
an echo on those of the others IMO.

I still don't know why any of {George Richards, Harvey van Sickle, Sweet
Andy Licious, Christopher Jan} answered to {Dariusz, cecut}.
I answered to questions of {Dariusz, cecut} but they did not give any
more details or reaction, so my first impression, that they tried to
bash rather then searching for informations on freeware (as this is the
aim of this group IMHO) at least seems to be reasonable (for me, but
maybe my english is to bad).

I have to admit 3 points:
1) I answered to a post, even though I thought the poster did not want
to get an answer.
2) I posted repeatingly to a thread, even though I said EOT4me
3) I answered to posts, even though I saw that they only tried to open a
senseless discussion to put me under.

So it is time not to repeat these errors again. I have train myself to
resist better next time.

For clearity:
I do not say that asking about a freeware program is OffTopic, I still
think bashing (by wilfully wrong comparing to a payware) is OffTopic,
this is my opinion, respect it or not, killfile me or not.


Bernd
now trying to resist, whatever may follow
 
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:50:03 GMT, Bernd Schmitt wrote

-snip-
For clearity:
I do not say that asking about a freeware program is OffTopic, I
still think bashing (by wilfully wrong comparing to a payware) is
OffTopic, this is my opinion, respect it or not, killfile me or
not.

What is and is not "off topic" in this group is a long-standing bone of
contention, and you are using the term in a much looser sense than is
generally the case.

It's now clear that you objected to what you saw as "product bashing"
and "wilful comparison to payware" -- a view to which you are, of
course, entitled, but one which is, I think, a minority one.

But classifying this as "off-topic" -- a charge which is taken
*extremely* seriously in this group, and which has previously lead to a
remarkable level of bile -- uses that term in an odd way.

You may well have thought that the OP was out of line in commenting the
way he did; but "out of line" does *not* equate to "off topic".
 
Back
Top