Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
chrisv wrote:
>-hh wrote:>>>
I'd also like to see the original statement made, because the above
kinda looks like a misquote or misstatement: I've never claimed that
Adobe Photoshop was an expensive waste.
Again, -highhorse conjures shit up that no normal person could have
thought what the issue was, at all.
I need to correct myself. DumFSck's quote
>
'What -hh said about Photoshop - expensive, waste, Gimp does the same
for free - is exactly the written position of most if not all
"advocates" on cola.'
>
does read as if -highhorse said that Photoshop was expensive and a
waste. It's poorly written, because that was not its meaning, when it
was posted.
>
-highhorse dishonestly attacked the cola advocates for, allegedly,
saying that Photoshop "is a waste", when we had not. (See sig for the
-highhorse quote.) DumFSck *lied* when he claimed that -highhorse's
claims were "exactly the written position of most if not all" the cola
advocates.
>
The advocate's position on the issue was always reasonable. Saying
that a product is a poor value propostion, or even a "waste of money"
for casual or occasional users, is cannot be honestly shortened to
the product "is a waste".
>FFS, all along he's been a Photoshop defender! Obviously!>
The second -highhorse and DumFSck lie is their assertion that cola
advocates said that gimp had "the same" capabilities. We didn't.
>
Both of them *lied* to attack our quite-reasonable position.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.