Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
-hh wrote:Except for how chrisv admits it below ... oops!
This "choice" bit by chrisv is a Red Herring diversion attempt,Not.
Except for how chrisv admits it below ... oops!it was about how some folksNotice, everyone, the magic shape-shifting argument.
foolishly try to make claims without any objective support.
The point has already been made that no "objective support" is needed,Oh, look: chrisv trying to claw back to the original subject!
to know what one likes.
But if that were actually true, then they'd not posted, rather than to advocate for their (...wait for it...) personal preference.Here, their claim was that they found that XYZ personally gives them aThe point has already been made that no advocate has claimed personal
warm fuzzy, but that is not objective or generalizable to everyone else.
tastes are objective or generalizable to everyone else.
If anyone is guilty of that, it's -highhorse, with his implicationsBigger sample sizes yield better estimates.
that rich companies who have lots of users giving lots of feedback are
going be objectively better.
Nope, DFS was already man enough to step up and admit that he wrote an ambiguous statement ... way back in August 2012. Which means that you've been dry-humping that line for more than a decade.I'd also like to see the original statement made, because the aboveAgain, -highhorse conjures shit up that no normal person could have
kinda looks like a misquote or misstatement: I've never claimed that
Adobe Photoshop was an expensive waste.
thought what the issue was, at all. He's 180 degrees from it!
FFS, all along he's been a Photoshop defender! Obviously!When one is experienced enough to know what the right tool is for a job, one uses said correct tool if one has it in your toolbox, and if one doesn't have it, if you're also smart .. you go and get it.
Sheesh!
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.