The reviewer missed this same point.
He stated a valid opinion,
Actually what I said was:
"He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn’t
handle so you spewed ad hominems and fud like “WYSIWYG is so '90s”. "
You said that, but that doesn’t make it correct. The reviewer’s
opinion is not correct or even remotely valid. (Frankly, Writeboard
doesn’t present itself as a collaborative word processor as Writely
does. Writeboard is intended to fill a different niche entirely.)
It seems more like a “We’re offering an option for people who prefer
Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
of these tools, and choice is good” attitude.
The reviewer missed this same point.
He stated a valid opinion,
No, it was an ill-informed opinion.
so you spewed ad hominems and fud like “WYSIWYG is so '90s”.
An ad hominem is an attack on the person. I used parody to mock his
opinion, not him.
“[C]ouldn’t handle” and “spewed”? Really; whose FUD’ing whom with the
ad hominems now?
–
James B.
“Inside every large system there’s a small system trying to get out”.
- Chet Hendrickson
It seems more like a “We’re offering an option for people who prefer
Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
of these tools, and choice is good” attitude.
The reviewer missed this same point.
He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn’t handle
so you spewed ad hominems and fud like “WYSIWYG is so '90s”.
If “WYSIWYG is so '90s” is fud,
then “Welcome to the 1980s.” is fud.
Can you comprehend that?
The reviewer missed this same point.
He stated a valid opinion,
Actually what I said was:
"He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn’t
handle so you spewed ad hominems and fud like “WYSIWYG is so '90s”. "
You said that, but that doesn’t make it correct.
Which is why I cited the article in which Britt said that quote. I can
also cite the ad hominem stuff, such as about how the original author
doesn’t have a clue, and Dr. Dobbs journal sucks, etc., all of which
have nothing to do with his opinion.
“Welcome to the 1980s.” is fud.
Can you comprehend that?
Look it up. When you argue for one software/api/language whatever by
saying or implying without any basis in fact that another is out of
date, unpopular, etc., that is fud.
also cite the ad hominem stuff, such as about how the original author
doesn’t have a clue, and Dr. Dobbs journal sucks, etc., all of which
have nothing to do with his opinion.
Let me be a little more explicit:
Your statement that James “couldn’t handle” a “valid opinion” is
incorrect on two levels.
Preston Gralla (the DDJ reviewer, whom I mostly respect) reviewed
Writeboard as if it were an AJAX word processor instead of a simple
wiki with insanely fast deployment. This is like faulting a 99 cent
ball-point pen because it isn’t a gold-plated fountain pen. OF COURSE
IT ISN’T. It doesn’t try to be, either. So, Preston’s tossed off
statement about Writeboard is not a valid opinion. It’s an
assessment of the wrong technology. Start with the wrong assumption,
you don’t get a valid opinion.
James could handle it, if it were a valid opinion. Since it
weren’t, it isn’t necessary to handle it.
Basically, Doug, you muffed it here. Thanks for playing,
haveanicedaybuhbye.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:40:34AM +0900, Doug H wrote:
William J. wrote:
“Welcome to the 1980s.” is fud.
Can you comprehend that?
Look it up. When you argue for one software/api/language whatever by
saying or implying without any basis in fact that another is out of
date, unpopular, etc., that is fud.
I think you’re missing a point intended in the statement about the '90s.
As I understood it, the comment was meant as a satirical reference to
the “Welcome to the 1980s” comment in the review, pointing out that:
A) it is ridiculous to use that sort of attack on the Writeboard
technology because it is not a 1980s answer to a 21st-century problem,
as the article’s author is implying, but rather an answer to a
completely different problem than the one the author addresses
B) far from proving that the Writeboard solution is out of date, the
author is instead indicating that his criteria for judging it might in
fact be out of date
That’s a hyperbolic demonstration of the inappropriateness of the
author’s criteria, not FUD, as far as I can tell.
give me HTML, but don’t make me learn a third language to mark up text!
Which reminds me … I need to install a DOS emulator to run some Pascal
code.
But that’s just the point of Markdown and Textile! They are trying to
be as much as possible a language that you already know. And you
wrote markup that is valid in both of them not only without having to
think about it, but without even realizing it.
I’m hardly a big advocate of either. My first experience was writing
a comment on some blog, thinking ‘some special markup thingy? piffle.’
and just typing away plain text. Then it took my unthinking plain
text and did the right stuff to it. I just think that’s kind of neat.
I think the DDJ author was trying to be cute and entertaining. To
restart the ages-old WYSIWYG debate as if it just occurred to him is
weird.
