|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
XML
|
 |
Re: Comment on post 321
Dave, iterating and learning in public is fine, but you didn't explain that that was what you were doing. Another (and unkind) way to describe what you were doing is 'seeing how much you can get away with'. I am not saying that the worst interpratation is the true one, but it's something to think about yourself. If you were iterating and approximating your definition of funky, *it was not clear to any outside observer*. All anyone could tell was that you were being cryptic. Another way of accomplishing the same thing would have been to point to your feed and *ask* whether other people thought it was funky. You would have gotten feedback of an entirely different sort. Part of taking risks is admitting when you were wrong. Doing so only reluctantly and in a nasty way ("so sue me") doesn't speak well of you. Yes, I am a programmer. And a writer. And a designer. You obviously decided to pigeonhole me into a convenient category, to make your argument. Well, people don't fit into neat little categories Dave, we're messy and sloppy that way. I understand that about *you*, how about giving me the same f**kin courtesy? As far as I am concerned, I can take anything you choose to dish out, but in the past I've apologized to you (and sincerely) for smaller things that you've called me on. Now you're making me a scapegoat for what other people have done to you. Not cool, Dave. I am not an object lesson. Here's a clue: Hard questions are important questions, not an attack. Think about that for a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Last update: Tuesday, July 1, 2003 at 9:19:40 AM Pacific. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
