|
Posted by Steve Larson on September 18, 2007, 1:53 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Respectfully, I disagree. One can establish, as a conscious choice, a
paradigm for dealing with a situation in two ways, either positive or
negative. A positive paradigm applied to this situation could have been to
share one's thoughts about the value of Q08 versus prior versions, or
perhaps inquire for more information. A negative paradigm would be to
respond the way some chose here, to chastise the OP for asking the question
that he/she clearly was too stupid or too lazy to have found already on ng
or internet somewhere. How one governs a situation where not all the blanks
are filled in _does_ in fact speak to their overall character and demeanor.
The good news is that, treated with humility, behavior can always be
assessed and improved upon.
> Steve Larson wrote:
>> So perhaps others can use this opportunity to exhibit a little
>> patience and simply point the OP to other sources of
>> information,
>> rather than give such sniping, curt, and unhelpful responses.
>> It's a
>> sign of personal character and has little to do with whether
>> the OP
>> sent a redundant post.
>
> Since I don't read minds, I am forced to deal with the words
> that are presented to me in this group.
>
> I have no idea what the op may have been thinking when the
> original post was made; who knows, maybe is was a masterfully
> disguised ode to Quicken.
>
> But the words I read had nothing to do with investigating
> Quicken's capabilities: there were several "statements" (not
> questions); actually, those statements were "conclusions".
> Someone who writes stating their conclusions does not sound like
> a person seeking an enlightening exchange of information.
>
> And the last sentence in the original post asked if there were others
> who shared the previously mentioned "conclusions"; not a request
> to be proven wrong, more an invitation to "sign the petition".
>
> And if the op meant what you claim, why does the op need you to
> claim it? I have seen no attempt by the op to rephrase or
> explain the original post. If the op's shoe fits, the op should
> wear it; if not, the op can post a "size" that does fit.
>
> [And none of this has anything to do with anyone's "character".]
>
> --
> John Pollard
> First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
> Please reply to newsgroup
>
>
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap