|more useful options|
Re^4: Why it is important to counter FUD.by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 UTC||Need Help??|
some of the things you said e.g. about why you think ithreads is a strong concept that's just not implemented ideally, were illuminating.
Thank you for noticing. I respect your preference for the process-based model.
I don't agree with you doesn't mean I find your POV unworthy of consideration.
I just wish these posts were not coated with such an unappetising sheen of belligerence.
Believe it or not, I agree with you.
I wish it was possible to express a positive opinion of the iThreads model--or any, counter-the-current-trends, opinion--here, without them getting drowned out by catch-phrase contentions and bumper-sticker labelling by the usual suspects.
With today's tenancy for short attention spans and sound-bite evangelism, unless you can persuade or cajole the sound-bite slingers to expand them into something that can be countered on a blow-by-blow basis, then all that gets remembered is the sound-bite. Which is why those who are entirely aware of the technical limitations and outright inaccuracies of their sound-bites choose to hide behind them.
The point of this meditation is to point a real-time example of how, yesterday's FUD becomes today's de-facto understanding.
As for your implication that I am trying to censor or limit the things you should talk about: Please! Enough with the paranoia already!
No paranoia. Just counter argument through reductio ad absurdum.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.