jgpaiva,
Both you and Carol inferred a different meaning than did I.
I certainly respect your point of view and, in this case, I don't happen to share it.
By the way, diverging from the point a little, even here on DC, there exists part of the problem to which WS refers.
In
ANY forum where individuals are free to respond, a neophyte cannot immediately discern whom to trust.
For example:
Newcomer asks for help with a dilemma... for the newcomer, this an urgent matter which needs fixing NOW...
three people respond with different solutions (all intent on being helpful)...
two of the three offer flawless solutions... one overlooks a critical point and inadvertently sows the seeds of a small disaster.
To the newcomer, ALL of the advice seems logical and knowledgeable.
My goodness, when someone poses a question here even I am free to offer a suggestion (and the newcomer hasn't yet discovered that I'm a complete imbecile).
Whom to trust?
I'll make up my own mind about whether or not to trust the contributors to WS but I can understand the proposition that it
could be them.
Since the WS agenda is to establish its own bona fides in this area, it seems entirely reasonable to me to discuss a perceived shortcoming elsewhere, rather than to promote the many and various benefits belonging to the members of a list of favourites.
When I advertise, I don't immediately extol the virtues of the competition. I try to highlight what my own services can offer
I hope you don't see this reply as offensive.
Recent Posts
It was the last version that allowed it.
-zridling (October 03, 2008, 12:21 PM)
