On Sun, November 20, 2011 8:59 am, Jim Adcock wrote:
Most people have an ms-word processor, or similar word processor such as OO on their machines. It would be silly to try to tell them not to use it, if they know it and are comfortable with it. It would also be silly not to acknowledge the weaknesses of such tools -- such as the garbage HTML that ms-word generates.
Or the garbage that Open Office generates. When choosing an HTML editor there are several considerations that need to be taken into account. The technical capabilities of the editor are, of course, important, but the "fluency" that an end user has with a particular editor is also important. I know an individual who edits his HTML with vi; he is extremely well-versed in HTML markup and fluent in the command structure of vi. Editing HTML that way would drive me absolutely nuts, but for him it is very efficient. Then there is the sectarian aspect. It is very difficult for an OOian to convince a Wordist that they are adhering to an incorrect religion. This sectarian aspect contributes greatly to the same kind of conclusory arguments that are the hallmarks of BB's posts. While it has been many years since I used OO with any kind of frequency, my conclusion at the time was that it was neither better nor worse than Microsoft Word in the quality of it's HTML output; both produced output that has to be fixed before it can be used for e-books. Dedicated HTML editors seem to be a better choice to me, and HTML markup is simple enough that a simple text editor is probably better than a "full-featured" word processor. But I would like to see more analysis of these tools rather that bare claims that "my religion is better than your religion."
But, BB continues to use ridicule and other forms of Machiavellian rhetoric as an excuse to avoid serious and honest debate of his ideas, and other's ideas, on their merits.
Well, there's a saying called "Hanlon's Razor" which basically says: "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance." Do not be overly harsh with BowerBird. I think his conclusory arguments and ridicule simply mask the fact that his arguments are frequently unsupported by evidence and without merit. It's best to simply ignore his anti-social behavior, and take his arguments with an appropriate dose of salt (a grain is usually insufficient). I would have thought by now you would have learned that you cannot engage BowerBird in "serious and honest debate." Trying to have a dialog with BowerBird is like tying to have a dialog with Bill O'Reilly, or any other talking head on television; the conversation is by it's very nature one-way. You should consider being place on his kill filter as being high praise: it means you have a made an argument he cannot refute, and his kill filter is the digital equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing loudly.
From his perspective he truly has "silenced his critics," by the simple expedient of ignoring all those who disagree with him.
Personally, I find many of BowerBird's ideas worthy of consideration, although as he gets closer to concrete implementations he tends to "go off the rails." So when he has a good idea I think it completely appropriate to continue to discuss the ramifications of those ideas without him. You have zero chance of changing his mind, but there are certainly others here who would love to engage in civil dialog.