From: William James <w_a_x_man@...>
Date: 2006-08-31T05:55:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Dr. Dobb's dumps on RedCloth

Doug H wrote:
> James Britt wrote:
> > David Vallner wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But Dr. Dobbs'  point -is- valid, exposing someone to that by default,
> > > heck, without a WYSIWYG alternative is just vile - even if it's
> > > technically a very good alternative to HTML, it's an annoying We Know
> > > What's Good For You Better Than You Do attitude to your users /
> > > customers.
> >
> > It seems more like a  "We're offering an option for people who prefer
> > Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
> > of these tools, and choice is good" attitude.
> >
> > The reviewer missed this same point.
>
> He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn't handle
> so you spewed ad hominems and fud like "WYSIWYG is so '90s".

If "WYSIWYG is so '90s" is fud,
then "Welcome to the 1980s." is fud.
Can you comprehend that?