Forum Posts Feed
Cataloguing the Different Ways the Mind Associates Itself with the Outliner Presented Screen
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Foolness
Sep 14, 2012 at 03:59 AM
No sir, I’m not the one. But as you said credibility and as I said corrupt mod. Apples and apples.
Even the original topic has a link to an actual software. The fact that the more you try to simplify it the more your evidence fails the objective evidence is proof enough.
I won’t even quote my own post, why do you think this person was asking about MY OPINION ON SEVERAL PIECES OF SOFTWARE ON THIS THREAD:
Daly de Gagne:
I may be obtuse, but I do not understand how “Google Calendar is much better” etc.in terms of Kanban than Flow.IO or Trello. I’d appreciate it if you could explain. Please let me know what I’m missing.
and yet you can only say this:
“make lengthy posts that have nothing to do with software”
Not even the words little to do here. Nothing.
The same for your wrong accusations of making it about me.
To re-quote:
“So, you are referring to people who themselves have not purported to be outline experts, but someone else called them so derogatively speaking, and now you want to challenge the title they themselves have not claimed? And of course this will be done in your own preferred field of opus-long multi-topic posts, rather than the field of (to the best of intentions) focused threads that have been taking place over the course of 8+ years (the bits I’ve followed)?
As long as you have the time to spend in it (I don’t) it doesn’t sound like a very difficult job.”
on my reply to Alexander that he even tagged as:
>Sideline: it would interest me to know who are the outliner ‘experts’ that you expect to take up this challenge. As far as I >remember, only one person in this forum has called himself an expert, and that was in a recent thread. I believe that the >majority of contributors here refer to themselves as ‘power users’, which is something completely different.
“As for who I consider outliner experts, it would have to be those that consider themselves an outliner expert. Redundant, I know, but let us not forget that the user who claimed to be an expert in that recent thread did not cite only him but threw the claim out that one blog poster is trying to protect his stake as the resident expert in this forum and also cited a Kant professor whom he obviously considered an expert. I too thought that there were only power users here but if people are willing to consider themselves as experts then it’s high time to make a thread that helps them establish their credibility as experts. It would be better for them in the future and it would be better for the community as a whole to understand why they may be infatuated with the more mundane and lengthy subjects of theory.”
^Clear, concise evidence of your corruption. I won’t waste any more of your deaf ears though. I’ll just leave it here for future generations in the chance that you don’t delete this.
In fact, if you read my last reply to Alexander, I railed on him for the same reasons. He could have been capable of replying about software and he didn’t. Even if he had simply replied to my actual reply, he would have been replying about software.