On Apr 8, 9:25 am, AB <fardblos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2007-04-08, Kier <val...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:41:44 -0500, AB wrote:
>
> >> On 2007-04-08, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> >>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:59:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/feature/22363
>
> >>>>>> You are such a fucking liar, Roy. Jesus.
>
> >>>>>> The entire article is about how the PHP based SugarCRM wouldn't work for
> >>>>>> them, so instead they went with a SplendidCRM which *IS* a .NET based
> >>>>>> product.
>
> >>>>> According to the title it isn't. If it is as you say it is, then the
> >>>>> article misled, not Roy. According to the article title, which isn't
> >>>>> Roys, it claims that SplendidCRM is open source. But of course deeper
> >>>>> into the article it is ".NET-centric". It doesn't say it is developed
> >>>>> with ".NET"... just that it is oriented towards the MS platform.
>
> >>>> I didn't read the whole article, but I looked at the headline and the closing
> >>>> paragraphs. Erik is nitpicking here, but I'll admit I was unintentionally
> >>>> inaccurate. Lying is /deliberate/. What happened here was /accidental/. And
> >>>> it happens in every news site every now and then, even in Groklaw.
>
> >>> You mean, you didn't actually read the article at all, yet choose to
> >>> comment on it anyway. If, as you claimed, you had read the closing
> >>> paragraphs (plural) you would have seen:
>
> >> What comments did he make about it?
>
> > The subject line, for one.
>
> He changed the original title. But he followed the implication. That
> isn't a lie, though it's certainly a careless mistake.
>
Actually, if you read and understand english - there was no such
implication.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
