time said:
LiamC said:
You named IE, validating my statement.
I excluded IE 6, partly because it's about to be replaced.
Your point about Opera? This is a FF discussion. What has Opera got to do with it? Opera works? Great. But if you are going to introduce other browsers, what happens with K-Meleon, Safari, Avanti, Maxthon, IE 7, and a host of others. I don't know, so that is why I did not mention specific browser functionality.
I was clearly responding to your statement: "In other browsers you might not be so lucky."
Did you not see "might" in my statement? I think you have taken my statement out of context. IE 6 is the dominant browser now, and in the foreseeable future. And as I clearly explained, above, I was unsure of how others behave, so I used the word "might" How is this unclear?
time said:
LiamC said:
Are you miffed (still) because I disagreed with your comments on CVT?
Your rapid raising of the stakes in these discussions is explicitly why I did not respond to you about CVT. Some of your claims in that thread were in fact wrong, but it became impossible to point this out without you taking personal offence.
Now this is where it gets interesting. Can you define/state how I am "raising the stakes"—and I'm inferring from your wording that you mean in a derogatory or threatening manner?
time said:
The above is just an ad-hominem.
Whether you meant to or not, I feel you made a thinly veiled attack on Timwhit without substance. I understand and empathize all too well with your current frustration, but "rabid" is a word that springs to mind. Chill, my friend, you're looking in the wrong place for dragons to slay.
Attack? What was the nature of this attack if I may ask? Did I call timwhit names? Did I disparage his character? Did I use expletives? No I did not. I noticed you used "rabid". Have I used any such descriptors replying to you? Did I use any describing timwhit? Was it the emphasis (bolding) I placed on certain words that made you feel I was attacking timwhit? If your answer to this is yes, I will be happy to quote the original passage and elaborate on the usage of bolding. Did you think I was being derisive? If so, how or in what manner? The point of the passage was to highlight the fact that it the default settings in question did not suit timwhit (and as you pointed out), and others. But, (and this is/was the thrust of my argument) it is a guaranteed impossibility that such global settings will suit everybody. If they were changed to suit timwhit (and others) then they will be happy, but others may not be. There is no "winner" for this. It will suit some, it won't suit others. But at least the FF design team recognised this and provided for it. I stated that it was the default setting which was probably at issue—this is at worst pedantic, but I would hope that people saw it as identifying the actual problem. So if it is my use of bolding that is (and I'm not saying it is, I'm asking for clarification) the cause of your complaint, then I'd suggest you read my sig—I think you have read too much into what I posted.
As for your comments on CVT, can you explain to me what I took as a personal attack? I see a bunch of arguments put forward and refutations on both sides. Defending my stance. You bet. Aggressive, rude, derogatory? No! If you believe so, feel free to quote and explain why. What I do see in
this post is you saying (again) that I was wrong and cannot accept it. In my replies to you in the CVT thread I quoted your arguments and explained why I disagreed with them and where appropriate, provided links to back the arguments I put forward. That is not being wrong and non-acceptance. You on the other hand, just say I'm wrong. No links, no explanation no supporting anything. Just "you're wrong". Sorry, if I'm not convinced. You may have in depth knowledge on this subject, but you have (so far) provided nothing to convince me that you do. I am always open to changing my stance though. Perhaps you took the word "assertion" as being derogatory? Any unsupported statement is an assertion. Mine, yours, anyones. All I have asked is that you provide something to back what you said, but (and this is important) only if you want to. No where have I demanded that you do so. Nor I have said flatly that you are wrong. I think it is you that is taking things too personally, not I. I did post counter arguments to the ones you put forward, but I never attacked you personally, or anyone else for that matter.
Myself, when I do not agree with someone and do not wish to contribute further I just say, "I don't agree with you" and leave it at that, which effectively ends my involvement in a discussion.