|
|
Posted by doc on 06/30/06 14:31
Yes William Davis hiding behind a MASK as you so openly put it . . there is
a REASON. That reason was stated, "the network" "the client" and "the
client's clients"
And what I say in here is to make others AWARE that sales people will say
anything necessary to get a sale and that Apple/Mac are not necessarily the
best solution but so far as I can find there are fewer completes on the
whole percentage wise with PC's and Avid software. Perhaps that's why the
write up by an independent research agency stated that "over 86% of all
Primetime TV and Hollywood movies are edited on Avid software." Not my
words those of a credentialed man with complete identity like you like.
DrD
"William Davis" <davisbill@mac.com> wrote in message
news:davisbill-0965F1.22302729062006@news.west.cox.net...
> Gene,
>
> First, thanks for the considered and polite response.
>
> Just so there's no chance of any partial quoting and misapplication of
> what anyone else is saying, here are my assertions, relevant to this
> thread.
>
> I've been annoyed by one long time poster (nappy) and another more
> recent (doc) posting what I believe to be long-discredited "facts"
> about Final Cut Pro.
>
> I don't deny anyone the right to post their opinions, but I do object
> when such an opinions are offered as UNASSAILABLE FACT.
>
> And I feel that kind of miss-information must be promptly addressed as
> it occurs.
>
> I'll personally do it when what I consider a false statement is made
> about a program I know well. AND I fully expect others to do the same if
> someone posts something patently false about software they know well,
> e.g. Premier, Avid, or whatever.
>
> I don't think it's fair in the open debate here to leave the impression
> that any tool is in some fundamental way incapable of professional use,
> unless that is IN FACT the case.
>
> It's a disservice to the people who might use and benefit from the tool.
>
> Sometimes, I call into question the expertise of people who promote such
> impressions.
>
> And I expect people to challenge me when I do. I expect them to want to
> know upon what I base my own expertise. So I try to reveal that, when
> asked.
>
> Two posters here, one long time irritant, and another more recent, have,
> in my opinion, posted as "fact" assertions with which I adamantly
> disagree.
>
> When asked, each of them steadfastly refuse to provide ANY verifiable
> identification or credentials so that the community can judge whether to
> give more weight to their opinions or mine.
>
> I argued that their expressed opinions are nonsense - and as evidence to
> support my claim, mentioned a number of professional situations at the
> highest levels of production where FCP is commonly used.
>
> (I could AGAIN list the major motion picture, network TV and
> internations sports programs that rely on it, but why bother. No one can
> intelligently debate this. In point of fact, even all the relentless
> "nappy" can muster is a laughable contention that any movie, tv show, or
> event, I suppose, cut with it is somehow "unworthy" by his creative
> standards.)
>
> Please note, that I NEVER argue against any other solutions, since FCP
> is the system I have personal experience using.
>
> As to my discourtesy in this debate, I probably have been harsh lately.
>
> So I'll openly apologize to any and all I've offended by tone or
> implication.
>
> What I will NOT do, however is alter my opinion that people who hide
> behind masks typically have a REASON to do so. And in my experience that
> reason is usually that they are less experienced, knowledgeable or
> capable than they claim. If I'm wrong they can simply prove that by
> revealing themselves and they'll get a fast and sincere apology from me.
> If I'm correct about the fact that they are posing as something that
> they are not, then the people reading this exchange deserve to know that
> and judge things accordingly.
>
> Is that clearer?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|