|
|
Posted by Gene E. Bloch on 07/01/06 00:35
William Davis <davisbill@mac.com> wrote in
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?
You still haven't addressed my comment about your vengeful post, in
which you state that
"(if I ever see any of your posts via quoting here, I'll step up and
make sure everyone understands that you have NONE of the expertise
you claim."
To me, this, along with your numerous ad-hominem attacks on Doc,
absolutely vitiates everything you say above and in your other
posts.
That is all I have to say to you.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|