Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vicegrip" data-source="post: 366636" data-attributes="member: 7476">[[ Where do you get your &quot;fact&quot;? If you're so in the know, why then haven't you produced the thing yourself, and ages ago? Trust me, it seems very easy until you actually try it. ]]--You want to pay me to do it?--If you don't agree with my &quot;facts,&quot; don't agree with them.[[ No, the fact is that duplicating the functionality of eTools would be a bare minimum 3-month fulltime project, and only for a very talented programmer. ]]--Yup.&nbsp; And then, if you're a good little consultant, you double it.&nbsp; So I said 6 months.--Don't believe that I'm a talented programmer?&nbsp; Ok, don't.[[ Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product. ]]--Aha.&nbsp; So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior.&nbsp; How charmingly leftist of you.--It's not that useful to demand proof that takes 6 months.&nbsp; It's actually fairly disingenuous.&nbsp; Basically what it amounts to is me saying &quot;I can prove my case given six months.&quot;&nbsp; You're saying &quot;given six months you'd only be proven wrong.&quot;&nbsp; We both need 6 months to prove our cases, only you want to assume you're right now.--Not that I blame you.&nbsp; Most people overinflate their abilities, and to assume that the random person on the notesboard is doing so is totally justified.&nbsp; But don't presume that it's much of a proof.&nbsp; It's just as likely that Fluid overestimated the difficulties that faced them as it is that I overestimate my abilities to overcome difficulty.&nbsp; After all, I'm not the one that's shown a strong commitment to slipping timelines, and dropped features.--And what about those of us who want a better product?--This thread is meant to evaluate the usefulness of the e-tools product, and possibly to decide if it's as much as we can expect from such a product.--I'd wager it's not.&nbsp; I told you why I'd wager it's not.&nbsp; If you don't agree, then that answers the question for you.&nbsp; I don't need to prove anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vicegrip, post: 366636, member: 7476"] [[ Where do you get your "fact"? If you're so in the know, why then haven't you produced the thing yourself, and ages ago? Trust me, it seems very easy until you actually try it. ]] --You want to pay me to do it? --If you don't agree with my "facts," don't agree with them. [[ No, the fact is that duplicating the functionality of eTools would be a bare minimum 3-month fulltime project, and only for a very talented programmer. ]] --Yup. And then, if you're a good little consultant, you double it. So I said 6 months. --Don't believe that I'm a talented programmer? Ok, don't. [[ Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product. ]] --Aha. So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior. How charmingly leftist of you. --It's not that useful to demand proof that takes 6 months. It's actually fairly disingenuous. Basically what it amounts to is me saying "I can prove my case given six months." You're saying "given six months you'd only be proven wrong." We both need 6 months to prove our cases, only you want to assume you're right now. --Not that I blame you. Most people overinflate their abilities, and to assume that the random person on the notesboard is doing so is totally justified. But don't presume that it's much of a proof. It's just as likely that Fluid overestimated the difficulties that faced them as it is that I overestimate my abilities to overcome difficulty. After all, I'm not the one that's shown a strong commitment to slipping timelines, and dropped features. --And what about those of us who want a better product? --This thread is meant to evaluate the usefulness of the e-tools product, and possibly to decide if it's as much as we can expect from such a product. --I'd wager it's not. I told you why I'd wager it's not. If you don't agree, then that answers the question for you. I don't need to prove anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification