ShareWare vs Evaluation

[kid joe]

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?
Having a ShareWare product that can be activated to a fully enabled
version of that product with a registration code has it's disadvantages
(given the numerous websites that post 'regcodes'), but ShareWare is also
a fast and efficient means in keeping a customer happy. Evaluation-ware,
on the other hand, where code segments are missing, represents a more
secure form of delivering a demo product that cannot be compromised - but
this is at the cost of possibly aggravating potential customers who would
need to download the full version after gaining access to it through a
legitimate purchase.

Any opinions or experiences?

Thanks

Joe
--
.--------------------.
| |
| Good Morning.... | .--.--.
| | .; .;|;. ;.
`-------------. ,---' .;_;' `;_;.
\| ; ;' `; ;
\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )
\| . . |/
........... . .:::::. . .______
/ . '---` . '\
.' `. .' \
| ____,.- . | `.....' | _______ |
| ,-' \ /|\'' \.-- |
| / \.'\ /,'. \. - |
| /| ` `\ / \ |
| ,/ _ '/ '\ |
,-' ,-. |o '
/ '| | | | \
/ ,/| |o | \ `
| .' | |.' |. \ \
________/ .'____|________________________||__`. `__________
( \ ) / )
'-. '-. ( .-` .-`
'-. .-'--.__. .-.__.--`-. .-`
'-..' \--' : ~`:=3D,`- `..-`
\ .. \\ |`-'|`-, /
\\\\\\\) | |`-'/.'/
\)\)\\ `-' `-'
`

[Nick Keighley]

On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <[e-mail]:

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c

--
* *.--------------------.
* *| * * * * * * * * * *|
* *| *Good Morning.... *| * * * *.--.--.

<snip huge sig>

get rid of the sig it's irritating

--
Nick Keighley

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <f9**********************************@j40g2000prh. googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrote:

>On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <[e-mail]:

>Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c blah, blah, blah

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

[Eric Sosman]

kid joe wrote:

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?
[... message and obnoxious sig snipped ...]

No. Goodbye, kid.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <f9**********************************@j40g2000prh. googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrote:

On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <[e-mail]:

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c blah, blah, blah

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Sjouke Burry]

kid joe wrote:

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

The worst thing to attract customers is crippleware.
If you want to show your software to a prospective customer,
it is very annoying to be unable to check out the full product.
Limited testing time, with activation code when purchased,
would be the way to go.

[Keith Thompson]

kid joe <sp******@spamtrap.invalidwrites:

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

No. This is comp.lang.c. Your question has nothing whatsoever to do
with the C programming language.

And your signature is 33 lines long; the generally accepted maximum is
4 lines. If you continue posting with your huge signature, people
will ignore you, and you'll never get any help here (except perhaps
from the trolls, who can't be trusted to give accurate information).
I believe you are being deliberately obnoxious about this. Please
knock it off. (And no, this has nothing to do with fixed-width fonts;
I can see the picture just fine.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
....

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?

Because *I* understand (and know enough to adhere to) the maxim that if
you don't have anything useful to say, say nothing at all.

The CLC regs would do well to follow this.

[Phil Carmody]

ga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <f9**********************************@j40g2000prh. googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <ni******************@hotmail.comwrote:

>>On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <[e-mail]:

>>Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c blah, blah, blah

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

More size does not equal more worth. Usually the opposite.

block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Phil
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the
extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children
smart. -- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American editor and critic

[Keith Thompson]

Phil Carmody <th*****************@yahoo.co.ukwrites:

ga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

[...]

>Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

Why bother to mention the "=3D", as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable?

[...]

>CLC at its finest, boys!

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Tobin]

In article <87************@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <th*****************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:

>Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?

In case you want a serious answer... presumably because it was
carelessly cut-and-pasted from a documented encoded as
"quoted-printable".

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
....

>Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

Why are you so threatened by me?

I don't bite. Really.

But it is good to have my own little monitor - someone obsessed with me.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
...

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.
>
CLC at its finest, boys!

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?

Because *I* understand (and know enough to adhere to) the maxim that if
you don't have anything useful to say, say nothing at all.

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

>In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
...

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!
>
>Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?

Because *I* understand (and know enough to adhere to) the maxim that if
you don't have anything useful to say, say nothing at all.

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

Careful now - any minute now, Officer Keith (*) is going to come along and
tell you to mosey along - leave the troll alone.

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

There are several reasons for this, which I will not go into at the
moment, but suffice to say that "Try XYZ" always comes off as
"get the hell out".

(*) Assisted by butt-buddy Officer Loser.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

....

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

....

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

>In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

...

>Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

...

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

In a word, yes.

If I post a question, I'd rather get no response than a bullshit response.

To be more precise, for any given possible responder, if they have the
choice of giving a BS response or giving no response, I will always
prefer the later. And I believe most help-seekers feel the same.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

....

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

>In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

...

>Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

It is the nature of Usenet that if you post something and get no
response (or only BS responses), the post effecively "goes away" (since
Usenet articles have short shelf lives). So, yes, you have to re-post.

[Phil Carmody]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

Phil Carmody <th*****************@yahoo.co.ukwrites:

>ga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

[...]

>>Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

Why bother to mention the "=3D", as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable?

I didn't mention the "=3D" as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable. I simply reduced the number of supposed merits
from 1 to 0. It's not messed-up /rather than/ unacceptable, it's
messed up /as well as/ unacceptable.

>>CLC at its finest, boys!

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

There's a fine line between a troll and a palooka. I have no
problem handing out a few negative strokes while I work out which.

Phil
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the
extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children
smart. -- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American editor and critic

[Phil Carmody]

ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

In article <87************@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <th*****************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:

>>Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?

In case you want a serious answer... presumably because it was
carelessly cut-and-pasted from a documented encoded as
"quoted-printable".

The answer I had in mind was "because he's a fucknut". But yours is
close enough, I guess.

Phil
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the
extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children
smart. -- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American editor and critic

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

...

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
>
In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

It is the nature of Usenet that if you post something and get no
response (or only BS responses), the post effecively "goes away" (since
Usenet articles have short shelf lives). So, yes, you have to re-post.

So if someone posts a question to a newsgroup were by the very nature of
that newsgroup there is possibly no one who is able to answer the question,
he should keep on posting that question over and over again until he dies
of old age?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[James Kuyper]

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

...

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

...

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

[James Kuyper]

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

In article <ge**********@news.xmission.comga*****@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <K9********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:
...
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
>
In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

>
Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

I thought the discussion was about redirecting a question to a more
appropriate newsgroup? Such responses carry information that is far more
useful than line noise.

Kenny has indicated that he believes that some people would so ashamed
to learn that they've posted to the wrong newsgroup, that they would be
offended by any message which pointed out that fact; so seriously
offended that they would prefer not to receive such a response, even if
going to the right newsgroup would get them a much better answer, and
more quickly. I suppose that for such neurotic people, a useful response
(the kind that he labels BS) is worse than silence. However, I suspect
that such neurotic attitudes are far less common than he thinks they are.

[Keith Thompson]

Phil Carmody <th*****************@yahoo.co.ukwrites:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:

[...]

>Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

There's a fine line between a troll and a palooka. I have no
problem handing out a few negative strokes while I work out which.

If you think "Kenny McCormack" is anything other than a pure troll,
you just haven't been paying attention.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:
[...]

I thought the discussion was about redirecting a question to a more
appropriate newsgroup? Such responses carry information that is far
more useful than line noise.

Kenny has indicated that he believes that some people would so ashamed
to learn that they've posted to the wrong newsgroup, that they would
be offended by any message which pointed out that fact; so seriously
offended that they would prefer not to receive such a response, even
if going to the right newsgroup would get them a much better answer,
and more quickly. I suppose that for such neurotic people, a useful
response (the kind that he labels BS) is worse than silence. However,
I suspect that such neurotic attitudes are far less common than he
thinks they are.

He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/msg/a477f6fb47780d89>
Message-ID: <g9**********@news.xmission.com>
in which "Kenny" writes:

And, BTW, this is more of a comp.unix.shell question than a
comp.unix.programmer one.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Antoninus Twink]

On 6 Nov 2008 at 18:09, Keith Thompson wrote:

He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/msg/a477f6fb47780d89>
Message-ID: <g9**********@news.xmission.com>

What a sad man you are. Do you have a box of index cards where all the
"slips" made by your favorite betes noires are painstakingly cataloged
for possible future use against them?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:

>On 6 Nov 2008 at 18:09, Keith Thompson wrote:

>He doesn't really believe that. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/msg/a477f6fb47780d89>
Message-ID: <g9**********@news.xmission.com>

What a sad man you are. Do you have a box of index cards where all the
"slips" made by your favorite betes noires are painstakingly cataloged
for possible future use against them?

Apparently so.

But I do have to say, I'm flattered to have my very own personal stalker.

[Nick Keighley]

On 6 Nov, 16:04, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

Dik T. Winter wrote:

In article <geut9o$[e-mail][e-mail] ion.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
*In article <[e-mail]>, Dik T. Winter <[e-mail]:

*Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
*But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
*are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect..

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common. Good techies are much less prone to this
neurosis
and managers much more so. You can be labelled as "negative" or "not
really
a team player" if you point out incorrect reasoning or facts too
frequently
(ie. more than zero times). It's another variant on cognitive
dissonance.

--
Nick Keighley

(Proverbs 17:10) A rebuke works deeper in one having understanding
than striking a stupid one a hundred times.

[James Kuyper]

Nick Keighley wrote:

On 6 Nov, 16:04, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

>Dik T. Winter wrote:

>>In article <geut9o$[e-mail][e-mail] ion.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <[e-mail]>, Dik T. Winter <[e-mail]:

>> Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common.

I agree - I don't like to be wrong, and I dislike it even more when
someone else knows that I'm wrong, and I'm sure that such dislikes are
commonplace. However, I also prefer getting the correct answer to my
questions over not getting the correct answer, and that's more important
to me than the first issue. Are people who consider the second issue
less important as common as Kenny thinks they are?

[osmium]

"James Kuyper" wrote:

>>> Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?
...
But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other
group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.
Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?
Apparently he's referring to people who's self-respect is so tenuous
that they feel threatened by any message pointing out to them that they
have posted a question to the wrong newsgroup. Getting no answer at all
is apparently preferable to these people, then having their self-respect
diminished by having to be re-directed to a different group where they
could actually get a useful answer to their question.

I don't know any people that neurotic (or at least, anybody with that
particular neurosis), but Kenny apparently considers it commonplace, in
fact normal.

people who don't like being told (no matter how nicely) they are wrong
are in fact very common.

I agree - I don't like to be wrong, and I dislike it even more when
someone else knows that I'm wrong, and I'm sure that such dislikes are
commonplace. However, I also prefer getting the correct answer to my
questions over not getting the correct answer, and that's more important
to me than the first issue. Are people who consider the second issue less
important as common as Kenny thinks they are?

I haven't been following this thread and don't know who the good guys are
and who the bad guys are.

BUT. In a thread discussing "shareware vs. evaluation" There IS NO correct
answer. There are only .... answers. Discussions of such things are just
that, discussions, and implying that there is a correct answer is a red
herring.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <6n************@mid.individual.net>,
osmium <r1********@comcast.netwrote:
....

>I haven't been following this thread and don't know who the good guys are
and who the bad guys are.

I'm the good guy. Trust me on that.

>BUT. In a thread discussing "shareware vs. evaluation" There IS NO correct
answer. There are only .... answers. Discussions of such things are just
that, discussions, and implying that there is a correct answer is a red
herring.

We're just having yet another go at the endless topicality war that is
the entirety of CLC (*).

(*) Well, that and prototyping main() and not casting the return value
of malloc().

[CBFalconer]

osmium wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
BUT. In a thread discussing "shareware vs. evaluation" There IS
NO correct answer. There are only .... answers. Discussions of
such things are just that, discussions, and implying that there
is a correct answer is a red herring.

Not quite. When pure disturbance trolls, such as McCormack and
Twink get involved, you know their contributions are pointless.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <49**************@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer (Mr. Pointless personified) <cb********@maineline.netwrote:

>osmium wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
BUT. In a thread discussing "shareware vs. evaluation" There IS
NO correct answer. There are only .... answers. Discussions of
such things are just that, discussions, and implying that there
is a correct answer is a red herring.

Not quite. When pure disturbance trolls, such as McCormack and
Twink get involved, you know their contributions are pointless.

Oh.

The.

Irony...