elol wrote:
Hi:
Well I tried diplomacy and to see if he could partcipate in a normal fashion. That is to look at both point of views.
I will now use the playground tactic and business tactic where you occasionally run into this type of person.
He no longer exists as far as I am concerned. No replies, no comments to his rants. Our anger just feeds his appetitie for irretating all of us and passing on his own beliefs. This is how some individuals feel they are part of a group. Instead they just isolate themselves. Lets leave him alone and ignore him.
I agree with this tactic, and in fact, had planned to suggest this very thing in a post today.
I apologize to those who feel I'm only adding to the noise in this thread, and plead guilty as charged. However, I would like to make the point that I would not be doing this if our adversary here had actually followed the normal rules that govern any intelligent discussion or disagreement.
While I agree completely with Dennis Burnham's elegantly and intelligently stated point of view on the Save As issue, I disagree with him in one regard. I believe that one's point is strengthened when it is tested against opposing points of view. If an objection to your point is presented, and you are able to meet that objection and prove that it's baseless, then your argument is even stronger than before.
My frustration with Yvan is that he has NEVER, in all of these discussions, presented these specific objections. He has never had anything to offer on the Save As issue other than "Apple has instituted it, it's not coming back, end of story." Never a peep about why this is a better course of action for Apple than to offer a choice...never an acknowledgement of the real-world problems the new saving paradigm is causing users. In Yvan's world, none of these things exist.
It's laughable, really, that this senior citizen conducts himself in the manner of a four-year-old child who clamps his hands over his ears and sings "La la la la" when confronted with a reality that intrudes on his world view.
I again apologize for getting off track with other elements. My goal was to give insight into this individual's character (and with the NDA violation issue, to give him a taste of his own medicine). But you know what? My help isn't needed for this to be abundantly clear to all. As I said, his words speak for themselves in that regard.
So I agree. Allow this individual to stew in the juices of his own arrogance. He is, as far as I'm concerned, a non-entity, and not worth our time to acknowledge any further.