Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Criticisms of LSC (was Apple developers & programming on the Mac)
Message-ID: <1212@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 89 17:28:07 GMT
References: <1309@ndmath.UUCP> <3916@ece-csc.UUCP> <486@adobe.UUCP> <1195@husc6.harvard.edu> <70205@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 32

In article <70205@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> holland@m2.UUCP (Fred Hollander) writes:
>
>It seems that you're missing the point of this forum - the open
>exchange of information and ideas.  This type of blind defensiveness

	I don't recall having engaged in a defense of anything; I did
state one of my personal beliefs, which may not have been a good idea;
nevertheless I stand by what I say.

	There is no disclaimer attached because the company has asked me not
to do so. I don't necessarily agree with that positioning, because it leaves
me open to inserting foot in mouth (subject to interpretation), as I seem
to have done.

	On to the topic at hand:  Now that we've all agreed that the 
LightspeedC editor is a shortcoming, wouldn't it me MUCH MORE CONSTRUCTIVE
to say *WHY* it's a shortcoming, instead of blindly putting it down? I am
always open to suggestion and recommendation, but much less so when it's
couched in abusive language. I will always pass suggestion and recommendation
on to the "appropriate people" (I'm one of them), if it's reasonable. I don't
consider any form of abuse reasonable.

		--Rich



Rich Siegel
Staff Software Developer
THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel
Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305