Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao-gemini!noao!arizona!naucse!tar From: tar@naucse.UUCP (Tim Roeder) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Tim Roeder Summary: Re: Bob Message-ID: <1878@naucse.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 90 16:52:27 GMT References: <1877@naucse.UUCP> <8540@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ Lines: 58 In article <8540@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>, bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) writes: > Tim, > > It's a pity you can't see the genuine concern for the health of the ST I > displayed in the first message through your emotion. > As you might have suspected Bob, I reacted rather hastily and emotionally to your post. Of course, I have to admit that it WAS difficult to see any concern in your original post. It did seem to be merely another in a long series (not necessarily all from you) of unproductive gripes. > > This "attitude" is is derived from finding Diamond Back on no less than 20 > BBS's within 3 months of it's initial release. > I am now more ready to accept your previous statement given a little more 'fact' in regards to Pirate BBS'es, etc. I am rather sorry that you found your product on such places. I am aware that it hurts. > > I dislike losing hard earned money through software theft. If someone came > into your home and stole your TV and then you saw it at the flea market > wouldn't you get upset?? I dislike the tone of your response because I have > made positive contributions to the ST community. If you can't handle that > then you should just BE QUIET. > I can, given the above response(s), readily understand your anger towards me. For my somewhat out of line personal attacks, I do apologise. However, I guess I should point out that the main point I was (probably poorly) attempting to make was that one should not get on other people's case when they ask for a program that does what they want and hope that something in the public domain will fit the bill. I realize that you wish to make a little money on your efforts, but there's no need to lash out against them. > > Well, a man's got to eat. > > Hey, this line of discussion is counter productive. Flame off ok? > Yes, I agree that it is counter-productive. I also apologise (once again) for my rather vehement attack. I hope I have made my reasoning a little clearer. I shall endeavor to be more restrained in the future. -- Timothy A. Roeder - Northern Arizona University/Univeristy of Arizona UUCP: ...!arizona!naucse!tar Internet: arizona.edu!naucse!tar -- troeder@mis.arizona.edu Bitnet: roedert@arizvm1.BITNET