|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dans un courrier daté du 23/09/98 15:22:28 , vous avez écrit :
<<
Pierre
I have to jump into this one. First attacking Earl because he may
not own a copy of Tradestation really isn't appropriate. I don't know, but
he may well be able to see the problems with someone he works with without
owning a copy himself. (I am not an Omega basher, but in fact a satisfied
user).
>>
Yes, I know.
Reissuing also the old Omegabug.doc document, related to TradeStation 3.5,
outdated, bugged at death and never fixed was also not appropriate from Earl,
who could confuse some new readers on this list.
This was unnecessary.
If he had it not said that, I think that I no reply from me would have
existed.
What I reproach to Earl is his lack of objectivity, not said that what he says
is false, but because it's false by omission.
Besides , I have no personal different with him.
The attack is not personal, it's related to facts.
When I argue to defend Omega here, I always explain my thoughts with proofs
that anyone can verify.
This was not the case for Earl's post that let keep for sure things what have
been proven partially wrong.
<<
However I do have to agree with him about the TASC product review.
In my opinion they are worthless. When I see them review someones product,
which my experience tells me what he has written is 90 % hype, and the same
issue has a full color, gold embossed ad, I can't help but he slightly
suspicious. Lets face it the magazine is first and foremost a commercial
venture to make money. If it were really in the service field, he would test
junk systems, that are sold,
and publish how they really perform. Of course them those folks certainly
wouldn't advertise. So obviously the thing to do is NOT review a product you
know you can't say good things about. This is certainly just good business,
but the reader needs to be well aware of this when considering whether the
magazine is a good source of info.
>>
It's a matter of opinion.This is also probaly partially true, but to take the
defense of TASC reviews, they do not review black boxes systems.
The only one that I remember was ASC Trend, and frankly, John Sweeney was not
very enthusiast.
Here is the main cause of potential bad reviews, what they do not because they
discard these products (I know , they do not discard ads, but which magazine
does ?).
What boils my oils in such posts like Earl's latest mail is that in one SINGLE
message you can see:
1) Jumping without time to reflexion into a MB post attacking John Sweeney
suspect to ignore the high value posts that anyone can read on this list .
2) Recalls an outdated bugged document that he tries to present as a sure bug
report (on an outdated TS version).
3) Suspect the press to be infeodated to software vendors.
Enough is enough.
I'm tired of this destructive behaviour from people that are unable to solve
their own problem by themselves and report their frustations endless to this
list.
I understand that they can say what they want.
But why do they do this 10 times a week and take any chance to do this when
once a month would be sufficient ?
We all know read.
It's not necessary to repeat and repeat again.
Where is the respect due to the reader in this case ? .
Sincerely,
Pierre Orphelin
|