>
>Romanticize the past all you want... As you imply, the record speaks for itself...
>
>
>People undermine their own credibility. I simply compare and contrast the facts. Go back and see some of the exchanges with Ed and I think you will find I was not off base. Here is an example:
>
>Ed used to unmercifully draw issues out when they could have been sucinctly answered in one short post. I contend he did this to boost his message count. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, back off...
>
I don't "romanticize the past". The past is fact, it is reality and we are all accountable to what we've done. So even if I had "backed off" the record would still show what went on. In this case the past is present and I don't write it off as "romantic".
>Not only did he draw things out, it was often an inapproprate or a far from optimal technique. At first, I was nice about it. But after a while, it got quite annoying and yes, I took a scorched Earth approach to solving the problem. In the end, he stopped throwing out bad advice an issues he did not have a clue about. Remember, the ratio and quantity of tecnically correct posts is what counts.
About the record, let's entertain that for a minute here: I would contend Ed helped more folks than most other UT participants by any measure even today regardless of the number of posts it took to answer a question. So did you do a favor to the VFP community in the UT or a disservice?
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only