|
At 5:13 AM -0500 5/11/02, Joe Pluta wrote: >Oh gosh. "purposefully exclusionary"? So you're saying that I got up one >day and decided "Those no good Netscape scum - I'm going to do whatever I >can to not support them." This of course is absolutely daft, and you know >it, or at least you would if you thought about it with a little common >sense. I'd support every browser if I could. I don't because it's >ecomonomically unfeasible, which was my only point. Joe, that's exactly what you did do (well, not the scum part). "Purposefully exclusionary" doesn't ascribe any motive to your decision, it could be monetary as you mention, or completely arbitrary. By "purposefully", I meant "willfully", which I think you have admitted. The end result is the same, a set of users who can't use your site. >Anyway, I had a whole bunch of wonderful opposing viewpoints, viewpoints >that showcased my prowess and unparalleled skills (not to mention my >superior physique and manly hairline), but the truth is they won't sway you >and they'll clutter the list. > >I guess we'll just need to agree to disagree on this one. OK. Regards, - Lou Forlini Software Engineer System Support Products, Inc.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.