On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> wrote:
> > Cedric Greevey writes: > > >> Outfits like InfoQ and Confreaks do a very good job, but > >> they use professional staff (who expect to be paid). > > > > And I'm guessing what they're doing is obsolescent, if not already > > obsolete, in that it can be done about as well for a lot less money. If > > they're charging $400 a video I smell a market ripe for disruption. > > It bums me out that Alex's fantastic work is being trivialized and > criticized How so? Is it "trivializing and criticizing" if I point out that an elaborately-carved buggy whip handle is obsolescent, if not already obsolete? A thing can be both "fantastic work" and "obsolescent, if not already obsolete" at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. > by people with a huge entitlement complex and no idea what > they're talking about. Ad hominem. Good bye. And Herwig Hochleitner wrote: > You are great at identifying logical fallacies in other's arguments. You are not so great at[SNIP] Ad hominem. Good bye. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
