I can't bite my tongue any longer. CFDJ has for several months been pushing
the limits when it comes to journalism ethics. Having the a writer who's
financially invested in one of several products he's reviewing is highly
questionable and at least just looks really bad, now matter how well it's
done. Then to throw in a FREE methodology into a comparison of NOT FREE
products, slam it on false facts, is all together incredible.
Just my two cents.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: arguments **against** fusebox
> > There is a good article that compares different cold fusion application
> > frameworks (and fusebox as a methodology) in sys-con's ColdFusion
> > Developer's Journal. The article list pros and cons of each
> > framework/methodology.
>
> As others have pointed out, the "good" of the article is questionable. If
> nothing else, it contains one completely false statement that could have
> been checked with virtually no effort... Fuseboxed sites *can* and
routinely
> *are* indexed by search engines.
>
> --
> Roger
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
