Hi James. At 10:45 AM on Saturday, September 28, 2002 you [JS] wrote the following about 'Editing incoming mail (was: Wish list item)':
JS>>> [...] There's simply no reason not to JS>>> have this feature available. [/...] >> Sure there is. >> This is a different program & the >> feature[s] you are talking about can be >> handled differently in TB!. JS> Ok, badly stated...there is no reason I JS> see that this feature shouldn't be JS> considered. Better? Yes. >> If your group can't be retrained, must we >> conclude that The Bat! has to be changed to >> meet their requirements? JS> Absolutely! [...] Call it lobbying for JS> your interests to be considered. [...] JS> I've seen you raise a good many argument JS> for and against features based upon what JS> you feel would serve email users better. A valid point but I think lobbying for something that already exists in a different form sort of belongs in the dept. of redundancy dept. JS> Have you ever come across an office or JS> department you know would benefit from JS> switching to TB only to hold that JS> suggestion because [...] popular software JS> has a 'dumbing' effect. Sure but I don't think that's the point; at least that's not my point. My point is that if a suggested feature can't be accomplished in a given program, it should be placed on the wish list & weighed against the other suggested features. But if, as in this case, I believe the program can already handle the stated need, then I don't think that the program should be dumbed down to facilitate its use. Dumbed down, like television network fare in the U.S. is a product that tries to please the lowest common denominator. I just don't buy this approach. In addition, I think there are other programs, Mailbag Assistant or Zoot for instance, that are far more able to categorize, archive & gather emails on a specific subject than TB! Do I expect a Dept to learn all these programs? Of course not. That's why Outlook & OE exist. TB! is always going to be a niche product -- hopefully a big enough niche to reward its developers -- and there is no reason, IMO, to turn it into something that its not. IMO, that's a basic problem with a lot of creative software. It just keeps adding more & more stuff & loses its basic value of efficiency like those "other" programs. Look, its only a matter of philosophy. I enjoy this sort of exercise but I agree w you that one of the moderators will probably jump in [& rightfully so] & ask that this thread go elsewhere. Let's bag it before they tag us. Take care. -- Jan Rifkinson Ridgefield, CT USA TB! V1.61/W2K_SP3 ICQ 41116329 ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
