Just because Phil made some good suggestions, doesn't mean that fifty other people hadn't made them before him, only without calling them liars and frauds...
How many times has that
particular "No True Scot" argument been posted here now?
Basically somebody makes the sweeping statement: "You/somebody have/has never made a single
positive or helpful suggestion about how the RED One could be improved, (and by implication must be a RED-hater intent on only doing them ill)."
A response to the effect of: "Rubbish! I/they have made numerous suggestions, all perfectly sound and based on wide industry experience." is invariably greeted by:
"Oh yes, but somebody else made the same suggestion before you, so therefore that doesn't count."
Who cares whether the idea is original or not (and I notice that in virtually no cases is the detractor able to direct us the alleged "prior art"), the allegation is that the person has nothing constructive to say about the RED
, not whether they are they are the only one to have thought of a a particular idea.
And apart from that, if someone feels they have good reason to believe someone IS a liar or a fraud, aside from the fact that you may have been led (or desperately want) to believe otherwise, what right do you feel you have to censor them? This is not REDuser.
Edited by Keith Walters, 18 July 2008 - 10:02 PM.