Losing the amateur.

[Thomas J McGrath III]

I don't normally get into this kind of stupid arguments but I must be 
tired or something.

Is the Dr. in front of you name stand for Doctor??? If so I can't 
believe you are complaining that $75. is not reasonable for Rev. I bet 
you don't feel that way about the work you do, I bet you charge top 
dollar. And that for things people can't live without - you have them 
over a barrel. If you say you don't I won't believe it because you 
choose to display the Dr. before your name which is all I needed to see.

And like the lady said, you could easily just build a player and be 
done with it. So why the complaining? Why the disappointment? Why the 
cheapness?

Jac, There are doers and talkers out there, I can tell you are a doer. 
:-) Good for you.

PS I spent my money on the enterprise version and absolutely am not 
disappointed! (I would like my manuals though) :-)

Oh well, I opened my mouth now.

Tom - The Amateur

On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 11:46 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> On 11/2/03 10:25 PM, Dr.John R.Vokey wrote:
>
>> (however ``reasonable''---give me a break--US$75 for the minimum?)--

>>   *If* a free---no network checked, 30-day ``demo''---of MC (i.e., an 
>> ``engine to run the stacks) were still (and always) freely available, 
>> I would be less concerned, but don't you (or Gay, or ...) defend the 
>> current model as ``reasonable'' as if that were the issue.

>> `I am just a bit disappointed.''  Forget that: I am totally 
>> disappointed.
>
> Um. There is nothing preventing anyone from creating a one-card 
> standalone and making it available for free as a player.
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com