Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Jan 2013 23:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 549079
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
What is incoherent about it? Can you give some examples? I think the article is overly coherent, as I specifically focussed on just one flaw (no identity) and then proceeded to give several reasons as to why I believe it to be so. There's nothing incoherent about it - as evidenced by the fact that people seem to understand the article just fine.
Now, you may *disagree* with the points I made - that's fine, that's why we have comments. Several readers have already posted excellent comments with different perspectives, and I've learned a great deal already. I disagree with said commenters that the features they name are defining/will save the platform, but that's a different matter altogether. I respect them, and they me, because we are having an open discussion for all to see.
However, throwing personal insults around is not going to get you any goodwill, and it certainly won't give anybody here any new insights. I suggest you either try to contribute in a meaningful way, or not at all.