🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Brwy4I.BHo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doc) writes:

>s4uhkm@fnma.COM (Howie Michalski) writes:

>>First off, RTFM = Read The F-ing Manual :-)

>Oh I have.  I think Frank must have contracted IBM doc writers to write
>it.  If I have to explain that to you, never mind. :)


You are the only one I have ever encountered who posess this opinion.  The
SL manual is one of the best written pieces of software documentation there
is.  There are many sysops who can attest to this, and it is usually the
first thing that software reviews comment on.

>Wrong answer.  It is totally unprofessional to use hole punched 720K disks
>to ship software.  They have been shown time and again to be unreliable and
>subject to data loss after a while.  If it were a $5 shareware disk I could 
>see it, but we're talking about about a product that costs over $100. He
>can afford the HD disks.

When you say "time and again"  I wonder what you mean.  If there was any
indication that the data was unreliable after a while, then I'm sure Frank
would discontinue the practice (IF he hasn't already).

Also, I'm glad you are an expert on his financial statement, and what he
can afford.  Competing products cost much more, and he is keeping his costs
down and passing the savings back to the user.
>But you see, Frank is notorious for ignoring users' / sysops' requests for
>enhancements.  He adds to it what HE wants.  Even on the software's 
>"mother" board, youre lucky if you can even get an answer out of him.


This is a complete lie.  Although, given the way you have posted here, I
can see how Frank is probably glad not to have you as a customer any
longer.

Every single feature that has been incorporated into the product over the
last few years has been a result of requests for enhancements.  The guy
gets hundreds of requests per day, and he has to process them all.  It's
funny that, as you say, he has such a reputation, I doubt if the authors of
competing projects are even available for such requests.

Some of the requests are for really minor minor things and many of the
sysops (yourself included) are extremely childish in their expectations.

On the software's "mother" board, he responds to every single message he
receives, although, I wouldn't be surprised if he stopped listening to you.

>>BTW, if it "sucked" so terribly - why did you purchase it??????

>BTW, I never meant to flame any particular person in this thread.  

You flamed the author of SL software, who has put a great deal of effort
into a product that he earns his living with.

It was completely uncalled for given that the discussion was simply about
the fact that it hadn't been included in a list of BBS software with
reviews. 

You made a blanket statement and used unnecessarily harsh language.  You
did not say "These are my opinions and here is where I feel Searchlight is
deficient" 


My 
>harsh language is directed to SL software, not to any person in this
>newsgroup.  And to the person who whined to me in email and sent copies
>of my "foul language" to my postmaster, all I can say is -- suck eggs, 
>get salmonella, die. :)

Given the nature of what you've posted here, it is clear that you are more
committed to being right, and complaining than you are to making any
progress.  Probably Searchlight software does not suit your needs then, and
I feel sorry for the company that now has to provide you with "customer
service" 
-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord   	            | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"