Am Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:00:11 -0400, schrieb Neil:

I'm not sure why you are responding to *my* post with your opinions
about Ken's comments.

Thank you Neil, for bringing up your concerns.

You had responded to Ken so I was adding actual facts to both of your
responses as a factual courtesy to you both.

But my response is that you didn't understand
Ken's comments. The only thing I saw that he "got wrong" was thinking
that you didn't post examples of your project, which you did.

I agree with you Neil, and I appreciate that you make factual comments.

Remember, I did say (repeatedly) that Ken was "mostly" wrong, but not
completely wrong. Ken simply made up most of what he said, but some of what
he said was actually factual.

points, that you didn't follow the 6P rule, don't understand the
software and are using the wrong tools for the job were pretty accurate,
IMO, and would be so for any graphics professional. But as I said, I'm
OK with that because you're satisfied and it costs me nothing.

I think Ken didn't understand that a score of people have to be able to
follow the process.

As you are aware, training a score of people on the software that Ken feels
is the best graphics editor is just about the opposite of the requirements.

So my point was that Ken didn't understand the requirements.

I posited that Ken was thinking only of the graphic requirements, which was
the *easiest* part of the job (since the graphics for a 12x18" sign won't
make a bit of practical difference whether they're raster or vector based).

I think there is more for you to learn by showing a bit more humility
toward those of us with the knowledge that you lack than by tossing
insults such as those in your reply to me that actually expose your
inexperience.

You are welcome to your opinion, Neil, as I understand what you're saying.

I only wish to clarify that I've been on Usenet for as many decades as
anyone here, where my modus operandi is to ask a question, test all viable
answers, and report back with a "SOLVED" solution (which has workable
tested proven steps!) that is then archived for everyone to use.

In performing that task, I run into plenty of purposefully unhelpful
comments, which, my MO is to squelch, since I do not use the chit-chat
model of Usenet (I use the Q&A model of Usenet).

In my Q&A model, I respond to almost all comments, but ... I respond in
like manner. If the comment is meant to be helpful, I respond in a helpful
manner (in that I mirror the intent).

If the comment is meant to be unhelpful (as most of Wolf's were, for
example), then I respond to strongly squelch that behavior.

If, as in the case of Ken's comments, the comments were almost entirely
dead wrong, then I simply correct those comments that were dead wrong
(while accepting those that are correct).

What you incorrectly assume is me "insulting" someone is simply mirroring
what they wrote, by correct or admonishing them to be better more factual
posters.

In summary, I never act first.
a. I ask questions
b. I respond in like manner to each post by others
c. I summarize the solution for all to benefit from in the end

Hence, my summaries can be trusted as fact.
By way of stark comparison, Ken's summaries were (mostly) dead wrong.

That's a big difference, Neil.

You may disagree, and you should disagree if I do not speak facts, but I
believe I backed up all my facts (since that's my MO).

Have I not faithfully followed that Usenet MO this entire thread, Neil?