CompuServe Messages

<<What's wrong with that is the false impression a focus on negative comments will leave with the readers.>> You'll note that I wrote "negative comments with a strong basis" and not based on a lack of knowledge or personal opinion. I don't agree with someone publishing "false truths" but I do believe that negative comments that have a basis in fact should be published. When choosing software the "full" unbiased facts should be made known and not a select set of good responses. <<An impression that PC Magazines' original shallow but positive reviewers were somehow hoodwinked or fooled into reccommending the software.>> But if someone had already bought the software they would already know that any false comments published weren't true so they won't be hoodwinked, would they? As for people who make their sole purchasing decision on an article from a single magazine, well like the saying goes "fools and their money part quickly". <<But I'm waiting to read what they print before totally condeming them>> Post it here when you get a copy. If it is truely false then we can all cut it down, if not we should all be aware of it, right? I'm interested in facts whether they be good or bad and because they may be bad doesn't mean the Thought Police should exclude it from this forum. <<Are you accusing ME of that ?>> Feisty aren't we? I didn't accuse you of anything so don't take my comments personally. I simply mentioned that often people bend and twist the facts to suit their own personal opinions rather than the reality. <<Emphasis I guess on *short time* , there have been several regrettable flame wars here on the forum in the past year alone.>> I've been around long enough to see what happened to Kevin. DaviD "… = dialog box following" GouID