3 ms·
> I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment You replied to two separate comments (not including this one). One of your replies was (r
by lapcat 4y ago
> I did not reply to the article; I replied to one particular comment
You replied to two separate comments (not including this one). One of your replies was (rightly) flagged dead.
The entire thread was misconceived. All of the accusations of advertising and bait and switch were completely lacking in evidence or justification. Howard Oakley isn't ever going to "trap" anyone, regardless of whether his software is "free" under your strict definition.
- fsflover 4y agoI did not accuse anyone. I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch.
- lapcat 4y ago> I did not accuse anyone. I didn't say you did. You didn't start the misconceived thread, you just participated in it. > I said that it was in principle possible to use freeware as bait and switch. That's completely unhelpful though. We're not talking about "in principle" or "in general". Some commenters here were accusing the article author, Howard Oakley, of using his article for advertising of his software. And you added fuel to that fire. The "in principle" possibility is irrelevant to this submission unless you're specifically suggesting that Howard would actually do it. And that would amount to a personal accusation.