Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I see this is still doing the rounds. And the parties are as far from
common ground as ever. Ah well...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:37:26 +0200
Cor Nouws <> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Tom Davies wrote on 29-09-14 19:31:

That is the sort of argument MANY on this Mailing List agree with.
Please take it to the Discus Mailing List and maybe the social
networking channels if you really want to get heard but it's going
to make you unpopular.  

What you wrote here looks as nonsense to me, if alone due to the fact
that the post you react on is ill-informed.

I don't see anything in Tom's reply that looks even vaguely like
nonsense. And I don't think the post is misinformed. I know it is
claimed that *both* branches are stable, but that is of course just as
inaccurate as saying that one is an unstable branch. The truth is that
both are in a pretty stable condition, but one is *more* stable but less
feature-full, and one is *less* stable and more feature-full, at least
if things are as intended. Not a problem, per se, but a problem when
not explained clearly. Many people, once finding out about the
difference, will just use the common terms, and their associated
meanings, of stable and testing, and be annoyed that they were
"tricked" into using testing. Unless people are *clearly* told what the
branches represent, and given a *choice*, LO will continually face
this problem.

In addition, from the "misinformed" post, this:

 *make it easy for people to use both the unstable and
the stable version AT THE SAME TIME*

Is another excellent suggestion (and could be expanded to include
making it *easy* to have many versions side by side), along with making
the website clearer about what the user is downloading and why, as was
my previous suggestion. Once again, I urge whomever is behind this
stuff to implement these changes, and I now think both these changes
are equally important.

I am on fairly permanent moderation due to daring to say such

Well, AFAIK it's because sometimes your 'mixed quality' writings are
that much disturbing (misleading), 

"Mixed quality" writings? Now your reply is looking like nonsense.
Tom's material may not always be helpful in that it doesn't always have
answers to the asked question, but it is always friendly, and attempts
to be as helpful as he can be, even if it is just assuring the
questioner that someone has heard and can suggest nothing further than
the manuals. I don't really see a case for "writings of 'mixed

that the hope is that moderation
will keep you a bit sharp - on the positive side. 

You mean to say his posts are being moderated? I always thought that
was just his persecution complex showing. Hearing that he may be right
does not me happy make. I see no reason in anything he has done since
I've been on this list to suggest he may need moderation. Of course,
maybe that's because his outrageous posts are all being discarded by
the moderators.

It's not because
you have or write ideas sometimes that may not be the same as 'people
higher up'
- whomever that may be at a given moment, and whether or not those
share a same opinion.

On the other hand: your positive tone and the wide range of topics
that you tend to explain, are of course much appreciated.

While I decided to voice my opinion on what I felt were comments casting
Tom in an unfair light, I should also point out that I agree with the
above. To all who comment on this list, I think you're doing a great
job, this is one of the best lists I am or have been on, and even these
sorts of discussions are good in that at least everything is out in the
open and everybody can have their say.

Just my 0.02c


Good luck and regards from

Yeah - thanks :)
Kind regards,

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.