[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: "Rick Alfaro" <rick.alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:40:11 -0400
Great post and I agree totally. I personally find that far too often people
make assumptions that are not based on fact at all thereby coming to
erroneous conclusions. Let the real experts, those that produce the unit,
decide what can or can't be done. Personally, I'd love to see folks be able
to voice their ideas without being knocked down so quickly, especially with
assertions that are not based on solid knowledge. Just my humble opinion of
course.
--Best regards,
--Rick Alfaro
--rick.alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gary Wunder
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:27 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Folks, I'd like to respectfully suggest that when new features are presented
here we ought to limit our comments about them simply to whether we like
them or how better to implement them. I don't think it is our place to worry
about the capacity of the unit - APH and Springer know about those things
and if it can't be done, it won't. If APH doesn't think a feature will be
worth enough in potential sales to justify implementing it, then that's
their decision.
I'd prefer to see more questions and less about reactions to reactions to
feature suggestions. Can we refrain from telling one another the function of
the BookPort, how some of us live in the stone age, and how still others
want the BP to do everything. We have a wonderful product, a fantastic
support team, and a list which has been a real source of good feedback and
an instrument for learning. Let's not let it become a vehicle for argument
please.
Other related posts:
