On Feb 23, 12:14 pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > For some reason, your approval (or lack of) of my comments doesn't
mean
> > a whole lot to me. Maybe it's because most of your usenet posting
seems
> > to be along the lines that follow:
>
> Didn't expect that it would. You are still totally unable to see how
> im****tant it is to be able to have a quick, complete and easy way to
> overview all the complex relations that SolidWorks often creates.
> Instead, you and most SolidWorks users settle for a very low level
> tool to try and do this... using roll back. It's not about me, Gary.
> It's about having the right tools for the job. Your accept low level
> tools that take inordinate amounts of time to use and instead wish to
> focus your frustrations on me because I don't accept what most
> people / you accept as adequate tools. It's so much easier for idiots
> like you and Brewer this way.
>
> I have yet to use the "F" word in this response. Time to change that,
> Gary.
>
> Do you ****ing get it yet?
>
> How many more years till idiots like you and Brewer finally ****ing
> get it?
>
> Stare at the pictures here and see if you can get a ****ing clue about
> the kind of tools that are needed in SolidWorks:
>
> www.solidmap.com
>
> Try really, really hard to focus on the tools rather than on a product
> (SolidMap) that has been re****ted to cost too much and not do the job
> well enough. Even if that's true it's not im****tant. What's im****tant
> is the concept and the approach to a major problem. Someday idiots
> like you and Brewer might actually understand this but I'm not holding
> my breath.
>
> Jon Banquer
> San Diego,CA
More im****tantly, why don't YOU describe in YOUR OWN WORDS a very
specific instance in which "all of the complex relations that
Solidworks often creates" has caused you a serious problem, and what
EXACTLY it is you'd like to see done differently?
|
