popcornflix wrote:I've said it twice, so I won't say it again, nor will I respond to any more ad hominem posts from you.
I am not attacking your person. I am discussing the topic of requesting changes to software and the motives for continuing the argument after having received an answer from the developer, and as such I am adhering to the original definition of ad hominem
"..., as explained by the philosopher R. Scott Bakker: "Classical Pyrrhonians argued ad hominem, not in the sense of the logical fallacy of that name, but in the sense that their dialectical strategy necessitates the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of their interlocutors. In other words, they construct their arguments on the basis of what other people hold to be true." [cited from Wikipedia]
It could be that with my scientific, academic background I am so used to questioning the opinion of others that I sometimes express myself in a way that is perceived as aggressive by the receiver, although that is not my intention. I am simply trying to understand, out of general curiosity.
A lot of people in the forum request or ask for a new feature. If L&L responds negatively, most accept it, but some continue to request it, sometimes "threatening" to dump Scrivener if their wish isn’t granted. I am trying to understand the "beliefs, convictions and assumptions" (see above) that stops some from accepting a final answer. What kind of negative answer would they accept, or is there no such answer?
I am not attacking or questioning you as a person, I am discussing and trying to understand the logic behind your reasoning.