XNA/DirectX => XNA boolean-anded with DirectX (i.e. The product that is XNA that is DirectX under the hood), 

not as most people read it

XNA/DirectX => XNA boolean-ored (or semantically anded) with DirectX (i.e. both XNA and DirectX).

Hence "XNA/DirectX is being retired" meant "The product XNA that uses DirectX is being retired" in the mind of the writer, but "XNA and DirectX are both being retired" in the mind of the journalists.

Backpedaling? Probably not. Tragic mistake due to the ambiguities of English? Definitely.

Presently the XNA Game Studio is not in active development and DirectX is no longer evolving as a technology.

Its very clearly worded, no ambiguities.

And have there been any changes to any component other than D3D since DX9? I can't think of any.

If Microsoft really want to drop this technology, there's no need to bring back this column.

Dropping DirectX per se sounds baffling, since its a critical component in DWM, puts Microsoft right at the core of major graphics discussions such as those with NVidia and ATI, it's critical to WinPho, supported in Win8 including Metro-mode, and as far as I can tell, due to be the graphics subsystem used by the Xbox-720.

It just doesn't "sound right" that Microsoft would drop support for DirectX as a whole. It's like them announcing that they're dropping audio support from future versions of Windows. When you read it you can only come to the conclusion that they either "said it wrong" (like the word refers to something else internally to externally).

Its just poorly worded.

But, recently we've heard too much things from Microsoft that 'doesnt sound right' in the first, but have different level of truth in it, like 'Silverlight is DEAD'(we heard it before SL5 was released), 'Start menu is DEAD', 'XNA is DEAD', 'Desktop is LEGACY', '.NET is deprecated, JavaScript is your futrue', 'No WP7 or CE tablets, Windows (7) is for tablets!' etc etc, we really can't be sure, pretty much anything can happen these days.

Shivers, because some of your "doesn't sound right" appears to be facts now.

14 minutes ago, felix9 wrote

@evildictaitor: your conclusion is pretty much the same as the original post: https://ventspace.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/directxxna-phase-out-continues/

Its just poorly worded.

But, recently we've heard too much things from Microsoft that 'doesnt sound right' in the first, but have different level of truth in it, like 'Silverlight is DEAD'(we heard it before SL5 was released), 'Start menu is DEAD', 'XNA is DEAD', 'Desktop is LEGACY', '.NET is deprecated, JavaScript is your futrue', 'No WP7 or CE tablets, Windows (7) is for tablets!' etc etc, we really can't be sure, pretty much anything can happen these days.

I think perhaps the take-home message from that is that you shouldn't read too much into what the Microsoft Press office, individual executives or even in this case official Microsoft mailshots, because often they say things that the responsible team knows is false (such as Desktop being "legacy" or ".NET" being deprecated).

Of course, I'm sure some people will take it as a leak from those evil wizards up in the black towers of Redmond, (and since everything dies eventually if they wait long enough I'm sure they'll be back with an "I told you so" when they eventually cancel product X many years down the line), but it looks to me more like an epic case of incompetence from whoever sent out the mailshot.

For example, calling a technology "legacy" doesn't mean that it's obsolete or abandoned. The day after Vista shipped, for example, everybody in the Windows team called it (Vista) legacy, as opposed to the new OS that was in development, to avoid internal confusion.

That makes perfect sense within the organization, but when exposed to the outside world, where these words have different attached connotations, it creates confusion.

Another aspect is the continued effort from all the industry to use acronyms and shorthands to indicate concepts that could be very well communicated in a plainer fashion. Just yesterday, an architect in my team kept using a couple of acronyms (because that's what they do all day in their job) when in a meeting with the business team. I noticed that their eyes were glazing away and I interrupted with "hang on a sec. Guys, do you know what <xxx> means? No? It stands for blah blah blah". Took two seconds and everyone was happy. But that happened because there was an immediate interaction and explanation, and that's hard when you communicate via email or press releases.

4 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

So, what's the plan for those fun Xbox indie games and Xbox Live Arcade games?

I think the statement that XNA is dead will come as a surprise to the folks in WinPho and Xbox. At the moment, I'm just assuming that the person writing the email was an idiot and was closing the XNA/DirectX forum and noting that XNA Game Studio and Managed DirectX are dead, rather than providing an official "XNA and DirectX are dead" change of strategy type of statement.

44 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

For example, calling a technology "legacy" doesn't mean that it's obsolete or abandoned. The day after Vista shipped, for example, everybody in the Windows team called it (Vista) legacy, as opposed to the new OS that was in development, to avoid internal confusion.

That makes perfect sense within the organization, but when exposed to the outside world, where these words have different attached connotations, it creates confusion.

++. Inside of Microsoft, Windows8 and Office 2013 are now described as "legacy" components / applications.

Also there's a strange notion in the press that stuff executives say or any inferred statement from a single Microsoft email constitutes an official position by Microsoft. All too often we see executives saying something silly because they don't know or got the wrong end of the stick, or an email pronouncing the death of a core Windows technology gets taken at face value.

A lot of this is a consequence of Microsoft's abandonment of the press; there's certainly a feeling at MS that "haters gonna hate" and that there's no point talking with the press or doing effective communication because it'll end up backfiring, and so people that should be taught to deal with the press aren't, and the press jump or infer too much from misleading scraps of emails because of an information vacuum caused by Microsoft's inability to have a unified press strategy.

They just need to come out and say what they say all the time internally: That technologies and frameworks have a ten year shelf life, and that Microsoft goes to major efforts to avoid people's apps built on Microsoft's frameworks from ever dying. If developers got that through their heads, they'd realize that Silverlight probably still has a longer shelf life than Flash, that apps written in XNA are most likely going to run on the XBox after the XBox 720, and that Age of Empires will not only run in desktop mode on Windows8, but it'll probably run in desktop mode on Windows9, 10 and 11.

Or to put it another way, for the 99.99% of new apps written for a legacy Microsoft component, the legacy component will still be there, supported, upgraded and actively fixed for years after your app has died for other reasons. Case in point: You can still run edit.com - a program first debutted by MS in 1991 on Windows 8-x86. A full 22 years later.

55 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

games like Shogun Skull works on all three devices, so, are they using something like XNA or what?

Yes, it uses MonoGame. http://monogame.net/news/2013/01/30/skulls-shogun-release

3 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

I think there's a problem in how Microsoft communicates with outside of the campus.

For example, calling a technology "legacy" doesn't mean that it's obsolete or abandoned. The day after Vista shipped, for example, everybody in the Windows team called it (Vista) legacy, as opposed to the new OS that was in development, to avoid internal confusion.

That makes perfect sense within the organization, but when exposed to the outside world, where these words have different attached connotations, it creates confusion.

Another aspect is the continued effort from all the industry to use acronyms and shorthands to indicate concepts that could be very well communicated in a plainer fashion. Just yesterday, an architect in my team kept using a couple of acronyms (because that's what they do all day in their job) when in a meeting with the business team. I noticed that their eyes were glazing away and I interrupted with "hang on a sec. Guys, do you know what <xxx> means? No? It stands for blah blah blah". Took two seconds and everyone was happy. But that happened because there was an immediate interaction and explanation, and that's hard when you communicate via email or press releases.

Nah really ?  they have a problem ? 

no bull there ....  they seem like the gang that can't shoot straight.  that plus they way they have handled stuff like Silverlight has a lot of folks not trusting them with any of the platforms.

8 hours ago, figuerres wrote

no bull there ....  they seem like the gang that can't shoot straight.  that plus they way they have handled stuff like Silverlight has a lot of folks not trusting them with any of the platforms.

I completely agree. Silverlight was a great product, and it was a mistake for Microsoft to move away from it; particularly to do so with such bad style.

8 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Clearly Microsoft has made this bed (lack of trust) through poor communication, executive decision, and execution. No one should be apologizing for their ineptness. They can do a better job and should be held accountable. It really sickens me to see the repeated "let's give them the benefit of the doubt" and then long after the rumor or miss-communication is proven to be true (in part or in whole) the same folks fail to acknowledge that Microsoft screwed up or dismiss it because it was only partially true even thought the part that was true is still significant.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Microsoft sucks at generating positive messages in the media; but I think it's wrong to assume that based on a few mistakes by Microsoft management that they are a bunch of bumbling idiots, or that Microsoft as a whole makes consistently bad choices.

Microsoft genuinely does get a worse deal in the media than similar technology companies in the same space.

How much hate has Microsoft got for "forcing apps into the App Store"? How much hate did Apple get for exactly the same decision?

How much hate did Microsoft get for changing the interface in Office 2007? How much hate did Google get for changing the interface in Gmail, or how much hate Ubuntu got with Unity.

How much hate did Microsoft get for stopping development on Silverlight? How much hate did Apple get for discontinuing PPC, or Google for killing Google Gears?

How much hate did Microsoft get for introducing UAC? Contrast with how much hate Apple have got for entirely disabling Java.

This is the biggest problem that Microsoft has. For some reason, whenever MS does something wrong, it is seen as a horrendous mistake on apocalyptic proportions, and yet when any of their competitors do an identical, or in some cases more egregious action, it's entirely dismissed by the media and large sections of the IT community.

Microsoft - and frankly their competitors - would be better if we held all technology companies to the same standards. Keeping on at Microsoft as if everything they do is pure evil and that all of their competitors are knights in shining armour is one of the reasons why Microsoft has got like this, and one of the reasons why Sinofsky found so little resistance to the notion of "let's not tell anyone anything, since it'll only backfire".

If we criticised Microsoft only for the things they actually did wrong, and stopped trying to condemn them for things that don't matter (like WTWF claiming that sidebar Gadgets being deprecated in Windows8 was something anyone gave a damn about), then Microsoft might listen more. If we (as a technology community) were better at choosing our battles with Microsoft, we might win some of them, whereas when we waste precious air fighting the battles that have been lost (like the start menu) or which don't matter (like sidebar gadgets) then Microsoft just gets really good at ignoring you.

11 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Microsoft - and frankly their competitors - would be better if we held all technology companies to the same standards.

+1

Surface capacities woes, e.g.

If we (as a technology community) were better at choosing our battles with Microsoft, we might win some of them, whereas when we waste precious air fighting the battles that have been lost (like the start menu) or which don't matter (like sidebar gadgets) then Microsoft just gets really good at ignoring you.

Even if you argue reasonably, constructive criticism goes beyond just sitting around a table and discussing issues and solutions in a calm manner. It also means arguing for solutions that are actually feasible, that have some chance of actually coming to light. On your end, you can come up with ideal solutions that work for everyone, but if you have no view of the discussions happening inside, those ideas just might not make any sense in light of the company's vision/goals.

57 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Microsoft genuinely does get a worse deal in the media than similar technology companies in the same space.

I disagree. This isn't a fair comparison. If you're the market leader of course you will get more negative and vocal responses when you change something than if you hold some meager percent of the market.

How much hate has Microsoft got for "forcing apps into the App Store"? How much hate did Apple get for exactly the same decision?

In Apple's case they went from telling developers to write HTML apps to providing them an SDK and a means to market them via their app store. The iPhone was new and not entrenched like Windows so there was nothing to compare the change to. Later Apple did get a lot of backlash by publishers when they started demanding 30% of subscription fees.

How much hate did Microsoft get for changing the interface in Office 2007? How much hate did Google get for changing the interface in Gmail, or how much hate Ubuntu got with Unity.

Google has managed people's expectations better by leaving their products in a perpetual state of beta. That's not a good thing and they have gotten some grief over that. They also do better in the transition by allowing people to keep or go back to the old layout for some time. Ubuntu and linux in general have too small of a user base to be measurable nor a concern for the press.

How much hate did Microsoft get for stopping development on Silverlight? How much hate did Apple get for discontinuing PPC, or Google for killing Google Gears?

Apple's transition from PPC to Intel is what a lot of people wanted; better parity with PC users on peripherals, expansion and the like. Plus they did a pretty good job on app compatibility. Google Gears? Really? How many people did that change impact vs. those in the Silverlight camp? 

How much hate did Microsoft get for introducing UAC? Contrast with how much hate Apple have got for entirely disabling Java.

Like Google Apple has done a better job in managing people's expectations. They've always been controlling and "protective" of their users. That's why some people buy their products in the first place.

This is the biggest problem that Microsoft has. For some reason, whenever MS does something wrong, it is seen as a horrendous mistake on apocalyptic proportions, and yet when any of their competitors do an identical, or in some cases more egregious action, it's entirely dismissed by the media and large sections of the IT community.

This is such an over simplification it's not funny. It's a great excuse for Microsoft to ignore their customers however.

Microsoft - and frankly their competitors - would be better if we held all technology companies to the same standards. Keeping on at Microsoft as if everything they do is pure evil and that all of their competitors are knights in shining armour is one of the reasons why Microsoft has got like this, and one of the reasons why Sinofsky found so little resistance to the notion of "let's not tell anyone anything, since it'll only backfire".

If we criticised Microsoft only for the things they actually did wrong, and stopped trying to condemn them for things that don't matter (like WTWF claiming that sidebar Gadgets being deprecated in Windows8 was something anyone gave a damn about), then Microsoft might listen more. If we (as a technology community) were better at choosing our battles with Microsoft, we might win some of them, whereas when we waste precious air fighting the battles that have been lost (like the start menu) or which don't matter (like sidebar gadgets) then Microsoft just gets really good at ignoring you.

It seems to me that Google and Facebook both get ding'd pretty well for privacy issues. Apple with its now giant iOS user base is now starting to feel some of Microsoft's pain. Just look at the Maps debacle as an example.

Regardless to what degree of fairness Microsoft feels its getting from its users or the press that should not be a reason for Microsoft to simply ignore the issues nor for us to continue to blindly give them the benefit of the doubt in turn.

21 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I disagree. This isn't a fair comparison. If you're the market leader of course you will get more negative and vocal responses when you change something than if you hold some meager percent of the market.

Under what definition does Google or Apple not constitute a market leader in their respective markets?

Also, Apple's backlash for charging 30% for subscriptions is minuscule compared with the hate that Microsoft gets for introducing the Windows Store.

Google has managed people's expectations better by leaving their products in a perpetual state of beta. That's not a good thing and they have gotten some grief over that. They also do better in the transition by allowing people to keep or go back to the old layout for some time. Ubuntu and linux in general have too small of a user base to be measurable nor a concern for the press.

Whilst it's true that Google manage people's expectations better, they are no better at the actual work on the ground than Microsoft. Google cancel frameworks that people rely on (remember Google Gears and the personalized home page with apps on?), they change layouts with only very limited ability to go backwards (I can't go back to the 2006 layout in Gmail, but I can go back to Office 2007 with the disk I still have for it), and they are routinely now slapped down for bad practices towards their customer's data (hence the EU and US government starting actions and imposing fines against them).

And yet Google remains the darling in the minds of many developers, and the bogey man Microsoft can do nothing right in their eyes.

Apple's transition from PPC to Intel is what a lot of people wanted; better parity with PC users on peripherals, expansion and the like. Plus they did a pretty good job on app compatibility. Google Gears? Really? How many people did that change impact vs. those in the Silverlight camp? 

Tell that to my Dad whose PPC computer stands idle in the garage now that not even Firefox runs on it anymore. Thanks Apple. Also there was a time when even I wrote apps for the Google personalized homepage. Look how that worked out. Thanks Google.

Don't get me wrong; Silverlight had a big following in industry. But then so did Google Gears, and the community of app-writers for Google's homepage was not small.

This is such an over simplification it's not funny. It's a great excuse for Microsoft to ignore their customers however.

You might think that, but it's the prevailing attitude in Redmond. I routinely hear PMs say stuff like "Whatever we do it's going to be unpopular, so we might as well do X", or dismissing concerns as "haters gonna hate". The bit that's not funny is that whilst some journalists and commentators seem to have enjoyed Microsoft-baiting - indeed it's commonplace for developers to assume that Microsoft is evil and that their software is terrible - that this leads to worse products for them in the end.

How many people have been online saying "Oh, actually Microsoft, Metro has some really nice apps, like Fruit Ninja, like the Bing news reader app, and the videos app - that's actually pretty neat" compared with how many people have just spread FUD by stating that it's the end of the Desktop, that not having a button in the bottom left is "so unintuitive as to make the OS unusable" or that "there is no demand for Metro".

And what percentage of people condemning Windows8 have actually used it on real hardware?

Exactly. It's almost a competitive sport online to see who can hate at Microsoft the most. And people wonder why Microsoft doesn't listen.

If you refuse to give Microsoft credit for the stuff they do right, they'll not pay attention to you when you complain when stuff is wrong. That's human nature. If you complain constantly, people tune you out.

11 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Under what definition does Google or Apple not constitute a market leader in their respective markets?

Also, Apple's backlash for charging 30% for subscriptions is minuscule compared with the hate that Microsoft gets for introducing the Windows Store.

*snip*

Whilst it's true that Google manage people's expectations better, they are no better at the actual work on the ground than Microsoft. Google cancel frameworks that people rely on (remember Google Gears and the personalized home page with apps on?), they change layouts with only very limited ability to go backwards (I can't go back to the 2006 layout in Gmail, but I can go back to Office 2007 with the disk I still have for it), and they are routinely now slapped down for bad practices towards their customer's data (hence the EU and US government starting actions and imposing fines against them).

And yet Google remains the darling in the minds of many developers, and the bogey man Microsoft can do nothing right in their eyes.

*snip*

Tell that to my Dad whose PPC computer stands idle in the garage now that not even Firefox runs on it anymore. Thanks Apple. Also there was a time when even I wrote apps for the Google personalized homepage. Look how that worked out. Thanks Google.

Don't get me wrong; Silverlight had a big following in industry. But then so did Google Gears, and the community of app-writers for Google's homepage was not small.

*snip*

You might think that, but it's the prevailing attitude in Redmond. I routinely hear PMs say stuff like "Whatever we do it's going to be unpopular, so we might as well do X", or dismissing concerns as "haters gonna hate". The bit that's not funny is that whilst some journalists and commentators seem to have enjoyed Microsoft-baiting - indeed it's commonplace for developers to assume that Microsoft is evil and that their software is terrible - that this leads to worse products for them in the end.

How many people have been online saying "Oh, actually Microsoft, Metro has some really nice apps, like Fruit Ninja, like the Bing news reader app, and the videos app - that's actually pretty neat" compared with how many people have just spread FUD by stating that it's the end of the Desktop, that not having a button in the bottom left is "so unintuitive as to make the OS unusable" or that "there is no demand for Metro".

And what percentage of people condemning Windows8 have actually used it on real hardware?

Exactly. It's almost a competitive sport online to see who can hate at Microsoft the most. And people wonder why Microsoft doesn't listen.

If you refuse to give Microsoft credit for the stuff they do right, they'll not pay attention to you when you complain when stuff is wrong. That's human nature. If you complain constantly, people tune you out.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO your statements are miss-scoped and exaggerated in order to make your point. You've shown me even recently that there is no amount of proof or time a person who is critical of Microsoft can spend with a Microsoft technology that will ever justify the criticism. You'll just bend their words in order to diffuse their argument and "protect" Microsoft.

It's Microsoft's loss if they only listen to those who tell them what they want to hear or to cop the attitude of "Whatever we do it's going to be unpopular, so we might as well do X". That the attitude of the defeated.

1 hour ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

You'll just bend their words.

I summarized your statement thus:

... you started this thread with "Unfortunately...[Microsoft] blew [the release of Surface]", "Windows [is] bloated", "[Surface] is painful" and "Read it and weep" is a bit rich.

This is what you actually said: I've highlighted in bold so it's obvious that everything I quoted you actually said, and that in context the meaning is the same.

I was hoping the Surface Pro finally show us that Microsoft was serious about redefining Windows. Unfortunately just like the Surface RT they blow it on the free disk space issue. 23 GB free on a 64 GB drive? Who are they marketing this to? They'd need to put out a 256 GB version to have enough capacity for the work I do. The 128 GB/ 83 GB free may be big enough for some office workers but we all know as apps and Windows bloat over the years this space will hardly be enough.

Are they assuming people will buy these every year like iPads and start fresh? Having all you data in the cloud would make a wipe and reload less painful? (and let's forget about the need for a local cache for our cloud-based files)

This really feels like Microsoft is finally trying to push the world the Network Computer.

Read it and weep...

I don't think I was twisting your words. You actually said all of the things I quoted. I wasn't even changing the meaning of your words. In context, my summary demonstrating that you load your posts with negativity feels pretty accurate. You genuinely were saying that Windows is bloated, that Microsoft blew the release of Surface and that we should "Read it and weep".

That's not twisting your words. It's just holding up a mirror to what you actually said.

If you feel like my summary is an inaccurate portrayal of your own words, I apologise. But from here, it looks like a pretty accurate summary.

Also complaining that people deliberately misquote you when ( a) they don't and (b) you do is completely hypocritical.

You said I said:

[Microsoft] blew [the release of Surface]

I actually said:

Unfortunately just like the Surface RT they blow it on the free disk space issue.

You conveniently left out the latter to change the scope.

You said I said:

Windows [is] bloated

I actually said:

Window bloat

Now my mistake here was not to provide enough context, fare enough, but you injected your own context. I later clarified what I meant in a later post: 

I didn't claim that Windows is bloated. Apps grow with data & updates and Windows grows with Windows Updates -- you know all of that stuff in Windows\Installer & Windows\WinSxS. All of that clogs a drive.

You said I said:

[Surface] is painful

 I actually said:

Having all you data in the cloud would make a wipe and reload less painful?

That was a question, not a statement. It wasn't portraying Surface as painful. You did.

And all we're left with is:

Read it and weep

Weep about what? Oh that's right the disk space issue. I think that's a fair criticism of Surface.

*Edit*: Changed quote format.

*Update*: Missed responding to this:

Also complaining that people deliberately misquote you when ( a) they don't and (b) you do is completely hypocritical.

If you want things to change around here you need to stop setting the bar. That post was an obvious "raising of the mirror" to your practice of twisting peoples words.

30 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

@evildictaitor: Context is king and that's where you won't win the thrown. 

You said I said:

[quote]

Unfortunately just like the Surface RT they blow it on the free disk space issue.

I.e. "they blew it". You didn't say that they could have improved it with more disk space. You said they blew it by not having enough. Your words, not mine.

Windows bloat

Can only be there if Windows is bloated. You chose to use the word bloat. That's your word, not mine.

Having all you data in the cloud would make a wipe and reload less painful? 

Something can only be less painful if it is currently painful. You could have said make it more usable. You didn't. You said less painful. That's a pretty negative spin.

Read it and weep

Not much you can say about that. That's your words, quoted letter-for-letter.

If you want things to change around here you need to stop setting the bar. That post was an obvious "raising of the mirror" to your practice of twisting peoples words.

Looks more like a childish personal attack because you didn't like seeing your own words read back to you.

I'll let other people judge as to whether you said what you said. I don't frankly care whether you think I was trying to twist your words. All I can say is that I wasn't trying to. You accused me of being negative and I pointed out that you didn't exactly start the thread in a positive light. I said it how I saw it, and I'll let other people judge as to what you said.

29 seconds ago, evildictait​or wrote

I'll let other people judge as to whether you said what you said. I don't frankly care whether you think I was trying to twist your words. All I can say is that I wasn't trying to. It looked like you were being negative, and I said it how I saw it.

Likewise, it looked like you were being delusional but I'll let other people be the judge as to whether your twisting of my words qualifies.

Cool. So you've decended into personal attacks, called me a liar and just called me delusional, derailed the entire thread, and you wonder why people call you a troll.

Cheevo unlocked; Third thread derailed and locked in as many days.

44 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

Cool. So you've decended into personal attacks, called me a liar and just called me delusional, derailed the entire thread, and you wonder why people call you a troll.

Cheevo unlocked; Third thread derailed and locked in as many days.

You're forgetting it takes two to tango. Let's take a look at the score shall we?

Seems to me you started the personal attacks here:

Looks more like a childish personal attack because you didn't like seeing your own words read back to you.

So I'm childish now? That goes nicely with the liar inference you've made about me in resent threads.

I think we're 1 - 1 on locked threads. This one was closed when you posted you're twisted version of what I said.

In this thread my last post did close the thread but I find it funny that it was an example of your great work in misconstruing peoples words.

Liar? That's a stretch but then again stretches are you're specialty. I'm sorry if that's the way you feel.

Face it EvilD you are no better than I in keeping these threads positive and on topic. If it's a criticism that you disagree with then the person making it is disingenuous at best and more likely a troll in your book.

Oh and this thread's not locked yet...