There is a long rant on the Flight1 forum by Simon Evans in which he writes:One Tin Soldier is just another example of someone who proceeds on the basis of incomplete technical knowledge, half-baked ideas and oft-repeated rumour which takes on pseudo-proven `fact` status purely from the oft repeating. Clearly very little of his article was based on his own research, it is a summary, a roundup of heard titbits and juicy gossip from around the forums, newsgroups and net - and possibly even a "man down the pub who once switched a computer on for someone", for all we know. Some of it is garbage, nothing more. Hmmm......Michael J.

Simon Evans?, Vitrolic rant? Noooooo, that can't be right :-lolDan.

Who is Simon Evans?

Wow, you must be the only flight simmer on the planet who doesn't know who Simon Evans is,lol! He's a very...er...shall we say... opinionated man who sometimes goes over the top with his vitriol and gets banned from whatever forum he's ranting on.He does have a good command of the english language though. I quite enjoy most of his stuff, while not always being in aggreement with him. I found most of it very entertaining, he doesn't suffer fools gladly, but then who does? And in this hobby there are certainly enough fools to go round :+ BestGrahame (EDHL)

I've missed Simon, I thought he had left for good.

Good ol' Simon. Looks like he's about to add another one to the count of forums at which he is no longer welcome :).Doug

Hey, I've never heard of the guy, but I'm mostly around these parts lately.Long rant, huh?There's something to be said about an economy of words. The person who speaks to hear themself talk winds up with a small audience.I don't mean to get all Ben Franklin here. But I've seen long rants. I don't read them, and I don't get tied up in "apparent" complexity for argument's sake...That said, it may be an entertaining read.Andrew>Wow, you must be the only flight simmer on the planet who>doesn't know who Simon Evans is,lol! He's a very...er...shall>we say... opinionated man who sometimes goes over the top with>his vitriol and gets banned from whatever forum he's ranting>on.He does have a good command of the english language though.>I quite enjoy most of his stuff, while not always being in>aggreement with him. I found most of it very entertaining, he>doesn't suffer fools gladly, but then who does? And in this>hobby there are certainly enough fools to go round :+ >Best>Grahame (EDHL)

Yep, pretty soon he'll be starting his own Internet... he won't be welcome anywhere on this one.I especially like this one he wrote: "It has actually got to the point where you cannot fail to have noticed that most of the genuine experts have left the big forums, because their sane and sensible advice was too often crushed by a torrent of idiocy."He surely is speaking of himself when he refers to those "genuine experts". LOLToo bad he can't even get the fixed Paging File size issue correct. That one's pretty simple, but he refuses to accept it.Definition of an expert: An "Ex" is a has been. A "Spurt" is a drip under pressure.The guy is a riot!Greg

... and I thought the Michael J is someone in a black limmo (why not a white one) on his way to jail?:-)

Alot of what the guy says is true, its just a shame he has to wrap his entire postings in such words to try and make him sound more important than he is.Me thinks someone has Delusions of grandeur ;)Dan.

>There is a long rant on the Flight1 forum by Simon Evans in>which he writes:>>One Tin Soldier is just another example of someone who>proceeds on the basis of incomplete technical knowledge,>half-baked ideas and oft-repeated rumour which takes on>pseudo-proven `fact` status purely from the oft repeating.>Clearly very little of his article was based on his own>research, it is a summary, a roundup of heard titbits and>juicy gossip from around the forums, newsgroups and net - and>possibly even a "man down the pub who once switched a computer>on for someone", for all we know. Some of it is garbage,>nothing more. >>Hmmm......>>Michael J.>Are you sure that's what he says? If you read the whole thing he just reinforces the debate that took place after that guide was posted. Taking one paragraph and posting it out of context is a very dangerous game to play. Risks it looking like YOU have an agenda.There seems a lot of logic in what is being said. We only recently saw the debate about `system cache` screw peoples systems, based on recommendations in this very forum. Later on in the thread I see Jim himself acknowledges some of his tips might not be for everybody. I cant see the difference between that advice and what is contained on the other site. Allcott

The point here, Allcott, is that Simon believes he knows eveything... and everybody else knows nothing. It's his way. He clearly still has alot to learn (I've seen him give good advice and I've seen him give bad advice).While Jim's guide may not be for everybody (what guide is), for Simon to attck his efforts and credibility the way he did is simply wrong. And it shows very bad manners... one of the things in life Simon still has much to learn about.Regards,Greg

And the difference between that thread over there and this thread over here is what exactly? It is clear that taking one thread out of context within the discussion taking place over there is going to give a wrong impression. I don't see an `attack`, as he aknowledges that some of the tips are actually beneficial. The attack seems to be taking place right here.Maybe I've missed something, but the whole thread over there, read in its entirety, seems to bear similarity with the actual help thread. Original advice, followed by discussion and disagreement. Which is about what I see when I look at the thread in this forum.Allcott

>The attack seems to be taking place right here.Maybe in your own mind. Shouldn't you check dictionary what "attack" means ? First he is clearly making fun of OneTinSoldier (not in one place) implying he is a "self-dilusional expert". If he thinks the guide is just full of crap - that's ok he has right to do so, but it is his tone and manners in which he presents his "ideas" that cast doubt on his own "expertise". OK, so I am 'attacking' his tone and language. Michael J.

Eliminate the "tone and manners," separate the wheat from the chaff. Are his "ideas" totally incorrect?