Feel free to mislabel criticism as 'disparage', but that dog won't hunt here.
According to thesaurus.com, the definition of disparage is "criticize, detract from" .. but I'll accept criticize as an alternate word if you like, because they are essentially the same thing.
Some of us have a flair for the dramatic, and others lack the intestinal fortitude and courage to take their lumps in public, as they should. That was only how I ended my comment. You didn't see the other 95% of it. But it sure is interesting that you could form an opinion based on how little you know about the rest of what I had to say in that comment, eh?
What you said or didn't say is irrelevant. My comments were based on what you provided here ... i.e. your post was deleted on the ADN site and you think that it was censorship. Although, based on what you posted here (i.e. what you said you posted there), at least the first post seemed a bit over the top.
Perhaps my method of dealing with criticizm is different. I find I get what I want more often when I present a well thought out case. For example, rather than calling a product something that "was never brought out of the dark ages", I might offer reasons why the product should rightly be updated to include the capabilities of modern multi-core processors (i.e. much larger file size, the availability of multi-core systems, more complex design requirements etc.) By taking a hammer to the problem, you merely ended up with broken glass. It very well may have been broken in the long run, but I suspect your comments would have been preserved.
I stand by my comments and I suspect that if someone came to your website and posted something about you or your product, you probably wouldn't think very long before removing the critical content.
That doesn't make them a good company or their actions good. I merely stated that their actions were justifiable because they own the forum. As owners, they have the right to delete whatever they decide to delete (or not delete as far as that is concerned).
If more customers were hammering away at them over the years in public rather than using the means they provide (which is by-design intended to keep customer feedback out of the public eye), then I very much doubt that today we would still have an AutoCAD that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You are absolutely correct!
I also suspect that just about every company keeps its negative customer feedback private. To make it public would be counter-productive to their marketing needs. Heck, there are plenty of places where negative comments about a product can be made. To expect that a company would publish someone's critical comments alongside the ones touting all the virtues of their product is silly.
I'm confident that the reason Autodesk has left AutoCAD to languish in the single-threaded, single-cpu world, is mainly because their long-term strategy is to migrate customers away from AutoCAD, to other products, and/or to the 'cloud' and more significantly, SAAS.
That may very well be the case. I can't fault them for that either. Would you rather they simply stopped producing AutoCAD, then force their clients to move to other solutions? That wouldn't be very smart now would it. However, if they "encourage" their clients to migrate because "Hey this *other* product does exactly what you are asking for in *this* product", then so be it. Many will migrate and their business strategies will be met.
Contrary to what you seem to be saying (you will correct me if I am wrong), Autodesk doesn't need to be concerned with whether their product meets your long-term stategies, they only care that you are purchasing their product.
A better solution might be to use a different product. Of course if there is no competing product that meets your needs, then you have to ask if your needs are so much more important than the needs of the market. Chances are Autodesk doesn't think so, not only that, their competitors that also don't meet your needs also probably don't think so.
Having unpopular intentions, and acting to conceal them through censorship are two different things. I can't find sympathy for those who believe the latter is any better than any criticism they censor, even when there's a little salt and pepper sprinkled on it.
I don't know where to draw the line in the sand. As you pointed out, I don't have the benefit of knowing what your post contained. However, as far as I am concerned, the content of the post is irrelevant. You could have just as well posted something about your child's birthday. The end result is the same. As participants in a forum that is managed by a company (in this case Autodesk), we have no reasonable expectation that our comments will remain on the site or that any specific comments will be allowed.
That might suck balls, but that is how it is. I don't have to agree with what Autodesk did, but I do support their right to do it.
That all being said, I would still be angry if they deleted my posts .. I might even escalate the anger to management .. heck I might even refuse to use their product. If enough folks did, they would soon see the error of their ways.
Does that make any sense?