Edited: Ok so I decided to remove the entire post I had just written up because I realize that in the context of a thread this big, I can't expect that you read the conversation that quote was taken from in whole. Things are going to be read completely out of context of an entire back and forth conversation, and only be taken for that one specific comment, which they were.
I will just leave it at this; I feel entitled to nothing more than what I purchased. And MK I/II owners should feel the same. You own an old unit, don't expect, which some MK I/II users are, for owners of a unit with enough memory to move forward, to have things removed from their units just to "make it work" on your old units. Removal of features for advancement purposes, to make room for something new, is one thing, but removal just to make an old unit keep up is just ludicrous.
There are probably more Axe FX users than not, who never venture off the main amp tab, but does that mean we should remove all the advanced parameters? hell that would probably make alot of room. If you had a poll that truly reflected the FULL Axe FX user base I have no doubt that the amount of users who only use the main tab would greatly out number the amount of users who use the advanced tabs. But it would still make no sense to remove those tabs and features because that's a step backward.
Thank you for your reply.
I did, in fact, read this entire discussion and took everything I have read up to this point from each persons point of view. My assessment of your statement stands as it reads the same way within the context of the discussion in its entirety and within the specific conversation to which your post was made. Yours isn't the only post on this topic in general that, as written, has indicated a sense of entitlement. Your post, that I quoted in part, however, made assertions that have no place in this discussion. You stated that it's "
kinda your right to expect additional features for your XL+ than" (from readers perspective-
I) "get for (
my) Mk I/II unit". Read this any way you wish - intended or not, expressing the right to expect something not owed to you is the very essence of entitlement (the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment). In addition the statement (in bold print as follows) that you chose
"to pay more money for a higher end unit so I could get additional features such as more preset slots, more user ir slots, and at this point, continued firmware updates because my unit can handle the task" is a statement without basis. You chose to upgrade from a Mk II series to an XL+ for reasons known to consumers at that time of your purchase.
"...and at this point,..." simply tacks on a new expectation (one only days old now and an expectation of free stuff at that) to a list of features listed for a product you purchased at least 9 months ago, an expectation that you should receive more free stuff than Mk I/II owners because you just now found out that you have space for that free stuff, whereas the person(s) to whom you responded in this thread just found out that they have run out of space for free stuff.
The entire assertion concerns free stuff to which you are not entitled. It refers, in fact, to free ongoing firmware development offered to you from FAS by their choice. Though your reply to my post (as quoted here) states that you feel entitled to '
nothing more than what you purchased' the assertions you made in your prior post stated otherwise in a very thorough manner. You are correct that Mk I/II owners should feel the same. Every FAS product for which ongoing updates are being provided for free should feel entitled to nothing more than what they purchased.
"You own an old unit, don't expect, which some MK I/II users are, for owners of a unit with enough memory to move forward, to have things removed from their units just to "make it work" on your old units." This statement, in direct reply to my post, tells me to not expect something that I clearly stated is something for which I have no expectation, I did express an interest in having the feature in question removed if doing so would accommodate any significant additional firmware updates for the Mk I/II series. I also qualified my expressed interest in saying that I would feel no disappointment if this upcoming firmware were to be the last release for the Mk I/II, that I'm just as excited about my AxeFX II as I was when it arrived from FAS, and that I'm very grateful to have had access to so much ongoing development of the AxeFX II to date (see my first reply as well as my posts in the '
Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta', where the discussion on this topic began). This is about as far from the expectation you're telling me not to have as one can get. Expressing an interest and stating expectation share no common ground. If you were indeed addressing those who have expressed an
expectation that FAS remove a specified feature so that they may receive more free stuff then you once again picked a very poor way to make a point. Your statement, as quoted in bold print above, intended or not, addressed me specifically.
"You own an old unit, don't expect..." throws me in with your intended audience. I have said nothing whatsoever that would lead someone to assume that I have any expectation for anything from FAS.
Written communication, especially in online discussions where anonymity is a factor, is often difficult as all of the additional expression present when communication by voice (inflection, tone of voice) or in person (inflection, tone of voice, facial expressions, eye contact, body language) are missing entirely. Add to this the nature of written communication in a forum or social media context (thoughts and feelings expressed in short messages, the disconnect that often accompanies anonymity, the additional time necessary to ensure words convey ones thoughts/feelings/intentions accurately) and it's easy for a discussion like this one to quickly go off the rails. These factors may explain why your last two posts read the way that they do, or perhaps not. Those reading your posts (anyone's posts) can only glean from them whatever is expressed, as expressed. This is what is happening with your last post and with your quoted reply above.
I have no problem with you. I merely took exception to what was conveyed in your post quoted above and your prior post in this discussion, and I have explained why in detail so as not to be misunderstood. Again, I hope you do not take offense as none was intended.
