So, the mushroom threads pops up again! The Good, The Bad and the Ugly part of how we deal with communication.
First define your point of view, if you like something don't just claim it's wonderful, however in this case you're a satisfied customer, and the service provider, in this case FDEV, did a good job and you would like to show your appreciation. For them to do a proper analyze of what they did correct they need to know the whys and whats.
Feedback is mostly divided into positive critique or destructive opinions where facts is mostly not involved, or strongly opinionated, but also the participants' views and the interplay between them enters into the causal chain. There is a two-way connection between the facts and opinions prevailing at any moment in time, on the one hand participants seek to understand the situation pretending or actually using factual information, to back up a claim, on the other, they seek to influence the situation by dominating the discussion by "force".
When attacking the opponent by using fragments in the opponents views thus splitting them into even smaller pieces and presenting them as a counter attack on X's views or work is a known technique.
Don't do it, it will make you look silly and you will not get your message across. I suggest to use facts, back it up with reason and you will most likely get people to listen and maybe even agree with you.
First define your point of view, if you like something don't just claim it's wonderful, however in this case you're a satisfied customer, and the service provider, in this case FDEV, did a good job and you would like to show your appreciation. For them to do a proper analyze of what they did correct they need to know the whys and whats.
Feedback is mostly divided into positive critique or destructive opinions where facts is mostly not involved, or strongly opinionated, but also the participants' views and the interplay between them enters into the causal chain. There is a two-way connection between the facts and opinions prevailing at any moment in time, on the one hand participants seek to understand the situation pretending or actually using factual information, to back up a claim, on the other, they seek to influence the situation by dominating the discussion by "force".
When attacking the opponent by using fragments in the opponents views thus splitting them into even smaller pieces and presenting them as a counter attack on X's views or work is a known technique.
Don't do it, it will make you look silly and you will not get your message across. I suggest to use facts, back it up with reason and you will most likely get people to listen and maybe even agree with you.