upgrading to 5.5 ?
No One
> The ability to save for web is really sweet,
> allowing a person to cut down on web design times.
Ohhh, yes. I think this feature alone is reason enough. The knockout
feature isn't bad either, but the "save for web'" is hmm, hmm, good.
J
Jinky Dee
features in a conveniently discontuned Adobe product for about 60 dollars?
Mmmmmm, mmmmmm....
Jinky Dee
product is a lot less than Adobe's asking for the upgrade which includes
said discontinued product. Mmmmmm, mmmmm....
No One
Mmmm, very interesting Dinky. Let's see, picture knockout tool, save for web
tool, Integrated ImageReady 2.0, contact sheets, automated web image
gallery, etc, for $60.00? Extensis mask alone goes for about
$200.00--$100.00 for the upgrade. The upgrade to PS 5.5 at buy.com goes for
$169.00. Adobe could very well have called this 6.0 as Macromedia so often
does when they add a few features. e.g. DW 2.0 to 3.0. I own DW 3.0 which I
upgraded from 2.0 and noticed only a few differences--should've been called
DW 2.5. Why did I upgrade then? I like having the extra free features that
Macromedia gives out like the behaviors. Seems that when a new version
comes out, the older version freebies just disappear.
"Jinky Dee" <fa...@smelly.net> wrote in message
news:sj874h...@corp.supernews.com...
No One
You keep talking about this "discontinued product" as if it's the holy
grail. What is/was the name of this product that bundled ALL of the products
I mentioned before.
J
"Jinky Dee" <fa...@smelly.net> wrote in message
news:sj87b9s...@corp.supernews.com...
Jinky Dee
of violence. I am a die-hard Adobe fan who lives and dies by
PageMaker and Photoshop. But it seems like every six months
they come up with an upgrade package that costs a gazillion
dollars. I resist. I fret. I rarely upgrade. I've been using
Adobe Photoshop 3.05 because I paid almost $700 for it and spent
months mastering all its tricks and quirks. Why shell out close
to $200 for an upgrade that will just throw another steep learning
curve in my path? And the next upgrade is just around the bend?
Photoshop 5.5 finally lured me in. It comes bundled with
ImageReady version 2.0. Let me say it once: If you design websites, you
must have this program. It was worth every penny — many
pennies — that I paid for it. Image Ready does four things that are
indispensable to web designers: Web Optimization, Rollovers,
Image Slicing, and animations. This review is just of ImageReady
— PhotoShop deserves a review of its own. " - Susan Ives, Jan.
2000, PC Alamode magazine (let's keep in mind she hasn't upgraded since
version 3.05 )
OK, so I couldn't remember the name of the program: ImageReady.
I did a search and see it sold for around 100 dollars. It no longer exists
as it is not part of the Adobe Photoshop 5.5 upgrade.
I went to buy.com and there it is (Photoshop 5.5 upgrade) for
169.00. When is version 6.0 due out so I can spend close to another 200
dollars? : )
No One
Truth of the matter is that some of these so-called "upgrades" are nuts. As
I wrote previously, Macromedia does this a lot. PS hasn't had a major
upgrade in about 18 mos. I think that Adobe does ok in this dept. I also
think that the $169.00 is a fair price to pay for all the new features.
"Jinky Dee" <fa...@smelly.net> wrote in message
news:sj8snn...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Upgrades drive me crazy. Adobe upgrades drive me to the
brink
> of violence. I am a die-hard Adobe fan who lives and dies by
> PageMaker and Photoshop. But it seems like every six months
> they come up with an upgrade package that costs a gazillion
> dollars. I resist. I fret. I rarely upgrade. I've been using
> Adobe Photoshop 3.05 because I paid almost $700 for it and spent
> months mastering all its tricks and quirks. Why shell out
close
> to $200 for an upgrade that will just throw another steep learning
> curve in my path? And the next upgrade is just around the
bend?
>
> Photoshop 5.5 finally lured me in. It comes bundled with
> ImageReady version 2.0. Let me say it once: If you design websites, you
> must have this program. It was worth every penny - many
> pennies - that I paid for it. Image Ready does four things that are
> indispensable to web designers: Web Optimization, Rollovers,
> Image Slicing, and animations. This review is just of ImageReady
> - PhotoShop deserves a review of its own. " - Susan Ives,
Felicity Lumpington
whole thing is a matter of principle.
Not everyone has unlimited funds... some don't have any funds at all.
There are people who find themselves falling behind with this
technology, simply because they can't afford to purchase these
upgrades.
Ironically, some of those who can't afford the upgrades are
creatively and imaginitively superior to the 'fat wallet' brigade.
Trouble is, when posting out resumes to potential employers, they'll
be left by the wayside because they can't include knowledge of the
up-to-date programme.
Fair? Not to me. But fairness is in the eye of the beholder, it
would appear.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 00:09:45 -0400, "No One" <noe...@please.com>
wrote:
Mr. Jim
>A fair price, perhaps, if you actually have the money. I think the
>whole thing is a matter of principle.
Yes, absolutely - those with principles and a genuine desire for the
program will shell out the money like I do.
--
Jim Hall
home.att.net/~hall.j.m
c-tide
> A fair price, perhaps, if you actually have the money. I think the
> whole thing is a matter of principle.
Who said anything about fair. Last time I checked, the world wasn't fair.
If it was I'd have won the $350 mil in the lottery. If you're really serious
about making a career out of any field that uses Photoshop as a primary
tool, you're going to buy it and find the money to purchase the upgrades
when they come along. It is a matter of principal. And, the principal is to
make money for Adobe. These people put a lot of effort into making the
industry leading image editing software. They have to recover their costs and
turn a profit.
>
>
> Not everyone has unlimited funds... some don't have any funds at all.
I don't have unlimited funds, but we're talking about an initial investment of
$700 or $800 and about $500 every few years for an upgrade. That's not
a lot of money unless you live in a third world country.
>
> There are people who find themselves falling behind with this
> technology, simply because they can't afford to purchase these
> upgrades.
They can get off their ass and get a job or they can quit buying beer
and smokes. You have to find a way to purchase things, nobody's
giving it out for free.
>
>
> Ironically, some of those who can't afford the upgrades are
> creatively and imaginitively superior to the 'fat wallet' brigade.
Again, you don't have to have a fat wallet to buy Photoshop.
Learn to live within a budget and learn to set some financial
or business goals. If you can't save any money in the job you're working,
go out and get a second one. Sometimes you have to sacrifice more
to get what you want. If some of the people are "creatively and imaginatively
superior to the 'fat wallet' brigade" then they ought to use some of that
creativity and imagination to figure out a way to purchase the upgrade.
>
> Trouble is, when posting out resumes to potential employers, they'll
> be left by the wayside because they can't include knowledge of the
> up-to-date programme.
So what? If an employer is so shallow he's going to hire me because I
have a higher version number on my resume, I don't think I want to work for
him. (Or her).
>
>
> Fair? Not to me. But fairness is in the eye of the beholder, it
> would appear.
>
Cry me a river. The craks and warez NGs are full of thieves with
the idea software companies are ripping them off. Problem is, they're
just too fucking cheap to buy the apps. Look at what they want to crack.
Most of it is shareware priced stuff.
c-tide
---
Hope I didn't send this twice. I hit the send button by accident.
Don't think I stopped it in time. Oh well. Sorry.
Jinky Dee
Let's see, about 500.00 for 5.0, another 190.00 for 5.5 upgrade and look!,
6 is coming out and the initial upgrade price will most likely be aroung 200
to 250 dollars. That brings our final total to about 890.00
What will it cost the first time buyer to buy version 6? 890.00?
Again, I think not. Talk about a pyramid scheme. : )
c-tide
> A fair price, perhaps, if you actually have the money. I think the
> whole thing is a matter of principle.
Who said anything about fair. Last time I checked, the world wasn't fair.
If it was I'd have won the $350 mil in the lottery. If you're really serious
about making a career out of any field that uses Photoshop as a primary
tool, you're going to buy it and find the money to purchase the upgrades
when they come along. It is a matter of principal. And, the principal is to
make money for Adobe. These people put a lot of effort into making the
industry leading image editing software. They have to recover their costs and
turn a profit.
>
>
> Not everyone has unlimited funds... some don't have any funds at all.
I don't have unlimited funds, but we're talking about an initial investment of
$700 or $800 and about $500 every few years for an upgrade. That's not
a lot of money unless you live in a third world country.
>
> There are people who find themselves falling behind with this
> technology, simply because they can't afford to purchase these
> upgrades.
They can get off their ass and get a job or they can quit buying beer
and smokes. You have to find a way to purchase things, nobody's
giving it out for free.
>
>
> Ironically, some of those who can't afford the upgrades are
> creatively and imaginitively superior to the 'fat wallet' brigade.
Again, you don't have to have a fat wallet to buy Photoshop.
Learn to live within a budget and learn to set some financhial
or business goals. If you can't save any money in the job you're working,
go out and get a second one. Sometimes you have to sacrifice more
to get what you want. If some of the people are "creatively and imaginitively
Felicity Lumpington
revenue earned from upgrades. Adobe employees, perhaps? Or maybe
shareholders? Or both?
I think the point is being missed. A huge lottery win could buy one
all the graphics software in the world. By the same token, one could
buy the most luxurious and advanced car in the world, which would be
useless if one couldn't drive it. Money can't buy talent and (as I
said before) there are many tremendously talented individuals who
cannot afford to purchase the upgrades.
I'm delighted that you both have been able to afford to keep up with
the technological advances. You obviously make lots of money. I
wonder if you earn it by virtue of your skills in graphic art?
Dwight Williamson
Lumpington) wrote:
>A fair price, perhaps, if you actually have the money. I think the
>whole thing is a matter of principle.
And which principle might that be?
>Not everyone has unlimited funds...
Actually very few people do. Lord knows I don't have anything
approaching unlimited funds, which is one of the reasons that I
periodically skip an upgrade, don't buy some software that I would
really like to have, and am never on the bleeding edge of computer
technology.
>some don't have any funds at all.
I don't know what to say about this, except that perhaps buying a new
version of a graphics program likely isn't as high on their list of
priorities as food, shelter, clothing...
>There are people who find themselves falling behind with this
>technology, simply because they can't afford to purchase these
>upgrades.
It happens. One finds oneself having to prioritize, or find new ways
to be creative with the release that is one or two generations old, or
work a little harder to come up with additional funds.
>Ironically, some of those who can't afford the upgrades are
>creatively and imaginitively superior to the 'fat wallet' brigade.
I don't see anything particularly ironic about that. That is just
life, it is true across a very wide range of subjects not just
software graphics upgrades. One thing that I have noticed is that
those that are truly talented find a way to express themselves in
spite of (and perhaps quite often because of) these *ironies*.
>Trouble is, when posting out resumes to potential employers, they'll
>be left by the wayside because they can't include knowledge of the
>up-to-date programme.
While this probably does happen periodically I suspect that a
talented individual with an older computer and PS 4.0 is much more
likely to get hired that someone with the latest computer, PS 5.5, and
a lower level of talent. I just really can't see a lot of companies
looking over someone's body of work and saying "my god but she has a
lot of talent, too bad she is only fluent in PS5 and has never worked
with PS5.5, bring on the next candidate".
>Fair? Not to me. But fairness is in the eye of the beholder, it
>would appear.
Fairness, IMO, to a great degree is overrated. It is way too
subjective. Who gets to decide what is fair, you, me, the truly poor
(you know, ones that don't have access to computers so they can post
to usenet, or electricity, or maybe even food or shelter)? And I
believe that talent, ambition, and just a lot of plain hard work
overcomes a lot of what is perceived as unfairness. The
(unfortunate?) truth is that life is not "fair" for everyone, never
has been and it is exceedingly unlikely to ever be so.
BTW, you bemoan the unfairness of it, and take potshots at those that
you seem to believe are among the financially over-endowed ( you
remember the "fat wallet brigade"?), but I notice that you don't make
any suggestions to remedy this problem. What would you have the
computer manufacturers and software producers do? Should Apple be in
the business of ensuring that everyone has a new (or the same level)
of computer no matter what the cost? Should Adobe only charge for
every 3rd upgrade and even give that away if the individual/company
claims they can't afford the upgrade at that time? I would like to
hear your plan for fairness, and please, let's leave a little fairness
for the companies and their employees in there...
Dwight
Jinky Dee
PS, at least not legally" for a year or two? What does this mean? As soon
as Photoshop 6 is released, the first time buyer will certainly have legal
access to it. Again, they will most likely pay about 500.00 (I have no real
idea what Adobe plans to charge) and the person who bought, let's say,
version 5.0. legally, and upgraded to 5.5. legally and again plans to
legally upgrade to 6 will have spent close to 900 for the same program.
In your scenario, where she didn't have 5.5 and you did and had use of
it, you paid for it! Why shouldn't you have use of it? Now you'll pay
again and again and again. : ) The first time buyer will get his or her
version 6 for much less than you , the loyal upgrader.
Can you say pyramid scheme? : )
Keith Clark
Jinky Dee wrote:
Welcome to the real world, pal.
Let's see, how many times have you upgraded pieces of your PC over the last 5 or
6 years?
How about misc upgrades in your home?
Why is it software is different? Because it's easier to steal?
Look, if you can't afford the cost of an upgrade then you don't NEED it.
If you NEED it, then a hundred bucks for the upgrade is irrelevant because it
will pay for itself in increased productivity (which is precisely why I refused
to buy the 5.5 upgrade).
V6.0 has enough new features to justify it as a major upgrade, in my opinion.
5.5 does not, for me, since I never would have purchased "Image Ready" in the
first place.
I really hope Adobe stops bundling crap in with Photoshop and calling it
"upgrades"...
Keith (can hardly wait for 6.0, and will pay the upgrade price for it)
Jinky Dee
Since you feel that the use we got from a legally acquired version of
Photoshop is compensation for what me must pay as we continue to upgrade,
maybe you've hit on something. Perhaps in addition to the initial cost for
Photoshop, Adobe can charge a daily usage fee. : ) Perhaps they might
even lay claim to part ownership of the images we create using their
software. Now we're cookin'. : )
Dwight Williamson
Lumpington) wrote:
>Hmmmmm... seems like some seem to have a vested interest in the
>revenue earned from upgrades. Adobe employees, perhaps? Or maybe
>shareholders? Or both?
Well... I don't know if you are talking about me too (since you
replied to c-tide, but seem to be talking to multiple people), but I
do not work for Adobe or have any money invested with them in any way
at all. The ONLY connection I have with Adobe is as a mostly happy
consumer.
>I think the point is being missed. A huge lottery win could buy one
>all the graphics software in the world. By the same token, one could
>buy the most luxurious and advanced car in the world, which would be
>useless if one couldn't drive it. Money can't buy talent and (as I
>said before) there are many tremendously talented individuals who
>cannot afford to purchase the upgrades.
And I am sure there are a hell of lot more than that who can't even
afford to buy a computer or the initial purchase of Photoshop. Or
paints, canvas, and brushes. Or cmaeras and film. Or pianos, guitars,
or sitars. What, exactly, do you think should be done? Don't just sit
on the sidelines and sing "Woe is me, woe is me". Come up with a
workable solution and let us know what it takes. It's easy to
complain, it's a little tougher to actually do something about it.
>I'm delighted that you both have been able to afford to keep up with
>the technological advances. You obviously make lots of money.
I guess that depends on who you ask. Some would probably think I am
rich, others would wonder how I manage to get by. I'm fairly happy
with the compensation that I receive for the work I do. As far as
keeping up with the technological advances, as I said previously I do
NOT live on the cutting edge and I do miss upgrades. I am still using
PS5.0 and I may or may not upgrade to PS6 when it becomes available.
>I wonder if you earn it by virtue of your skills in graphic art?
I earn a small portion of it from work using graphics programs on a
computer, most of it from writing software. I am not among those that
would be considered talented, much less tremendously talented but
there is some call for what my pedestrian talents allow me to do.
But I am kind of curious what difference it makes whether I earn my
keep by being a graphic artist, a software developer, or a butler? I
work for my money, I budget, and I buy what I can afford. If I see
something else that I want I either re-prioritize or I find another
way to earn money until I can purchase it. I don't cry and whine about
the things that others have that I can't or choose not to buy. If
these people are as talented as you say, and they are dedicated to
what they do, then they will find a way to succeed and a $150 - $200
upgrade every 12 - 18 months won't stop them.
Dwight Williamson
Xeris Design Group
dwill...@xdg.com
http://www.xdg.com
Dwight Williamson
wrote:
> Would one complain if they were getting this for free? Think about it.
>Let's see, about 500.00 for 5.0, another 190.00 for 5.5 upgrade and look!,
>6 is coming out and the initial upgrade price will most likely be aroung 200
>to 250 dollars. That brings our final total to about 890.00
> What will it cost the first time buyer to buy version 6? 890.00?
>Again, I think not. Talk about a pyramid scheme. : )
Well, the first time buyer wouldn't have access (at least legally) to
PS for or a year or two either, so this is not really a very valid
comparison. While she is waiting for PS6 and twiddling her thumbs I am
using PS5 (and 5.5 if I bought it). And there isn't always a reason to
upgrade. I skipped the 5.5 upgrade because there just wasn't anything
there I felt I needed. So even if my next upgrade costs $200 $250,
that's not bad for all the improvements and additional feature after
using my upgrade to 5.0 for around 18 months to 2 years.
Dwight Williamson
wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by the "first time buyer not having access to
>PS, at least not legally" for a year or two? What does this mean? As soon
>as Photoshop 6 is released, the first time buyer will certainly have legal
>access to it.
But up until it is released, like rightnow for instance, she has no
legal access to it without buying it. Whereas the person that bought
or upgraded to 5.0 when it was 1st released has had legal access to it
from that point in time forward.
>Again, they will most likely pay about 500.00 (I have no real
>idea what Adobe plans to charge) and the person who bought, let's say,
>version 5.0. legally, and upgraded to 5.5. legally and again plans to
>legally upgrade to 6 will have spent close to 900 for the same program.
Nope, I would have paid nearly $900 for 5.0, 5.5, 6.0 and 2 years of
use while she paid $500 for 6.0 and NO usage up to that point. $15 -
$20 per month for a couple of years for the use of a program like
Photoshop seems very reasonable to me. YMMV. ;-)
> In your scenario, where she didn't have 5.5 and you did and had use of
>it, you paid for it! Why shouldn't you have use of it? Now you'll pay
>again and again and again. : )
Only when I upgrade. Since I didn't buy the upgrade to 5.5, which I
determined I didn't need, I haven't paid another since upgrading to
5.0. :-) Adobe doesn't require me to upgrade. They do, however, allow
me to upgrade when I feel like I get value and at upgrade prices that
seem reasonable to me. Once again, YMMV. ;-)
>The first time buyer will get his or her
>version 6 for much less than you , the loyal upgrader.
What I am saying is that these are 2 totally unrelated cases. In the
1st case the person has paid more, but has also received more (2 years
or so) use of the product. During that time person 2 has not had any
legal access to PS, therefore she has received no legal benefit. User
1 paid for and received the use of 2 (or 3 if they bought the 5.5
upgrade) versions while User 2 paid for less and got less. Therefore
you are comparing apples and oranges. Now if you want to throw away
the value of the use of Photoshop for those 2 years I guess you can do
so, but seem like very bad logic to me. :-O
Also in the 1st case there is nothing requiring anyone to ever
upgrade. In fact if 5.0 is doing what you need and you have no need
for the advanced features of 5.5 or 6.0 it would be kind of stupid to
spend the money.
> Can you say pyramid scheme? : )
I don't think you understand what a pyramid scheme entails. The people
at the bottom of a pyramid scheme (the later ones in) get totally
screwed, they get very little or NOTHING for their money. In both of
these cases there was something of value, IMO, received for their
money. In one case there was more money paid and more value received
in the 2nd there was less money paid and less value received, but both
received value. :-)
R. Cumberland
business for myself. Now for those of us who are Canadian - I can write off
the purchase of any new software, or any upgrades as a business operating
expense. Therefore the grand total cost of my software: Orig Price - Tax
Deduction (100% of Orig Price) = 0. Now I can't say anything about the
other tax systems... but here -- I'm not complaining.
Another thing -- If I design 3 web sites (freelance) a month @ $750 CDN per
site, for 12 mos = $27,000. Now if I spend $500 a year upgrading my
software, I'm still making $26,500 (less income tax of course).
Either way you look at it.... the price of purchasing the software and
keeping it up to date is nothing compared to what you get out of it.
- Rob
RNC Digital Designs
http://members.home.net/rncdigital/
Jinky Dee
not a member. I have no right having it at all. I concede.
Jinky Dee
I assume they are there to be seen.
Thank you.
Felicity Lumpington
Lucky bleeders, lucky bleeders'
On Wed, 31 May 2000 21:05:58 GMT, x...@xdg.com (Dwight Williamson)
wrote:
Jinky Dee
dollars less for that year. The government now only taxes on the remaining
income. So if one earned 30,000 and the government credited for the 1,000
spent, now one is taxed on 29,000. Let's use 25% just for the sake of an
example:
25% of 30,000 is 7,500
25% of the 29,000 (due to credit for software purchase) is 7,250
7,250 from 7,500 is 250.00, hardly the 1,000 dollars spent.
Is that how it works? If so, is the program cost then really "zero"?
Ross McKay
wrote:
>Therefore the grand total cost of my software: Orig Price - Tax
>Deduction (100% of Orig Price) = 0. Now I can't say anything about the
>other tax systems... but here -- I'm not complaining.
Hmmm... down under, in Australia, company tax is 36%. We can deduct
software as an expense (with restrictions - but ignore that for now), as
it sounds you can, but what that does is reduce how much our taxable
income is.
This means that for us, actual cost could be seen as original price -
36%, not 100%, because we don't get taxed on that money, but we still
had to spend it. This is what a deduction is, as compared with a rebate
(which would be 100%).
So, if PS costs AU$1200 new, then actual cost to a company could be seen
as AU$768. (Note that we still need to raise $1200 to buy it!)
Still, those bucks help to bring in more bucks. And if they didn't, we'd
probably need to buy PS anyway because it's just so much fun :-)
regards,
Ross.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross McKay | snail: GPO Box 562, Sydney NSW 1043 Australia
WebAware Pty Ltd | URL:http://www.webaware.com.au/
0417 401 099 | email: mailto:rmc...@webaware.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------
"This behaviour is by design." -- Microsoft Knowledge Base
Dwight Williamson
Lumpington) wrote:
>'There ain't half been some clever bastards
>Lucky bleeders, lucky bleeders'
Well that certainly makes a lot of sense. I notice that you refuse to
come up with any answers; just complaints, name calling, and nonsense.
Do you feel sorry enough for yourself yet or do you want to cry some
more?
Dwight Williamson
that I didn't say. You first argument has been shown to be total
nonsense, so you turn the corner and trot down another street littered
with more nonsensical arguments. Off to school with you now and see if
you can learn to come up with something that makes at least a little
bit of sense, I'm done with you.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 23:56:23 -0400, "Jinky Dee" <fa...@smelly.net>
wrote:
> We paid for it, are we being done a favor by being allowed to use it?
Dwight Williamson
c-tide
> Hmmmmm... seems like some seem to have a vested interest in the
> revenue earned from upgrades. Adobe employees, perhaps? Or maybe
> shareholders? Or both?
None of the above. Adobe is a business not a charity that
donates to starving artists
>
>
> I think the point is being missed. A huge lottery win could buy one
> all the graphics software in the world. By the same token, one could
> buy the most luxurious and advanced car in the world, which would be
> useless if one couldn't drive it. Money can't buy talent and (as I
> said before) there are many tremendously talented individuals who
> cannot afford to purchase the upgrades.
What is the point? You don't have one. All you have is the lame old
argument about not being able to afford the upgrades. Photoshop is a
professional tool. By nature, professional tools are more expensive
than consumer level products.
As a photographer, I'd love to own a EOS 400mm f/2.8 lens. But, that's
a Canon L series professional lens running to a tune of more than
$7,500. You don't hear me complaing to Canon that there lens is too
expensive. You just have to accept the fact that your paying for
professional, state-of-the-art equipment. I've not been dissappointed by
the other Canon pro lenses I've purchased. And don't tell me Canon doesn't
upgrade their lenses. The Image Stabalization feature is an example of lenses
being upgraded. I bought a 75-300mm f:4.0-5.6 IS for about $750 to replace
a 75-300mm f:4.0-5.6 II. That's a hell of a lot more than the Photoshop
upgrade.
>
>
> I'm delighted that you both have been able to afford to keep up with
> the technological advances. You obviously make lots of money. I
> wonder if you earn it by virtue of your skills in graphic art?
No, I don't make lots of money. I make an honest living and have to
spend the money wisely. I have to save and live withing a budget just
like most other people.
>
c-tide
---
Dwight Williamson
Lumpington) wrote:
>'You're so vain
>You probably think this song is about you'
>
>Don't take things quite so personally.
If I remember correctly you replied to my post (in that case). Just
exactly who would I think that your reply was intended for? It has
nothing to do with vanity, rather it has a lot to do with logic.
If you are going to respond to someone else by replying to my post you
might be so kind as to indicate who you are aiming your missive
towards.
Felicity Lumpington
You probably think this song is about you'
Don't take things quite so personally.
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 12:02:03 GMT, dwill...@xdg.com (Dwight
Williamson) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 05:46:15 GMT, noo...@silly.net (Felicity
>Lumpington) wrote:
>
>>'There ain't half been some clever bastards
>>Lucky bleeders, lucky bleeders'
>Well that certainly makes a lot of sense. I notice that you refuse to
>come up with any answers; just complaints, name calling, and nonsense.
>Do you feel sorry enough for yourself yet or do you want to cry some
>more?
Konstantin
> >'You're so vain
> >You probably think this song is about you'
> >
> >Don't take things quite so personally.
> If I remember correctly you replied to my post (in that case).
Just
> exactly who would I think that your reply was intended for? It
has
> nothing to do with vanity, rather it has a lot to do with
logic.
>
> If you are going to respond to someone else by replying to my
post you
> might be so kind as to indicate who you are aiming your missive
> towards.
Very important discussion. :-) For example in our land-russia in
cities as Moscow and as town Novosibirsk (here I live) you might
to buy for a song any CD contained any soft. Generally 1 CD = $2.
Cool? :) However salary of designer .......... and so on.
--
Sender: konst
Mail to: n...@risp.ru
Tom Thomas
>Very important discussion. :-) For example in our land-russia in
>cities as Moscow and as town Novosibirsk (here I live) you might
>to buy for a song any CD contained any soft. Generally 1 CD = $2.
>Cool? :) However salary of designer .......... and so on.
That's fairly well know. Have a look at this:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cti004.htm
-------------------------------
Tom
Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.
JKI
"Konstantin" <n...@risp.ru> hypothesizes:
Justin Rich
random web site. I know what the two characters for the word 'Dance' look
like, but I can't seem to find them in this set. I'd like to have the TTFs
of these characters, but, if anyone knows where I can just download a
decent image of them, that'd be swell too. I looked at kanji.homepage.com,
but they are a bit rough, so I'm not exactly sure that I could draw them
from sight. Thanks if you can help.
______________________________________
Justin Rich Noise Production
Email: jdr...@net-noise.com
______________________________________