> Completely agree and that was the point I was making.  Even if only a
> small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
> still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
> shear number of Android devices out there.

>> For it to have any significant impact on Apple it would have to be shown
>> that without Android phones Apple would be selling more. That has not been
>> shown. It may or may not be the case.

> I am Snit and I am always right! LOL!!!

> Completely agree and that was the point I was making.  Even if only a
> small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
> still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
> shear number of Android devices out there.

>> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.

> Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
> he's a crank without a life.

>>> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.

>> Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
>> he's a crank without a life.

> Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how consistent
> that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity beyond what what we
> can even think of being possible. Long story short: when you're using
> Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll usenet 24/7 and *still* have
> time left to have a life.

> True story!

>> On 08/10/12 22:28, RonB wrote:
>>> The high-end Android phones (like the Galaxy S3) definitely hurt Apple.
>>> It's doubtful that those who get free Android phones (or cheap ones)
>>> would have bought Apple. They would probably have bought a feature
>>> phone.

>> Completely agree and that was the point I was making.  Even if only a
>> small percent of these device customers would have bought Apple, that
>> still represents a massive amount of custom for Apple if we look at the
>> shear number of Android devices out there.

> Last year Samsung had 18.3% of the smartphone market, Apple had 18.4%.
> This year Samsung has 34.6% to Apple's 17.8%. Last quarter, a single model
> of one vendor's Android phone collection (their high-end model) outsold
> Apple's iPhone. So, only an idiot (take a bow, Snit) would say that
> Android hasn't hurt Apple.

> http://snipurl.com/258v1ko

>> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.

> Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
> he's a crank without a life.

> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
> of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed
> at you?

>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
>> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed
>> at you?

> Whoops, was it /that/ obvious :-p

> No, seriously, I was *defending* him!

> I think at this point Michael he's more likely to fall out of favour
> with what you regard as the "herd" by responding to you at all.

>> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd.  Amazing.

>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
>> of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

> Here are the characteristics I have noted about the herd:

> * They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll" is
> (essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd.  If an outsider comes
> in and sucks up to the herd they might be able to escape being called this
> for a short time... but it is rare.  More often than not that are attacked
> or accused of being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
> the irrational worldview of the herd.  Look at you, TomB, who has already
> started targeting  Onion Knight in this way.  Carroll also targeted Kaba in
> such a way, though I did not see the herd glom on to that attack she he let
> it go.

> * They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often the herd speaks
> of who they are kill filtering and encourage each other to also kill filter
> those outside of their group.  They *want* to be closed off to other ideas.
> Just earlier today, TomB, you were encouraged to KF those who are not of the
> herd.

> * They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one simple (and
> incorrect) explanation - the boogieman (generally MS though sometimes others
> are included in this made up conspiracy).

> * They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each other - no
> matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call each other out.  For
> example, not a single herd member has called TomB out on his outrageous
> behavior of contacting my Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman
> and noted how repulsive his comments are.

> * They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their irrational denial of
> Stallman's comments, even though they come directly from his own site, the
> aforementioned obsession with the boogieman, the attacks against those who
> are not of the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack those
> who do not chose as they do... all irrational.  All very cultish.

>> Is the herd now Anti-Snit?

> I am not of the herd, so yes. This does not mean they are necessarily any
> more anti-Snit than anti-anyone-who-is-not-a-part-of-the-herd. Then again, I
> have proved the herd wrong on many things... and they fear me (hence the
> reason they place me on the level of their whole group and call me a "herd
> of one").

>> Because if so, then you've had issues with the Microsoft advocates here like
>> Foster, so he must be part of the herd as well (I'm sure he'll love that one)

> I do not follow. Just because the herd does not like me does not mean that
> trolls like Foster should like me.

>> I said to you before Michael, I have no issues with your views or indeed
>> you, but you fall into the same holes every time with posts like these
>> and your "herd" remarks don't help.

> I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because
> group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a
> part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all
> animals with 4 feet are dogs! And yet you tried to push the idea that if the
> herd is anti-Snit then all who are anti-Snit are a part of the herd. Do you
> see the error in logic in your claim?

> He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
> *about* me in response to others.

> As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.

>>> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:
>>>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd.  Amazing.

>>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense
>>> of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

>> Here are the characteristics I have noted about the herd:

>> * They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll" is
>> (essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd.  If an outsider comes
>> in and sucks up to the herd they might be able to escape being called this
>> for a short time... but it is rare.  More often than not that are attacked
>> or accused of being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
>> the irrational worldview of the herd.  Look at you, TomB, who has already
>> started targeting  Onion Knight in this way.  Carroll also targeted Kaba in
>> such a way, though I did not see the herd glom on to that attack she he let
>> it go.

>> * They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often the herd speaks
>> of who they are kill filtering and encourage each other to also kill filter
>> those outside of their group.  They *want* to be closed off to other ideas.
>> Just earlier today, TomB, you were encouraged to KF those who are not of the
>> herd.

>> * They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one simple (and
>> incorrect) explanation - the boogieman (generally MS though sometimes others
>> are included in this made up conspiracy).

>> * They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each other - no
>> matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call each other out.  For
>> example, not a single herd member has called TomB out on his outrageous
>> behavior of contacting my Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman
>> and noted how repulsive his comments are.

>> * They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their irrational denial of
>> Stallman's comments, even though they come directly from his own site, the
>> aforementioned obsession with the boogieman, the attacks against those who
>> are not of the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack those
>> who do not chose as they do... all irrational.  All very cultish.

>>> Is the herd now Anti-Snit?

>> I am not of the herd, so yes. This does not mean they are necessarily any
>> more anti-Snit than anti-anyone-who-is-not-a-part-of-the-herd. Then again, I
>> have proved the herd wrong on many things... and they fear me (hence the
>> reason they place me on the level of their whole group and call me a "herd
>> of one").

>>> Because if so, then you've had issues with the Microsoft advocates here like
>>> Foster, so he must be part of the herd as well (I'm sure he'll love that
>>> one)

>> I do not follow. Just because the herd does not like me does not mean that
>> trolls like Foster should like me.

>>> I said to you before Michael, I have no issues with your views or indeed
>>> you, but you fall into the same holes every time with posts like these
>>> and your "herd" remarks don't help.

>> I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because
>> group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a
>> part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all
>> animals with 4 feet are dogs! And yet you tried to push the idea that if the
>> herd is anti-Snit then all who are anti-Snit are a part of the herd. Do you
>> see the error in logic in your claim?

> No.  I was just making the point that you highlighted his sarcastic post
> aimed at you as further proof of being a herd member.

> (in respect of his sarcastic remark about you)

>    He was not talking about Linux, not talking about FOSS, he was not
> even engaging in some direct point you made.  You were baited with a
> sarcastic post which to me was an obvious tongue in cheek bait, which
> you then highlighted to further show/imply he was part of the herd.

> "another indicator to prove you are part of the herd"

> See what I did? I've differentiated an indicator from a conclusive piece
> of evidence in itself.

> Disagree? Fine, no problem from me.

>>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
>>> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait)
>>> aimed at you?

>> Whoops, was it /that/ obvious :-p

>> No, seriously, I was *defending* him!

>   TomB, making idiotic claims to please the herd:
>     -----
>     Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how
>     consistent that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity
>     beyond what what we can even think of being possible. Long story
>     short: when you're using Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll
>     usenet 24/7 and *still* have time left to have a life.

>     True story!
>     -----

>   TomB, when called on his BS:
>     -----
>     No, seriously, I was *defending* him!
>     -----

> Michael I hope you will forgive the snipping and if I've missed anything
> you consider unfair you mention it, but this above statement is exactly
> what I highlighted to you time and again.  Remember what I said about
> digs and cheap shots?

> The point I made was about what you regard as the herd wanting, in my
> opinion for him to ignore you.  You quote that then go off on some
> allegation which was in no way related to what I was talking about and
> used it as an opportunity to make claims about TomB.  Now who was in the
> right in that case I don't care, but it had nothing to do with what I
> was talking to you about.  Nothing at all.

> It was an obvious bait Michael. I could see that, everyone with a
> monitor could see that.  It was sarcasm, it was aimed at you and
> regardless of how offended or not you were, that was not the point I was
> making.  I was clarifying your position on an anti-snit post being proof
> of membership to the herd.

> Michael, I've been KF'd by what others regarded as encouragement and I
> believe on occasion not even for responding directly.  Personally it
> matters not to me, but when I consider how much effort you are putting
> into posting and falling into holes and places you need not go, I would
> be remiss not to give my opinion.

>>>> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the
>>>> expense of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait)
>>>> aimed at you?

>>> Whoops, was it /that/ obvious :-p

>>> No, seriously, I was *defending* him!

>>   TomB, making idiotic claims to please the herd:
>>     -----
>>     Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how
>>     consistent that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity
>>     beyond what what we can even think of being possible. Long story
>>     short: when you're using Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll
>>     usenet 24/7 and *still* have time left to have a life.

>>     True story!
>>     -----

>>   TomB, when called on his BS:
>>     -----
>>     No, seriously, I was *defending* him!
>>     -----

> You got to be kidding me! :-D

>> On 09/10/12 22:57, Snit wrote:
>>> He ran away from me long ago when I proved him wrong about his favored
>>> distro (I do not even recall which one). He has has been sulking ever since,
>>> spewing digs at me but not actually responding. He knows he was proved
>>> wrong.

>> Michael I hope you will forgive the snipping and if I've missed anything
>> you consider unfair you mention it, but this above statement is exactly
>> what I highlighted to you time and again.  Remember what I said about
>> digs and cheap shots?

>> The point I made was about what you regard as the herd wanting, in my
>> opinion for him to ignore you.  You quote that then go off on some
>> allegation which was in no way related to what I was talking about and
>> used it as an opportunity to make claims about TomB.  Now who was in the
>> right in that case I don't care, but it had nothing to do with what I
>> was talking to you about.  Nothing at all.

> I thought you were in reference to RonB, not TomB... which was based on you
> referencing this quote of mine:

>      And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just
>      in idiotic attack mode, to please the herd.

>>> He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
>>> *about* me in response to others.

>> It was an obvious bait Michael. I could see that, everyone with a
>> monitor could see that.  It was sarcasm, it was aimed at you and
>> regardless of how offended or not you were, that was not the point I was
>> making.  I was clarifying your position on an anti-snit post being proof
>> of membership to the herd.

> I am not offended by the baiting of the herd... but it is enjoyable for me
> to often note what it is saying of the person posting it.

> And, again, someone being against me is not in itself evidence of herd
> membership.

>>> As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.

>> Michael, I've been KF'd by what others regarded as encouragement and I
>> believe on occasion not even for responding directly.  Personally it
>> matters not to me, but when I consider how much effort you are putting
>> into posting and falling into holes and places you need not go, I would
>> be remiss not to give my opinion.

> I have no problem with that - and I do not consider you to be a part of the
> herd (even if you tend to lean toward defending them or at least focusing on
> what you see as wrongs of those outside the herd and ignoring the wrongs of
> the herd).  TomB is also not as tied to it as some others - but he clearly
> bows to their demands and wants (he does this far more than you do).

>> Think I'm wrong?  Fine.... I take no offense.
>> Want to continue on? You are perfectly within your rights and can do as
>> you please.  But what would you suggest I do when I am sitting here with
>> an honest held belief that you are being played (and falling foul of
>> that playing)....Would you want me not to say anything? or would you
>> indeed want me to present my view to you and let you decide after that?

> I have no problem with you expressing your beliefs even when they are
> contrary to mine (or perhaps especially when they are - while I do not
> always agree with you I do respect you).

> > On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 22:49:08 +0100, Goblin wrote:

> >> Please I haven't much time to make this into a back and forth.

> > Unfortunately for you, Snit *does* have time to go back and forth -- and
> > he's a crank without a life.

> Nah, he's using Apple hardware and OSX, and we all know how consistent
> that stuff is, and thus how it boosts productivity beyond what what we
> can even think of being possible. Long story short: when you're using
> Apple hardware and OSX, you can troll usenet 24/7 and *still* have
> time left to have a life.

> True story!

>> I have no problem with you expressing your beliefs even when they are
>> contrary to mine (or perhaps especially when they are - while I do not
>> always agree with you I do respect you).

> I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
> I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
> posts.  

> > On 10/9/12 3:08 PM, in article af1ds.235408$AT4.206...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"
> > <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> >> On 09/10/12 22:57, Snit wrote:
> >>> He ran away from me long ago when I proved him wrong about his favored
> >>> distro (I do not even recall which one). He has has been sulking ever since,
> >>> spewing digs at me but not actually responding. He knows he was proved
> >>> wrong.

> >> Michael I hope you will forgive the snipping and if I've missed anything
> >> you consider unfair you mention it, but this above statement is exactly
> >> what I highlighted to you time and again.  Remember what I said about
> >> digs and cheap shots?

> >> The point I made was about what you regard as the herd wanting, in my
> >> opinion for him to ignore you.  You quote that then go off on some
> >> allegation which was in no way related to what I was talking about and
> >> used it as an opportunity to make claims about TomB.  Now who was in the
> >> right in that case I don't care, but it had nothing to do with what I
> >> was talking to you about.  Nothing at all.

> > I thought you were in reference to RonB, not TomB... which was based on you
> > referencing this quote of mine:

> >      And you deny you are a part of the herd, right RonB. You are just
> >      in idiotic attack mode, to please the herd.

> >>> He did not respond to me directly. He was spewing insults and attacks
> >>> *about* me in response to others.

> >> It was an obvious bait Michael. I could see that, everyone with a
> >> monitor could see that.  It was sarcasm, it was aimed at you and
> >> regardless of how offended or not you were, that was not the point I was
> >> making.  I was clarifying your position on an anti-snit post being proof
> >> of membership to the herd.

> > I am not offended by the baiting of the herd... but it is enjoyable for me
> > to often note what it is saying of the person posting it.

> > And, again, someone being against me is not in itself evidence of herd
> > membership.

> >>> As you noted, by not responding to me directly he pleases the herd.

> >> Michael, I've been KF'd by what others regarded as encouragement and I
> >> believe on occasion not even for responding directly.  Personally it
> >> matters not to me, but when I consider how much effort you are putting
> >> into posting and falling into holes and places you need not go, I would
> >> be remiss not to give my opinion.

> > I have no problem with that - and I do not consider you to be a part of the
> > herd (even if you tend to lean toward defending them or at least focusing on
> > what you see as wrongs of those outside the herd and ignoring the wrongs of
> > the herd).  TomB is also not as tied to it as some others - but he clearly
> > bows to their demands and wants (he does this far more than you do).

> >> Think I'm wrong?  Fine.... I take no offense.
> >> Want to continue on? You are perfectly within your rights and can do as
> >> you please.  But what would you suggest I do when I am sitting here with
> >> an honest held belief that you are being played (and falling foul of
> >> that playing)....Would you want me not to say anything? or would you
> >> indeed want me to present my view to you and let you decide after that?

> > I have no problem with you expressing your beliefs even when they are
> > contrary to mine (or perhaps especially when they are - while I do not
> > always agree with you I do respect you).

> I may have got the Ron and the Tom around the wrong way, but I wish (and
> I sincerely mean this) you would consider being less anti-social in your
> posts.  I'm not saying change your views, I'm not saying agree with
> people to be popular, I'm suggesting that maybe instead of engaging in
> the tit for tat and rising to baits, you maybe turn the other cheek.

> I would bet that if you were less confrontational all the time, you may
> get better responses and not spend your time here arguing over things
> that go nowhere, probably not read and end up forgotten in a day or so.