Apple sued over LCD screens
PC Guy
Old_CSMAer
PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So much for better quality products:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
I'm not sure it's the screens. Supposedly, XP displays millions of
colors on the MacBooks.
Also, it appears not all MacBooks are affected.
I use a Mini, which has the same chipset at the MacBook. The color looks
a bit dithered on a Samsung SynMaster 17" LCD, but who knows.
Snit
OldDog-8410A0....@news.cha.sbcglobal.net on 5/18/07 3:07 PM:
I am going to count the colors on my screen right now!
1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... 11... 12... 13... 14...
15... 16... 17... 18... 19... 20... 21... 22... 23... 24... 25... 26...
27... 28... 29... 30... 31... 32... 33... 34... 35... 36... 37... 38...
39... 40... 41... 42... 43... 44... 45... 46... 47... 48... 49... 50...
51... 52... 53... 54... 55... 56... 57... 58... 59... 60... 61... 62...
63... 64... 65... 66... 67... 68... 69... 70... 71... 72... 73... 74...
75... 76... 77... 78... 79... 80... 81... 82... 83... 84... 85... 86...
87... 88... 89... 90... 91... 92... 93... 94... 95... 96... 97... 98...
99... 100... 101... 102... 103... 104... 105... 106... 107... 108... 109...
110... 111... 112... 113... 114... 115... 116... 117... 118... 119... 120...
121... 122... 123... 124... 125... 126... 127... 128... 129... 130... 131...
132... 133... 134... 135... 136... 137... 138... 139... 140... 141... 142...
143... 144... 145... 146... 147... 148... 149... 150... 151... 152... 153...
154... 155... 156... 157... 158... 159... 160... 161... 162... 163... 164...
165... 166... 167... 168... 169... 170... 171... 172... 173... 174... 175...
176... 177... 178... 179... 180... 181... 182... 183... 184... 185... 186...
187... 188... 189... 190... 191... 192... 193... 194... 195... 196... 197...
198... 199... 200... 201... 202... 203... 204... 205... 206... 207... 208...
209... 210... 211... 212... 213... 214... 215... 216... 217... 218... 219...
220... 221... 222... 223... 224... 225... 226... 227... 228... 229... 230...
231... 232... 233... 234... 235... 236... 237... 238... 239... 240... 241...
242... 243... 244... 245... 246... 247... 248... 249... 250... 251... 252...
253... 254... 255... 256... 257... 258... 259... 260... 261... 262... 263...
264... 265... 266... 267... 268... 269... 270... 271... 272... 273... 274...
275... 276... 277... 278... 279... 280... 281... 282... 283... 284... 285...
286... 287... 288... 289... 290... 291... 292... 293... 294... 295... 296...
297... 298... 299... 300... 301... 302... 303... 304... 305... 306... 307...
308... 309... 310... 311... 312... 313... 314... 315... 316... 317... 318...
319... 320... 321... 322... 323... 324... 325... 326... 327... 328... 329...
330... 331... 332... 333... 334... 335... 336... 337... 338... 339... 340...
341... 342... 343... 344... 345... 346... 347... 348... 349... 350... 351...
352... 353... 354... 355... 356... 357... 358... 359... 360... 361... 362...
363... 364... 365... 366... 367... 368... 369... 370... 371... 372... 373...
374... 375... 376... 377... 378... 379... 380... 381... 382... 383... 384...
385... 386... 387... 388... 389... 390... 391... 392... 393... 394... 395...
396... 397... 398... 399... 400... 401... 402... 403... 404... 405... 406...
407... 408... 409... 410... 411... 412... 413... 414... 415... 416... 417...
418... 419... 420... 421... 422... 423... 424... 425... 426... 427... 428...
429... 430... 431... 432... 433... 434... 435... 436... 437... 438... 439...
440... 441... 442... 443... 444... 445... 446... 447... 448... 449... 450...
451... 452... 453... 454... 455... 456... 457... 458... 459... 460... 461...
462... 463... 464... 465... 466... 467... 468... 469... 470... 471... 472...
473... 474... 475... 476... 477... 478... 479... 480... 481... 482... 483...
484... 485... 486... 487... 488... 489... 490... 491... 492... 493... 494...
495... 496... 497... 498... 499... 500... 501... 502... 503... 504... 505...
506... 507... 508... 509... 510... 511... 512... 513... 514... 515... 516...
517... 518... 519... 520... 521... 522... 523... 524... 525... 526... 527...
528... 529... 530... 531... 532... 533... 534... 535... 536... 537... 538...
539... 540... 541... 542... 543... 544... 545... 546... 547... 548... 549...
550... 551... 552... 553... 554... 555... 556... 557... 558... 559... 560...
561... 562... 563... 564... 565... 566... 567... 568... 569... 570... 571...
572... 573... 574... 575... 576... 577... 578... 579... 580... 581... 582...
583... 584... 585... 586... 587... 588... 589... 590... 591... 592... 593...
594... 595... 596... 597... 598... 599... 600... 601... 602... 603... 604...
605... 606... 607... 608... 609... 610... 611... 612... 613... 614... 615...
616... 617... 618... 619... 620... 621... 622... 623... 624... 625... 626...
627... 628... 629... 630... 631... 632... 633... 634... 635... 636... 637...
638... 639... 640... 641... 642... 643... 644... 645... 646... 647... 648...
649... 650... 651... 652... 653... 654... 655... 656... 657... 658... 659...
660... 661... 662... 663... 664... 665... 666... 667... 668... 669... 670...
671... 672... 673... 674... 675... 676... 677... 678... 679... 680... 681...
682... 683... 684... 685... 686... 687... 688... 689... 690... 691... 692...
693... 694... 695... 696... 697... 698... 699... 700... 701... 702... 703...
704... 705... 706... 707... 708... 709... 710... 711... 712... 713... 714...
715... 716... 717... 718... 719... 720... 721... 722... 723... 724... 725...
726... 727... 728... 729... 730... 731... 732... 733... 734... 735... 736...
737... 738... 739... 740... 741... 742... 743... 744... 745... 746... 747...
748... 749... 750... 751... 752... 753... 754... 755... 756... 757... 758...
759... 760... 761... 762... 763... 764... 765... 766... 767... 768... 769...
770... 771... 772... 773... 774... 775... 776... 777... 778... 779... 780...
781... 782... 783... 784... 785... 786... 787... 788... 789... 790... 791...
792... 793... 794... 795... 796... 797... 798... 799... 800... 801... 802...
803... 804... 805... 806... 807... 808... 809... 810... 811... 812... 813...
814... 815... 816... 817... 818... 819... 820... 821... 822... 823... 824...
825... 826... 827... 828... 829... 830... 831... 832... 833... 834... 835...
836... 837... 838... 839... 840... 841... 842... 843... 844... 845... 846...
847... 848... 849... 850... 851... 852... 853... 854... 855... 856... 857...
858... 859... 860... 861... 862... 863... 864... 865... 866... 867... 868...
869... 870... 871... 872... 873... 874... 875... 876... 877... 878... 879...
880... 881... 882... 883... 884... 885... 886... 887... 888... 889... 890...
891... 892... 893... 894... 895... 896... 897... 898... 899... 900... 901...
902... 903... 904... 905... 906... 907... 908... 909... 910... 911... 912...
913... 914... 915... 916... 917... 918... 919... 920... 921... 922... 923...
924... 925... 926... 927... 928... 929... 930... 931... 932... 933... 934...
935... 936... 937... 938... 939... 940... 941... 942... 943... 944... 945...
946... 947... 948... 949... 950... 951... 952... 953... 954... 955... 956...
957... 958... 959... 960... 961... 962... 963... 964... 965... 966... 967...
968... 969... 970... 971... 972... 973... 974... 975... 976... 977... 978...
979... 980... 981... 982... 983... 984... 985... 986... 987... 988... 989...
990... 991... 992... 993... 994... 995... 996... 997... 998... 999...
1000... 1001... 1002... 1003... 1004... 1005... 1006... 1007... 1008...
1009... 1010... 1011... 1012... 1013... 1014... 1015... 1016... 1017...
1018... 1019... 1020... 1021... 1022... 1023... 1024... 1025... 1026...
1027... 1028... 1029... 1030... 1031... 1032... 1033... 1034... 1035...
1036... 1037... 1038... 1039... 1040... 1041... 1042... 1043... 1044...
1045... 1046... 1047... 1048... 1049... 1050... 1051... 1052... 1053...
1054... 1055... 1056... 1057... 1058... 1059... 1060... 1061... 1062...
1063... 1064... 1065... 1066... 1067... 1068... 1069... 1070... 1071...
1072... 1073... 1074... 1075... 1076... 1077... 1078... 1079... 1080...
1081... 1082... 1083... 1084... 1085... 1086... 1087... 1088... 1089...
1090... 1091... 1092... 1093... 1094... 1095... 1096... 1097... 1098...
1099... 1100... 1101... 1102... 1103... 1104... 1105... 1106... 1107...
1108... 1109... 1110... 1111... 1112... 1113... 1114... 1115... 1116...
1117... 1118... 1119... 1120... 1121... 1122... 1123... 1124... 1125...
1126... 1127... 1128... 1129... 1130... 1131... 1132... 1133... 1134...
1135... 1136... 1137... 1138... 1139... 1140... 1141... 1142... 1143...
1144... 1145... 1146... 1147... 1148... 1149... 1150... 1151... 1152...
1153... 1154... 1155... 1156... 1157... 1158... 1159... 1160... 1161...
1162... 1163... 1164... 1165... 1166... 1167... 1168... 1169... 1170...
1171... 1172... 1173... 1174... 1175... 1176... 1177... 1178... 1179...
1180... 1181... 1182... 1183... 1184... 1185... 1186... 1187... 1188...
1189... 1190... 1191... 1192... 1193... 1194... 1195... 1196... 1197...
1198... 1199... 1200... 1201... 1202... 1203... 1204... 1205... 1206...
1207... 1208... 1209... 1210... 1211... 1212... 1213... 1214... 1215...
1216... 1217... 1218... 1219... 1220... 1221... 1222... 1223... 1224...
1225... 1226... 1227... 1228... 1229... 1230... 1231... 1232... 1233...
1234... 1235... 1236... 1237... 1238... 1239... 1240... 1241... 1242...
1243... 1244... 1245... 1246... 1247... 1248... 1249... 1250... 1251...
1252... 1253... 1254... 1255... 1256... 1257... 1258... 1259... 1260...
1261... 1262... 1263... 1264... 1265... 1266... 1267... 1268... 1269...
1270... 1271... 1272... 1273... 1274... 1275... 1276... 1277... 1278...
1279... 1280... 1281... 1282... 1283... 1284... 1285... 1286... 1287...
1288... 1289... 1290... 1291... 1292... 1293... 1294... 1295... 1296...
1297... 1298... 1299... 1300... 1301... 1302... 1303... 1304... 1305...
1306... 1307... 1308... 1309... 1310... 1311... 1312... 1313... 1314...
1315... 1316... 1317... 1318... 1319... 1320... 1321... 1322... 1323...
1324... 1325... 1326... 1327... 1328... 1329... 1330... 1331... 1332...
1333... 1334... 1335... 1336... 1337... 1338... 1339... 1340... 1341...
1342... 1343... 1344... 1345... 1346... 1347... 1348... 1349... 1350...
1351... 1352... 1353... 1354... 1355... 1356... 1357... 1358... 1359...
1360... 1361... 1362... 1363... 1364... 1365... 1366... 1367... 1368...
1369... 1370... 1371... 1372... 1373... 1374... 1375... 1376... 1377...
1378... 1379... 1380... 1381... 1382... 1383... 1384... 1385... 1386...
1387... 1388... 1389... 1390... 1391... 1392... 1393... 1394... 1395...
1396... 1397... 1398... 1399... 1400... 1401... 1402... 1403... 1404...
1405... 1406... 1407... 1408... 1409... 1410... 1411... 1412... 1413...
1414... 1415... 1416... 1417... 1418... 1419... 1420... 1421... 1422...
1423... 1424... 1425... 1426... 1427... 1428... 1429... 1430... 1431...
1432... 1433... 1434... 1435... 1436... 1437... 1438... 1439... 1440...
1441... 1442... 1443... 1444... 1445... 1446... 1447... 1448... 1449...
1450... 1451... 1452... 1453... 1454... 1455... 1456... 1457... 1458...
1459... 1460... 1461... 1462... 1463... 1464... 1465... 1466... 1467...
1468... 1469... 1470... 1471... 1472... 1473... 1474... 1475... 1476...
1477... 1478... 1479... 1480... 1481... 1482... 1483... 1484... 1485...
1486... 1487... 1488... 1489... 1490... 1491... 1492... 1493... 1494...
1495... 1496... 1497... 1498... 1499... 1500... 1501... 1502... 1503...
1504... 1505... 1506... 1507... 1508... 1509... 1510... 1511... 1512...
1513... 1514... 1515... 1516... 1517... 1518... 1519... 1520... 1521...
1522... 1523... 1524... 1525... 1526... 1527... 1528... 1529... 1530...
1531... 1532... 1533... 1534... 1535... 1536...
Ah... to hell with it! Good enough!
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Mayor of R'lyeh
>So much for better quality products:
>
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
I guess the Apple employee who Maccies tell us stands at the end of
the assembly line and picks out the best ones had to go to the john or
something. 8)
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for president 2008
Oxford
> So much for better quality products:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
Snit
colalovesmacs-333...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net on 5/18/07
7:41 PM:
But what, really, is there mistake?
* Purposely shipping a product that does not match the specs they advertise?
If so, they should have to allow every one of those users to return their
machines for a full refund *plus* some punitive damages. That is just
absurd.
* Shipping a product that does not match specs because their supplier lied
to them? If so then they should still have some liability - after all they
should test something so important, but not *as* big of a deal.
* Having bad drivers that do not allow the hardware to do what it should?
If on purpose, they *still* should have some punitive damages, but only need
to supply updated drivers to users. If they did so without knowing, they
still should have to supply the drivers *and* should have some level of
accountability for such bone headed ignorance, but not as big of a deal.
* Doing what the industry does... lie about monitors. If so then Apple
should still be held accountable, but so should others.
Any other ideas?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Alan Baker
<colalovesmacs-333...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
There is considerable doubt.
If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or a trial...
--
"I always read what is posted, as I don't share your habits." -- "Upon
rereading your original post, I see that I have been mistaken in what I wrote.
I apologize for my mistaken accuastions and insults." -- Edwin
Snit
alangbaker-52585...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
> In article
> <colalovesmacs-333...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So much for better quality products:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>>
>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> There is considerable doubt.
>
> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or a trial...
Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
*presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
need for due process / adjudication.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Mayor of R'lyeh
wrote:
>In article
><colalovesmacs-333...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalo...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> PC Guy <pc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So much for better quality products:
>> >
>> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>>
>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
>There is considerable doubt.
>
>If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or a trial...
What legal system are you used to? Even if there was overwhelming
evidence of guilt, so long as someone refuses to plead guilty there's
going to be a trial.
New Bee
> In article
> <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
>
> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> > PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So much for better quality products:
>
> > >http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> > no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> There is considerable doubt.
>
> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or a trial...
When there's no trial or lawsuit, who gets to decide there's no doubt?
New Bee
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> alangbaker-525858.22385518052...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
>
> > In article
> > <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> > Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> > There is considerable doubt.
>
> > If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
>
> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> need for due process / adjudication.
Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
Snit
1179615346.4...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 5/19/07 3:55 PM:
Fear?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
New Bee
> "New Bee" <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1179615346.462310.308...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 5/19/07 3:55 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:44 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> >> alangbaker-525858.22385518052...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
>
> >>> In article
> >>> <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> >>> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >>>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >>>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> >>> There is considerable doubt.
>
> >>> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
>
> >> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
> >> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> >> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> >> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> >> need for due process / adjudication.
>
> > Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
>
> Fear?
Fear of what?
Snit
Could be different things for different people and posts.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
michelle ronn
It is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Doubt has not much to do with it.
The best legal team just has to convince the judge / jury.
New Bee
> "New Bee" <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 5:57 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "New Bee" <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> stated in post
> >> 1179615346.462310.308...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 5/19/07 3:55 PM:
>
> >>> On May 19, 12:44 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> >>>> alangbaker-525858.22385518052...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> >>>>> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >>>>>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >>>>>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> >>>>> There is considerable doubt.
>
> >>>>> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
>
> >>>> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
> >>>> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> >>>> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> >>>> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> >>>> need for due process / adjudication.
>
> >>> Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
>
> >> Fear?
>
> > Fear of what?
>
> Could be different things for different people and posts.
Your games are tiresome.
New Bee
> On 2007-05-19 08:02:54 -0700, New Bee <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 12:38 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
>
> >> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >>>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> >> There is considerable doubt.
>
> >> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or a trial...
>
> > When there's no trial or lawsuit, who gets to decide there's no doubt?
>
> It is a civil suit, not a criminal one. Doubt has not much to do with it.
Alan said doubt has everything to do with it.
> The best legal team just has to convince the judge / jury.
But Alan said there's no need for a trial or a lawsuit if there's no
doubt.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Alan has done what Alan does best - head for the tall grass.
Snit
Queen to queen's level three.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
New Bee <New.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on this
particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting. Snit has a LOT of trouble
with things like context, especially where guilt and laws are concerned.
Realistically, the presumption of innocence by the "legal system" is only
theoretical in nature in a criminal trial (note that this case is not a criminal
case). This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are detained out
of a concern that they won't show for trial; if such people were truly
*presumed* innocent by the "obligation" Snit claims the "legal system" has to
make such a presumption, they could not rightfully be held against their will,
yet they are held. The "obligation" to presume innocence with respect to the
"legal system" mainly belongs to the juror (and any perspective jurors... i.e. -
any one of us) and rightfully so. If, like Snit, you fail to understand how
important this obligation is, you'll likely only learn about it when you are the
one facing the erroneous charges... where you hope and pray that the jury isn't
a box full of Snits who have learned about the presumption of innocence from
some bizarre perspective as he has. I guarantee you the prosecutor, a
fundamental part of the "legal system", does not *presume* the person he is
prosecuting is innocent... any more than does the part of the "legal system"
that holds a person in a cell against his will when it has yet to be proven he
is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the legal system". A poster once wrote
this to Snit... about a thing Snit obviously still has not learned and probably
never will:
"Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the
courts. We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them
as "bigots".
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Snit
noone-6FDECE....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 9:02 AM:
>>>>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>>>
>>>> There is considerable doubt.
>>>
>>>> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
>>>
>>> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
>>> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
>>> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
>>> need for due process / adjudication.
>>
>> Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
>
> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on this
> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially where guilt and
> laws are concerned.
Note: Steve pushes his attempt by making over-reaching insults against
others.
Sandman, if you read this: note that Steve did not *start* a thread, but he
did jump in to this thread and try to start a debate... not just by claiming
to disagree with me in this thread (that is fair) but by bringing up his
past views of me and, frankly, outright lying about me. Read below where
Steve continues to push his clear desire to start not just a debate but a
back-and-forth insult game.
> Realistically, the presumption of innocence by the "legal system" is only
> theoretical in nature in a criminal trial (note that this case is not a
> criminal case). This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are
> detained out of a concern that they won't show for trial; if such people were
> truly *presumed* innocent by the "obligation" Snit claims the "legal system"
> has to make such a presumption, they could not rightfully be held against
> their will, yet they are held. The "obligation" to presume innocence with
> respect to the "legal system" mainly belongs to the juror (and any perspective
> jurors... i.e. - any one of us) and rightfully so.
Gee, Steve, you figured out that the presumption of innocence is not 100%
and sometimes the accused is held against their will. Wow, Steve, did you
go to law school or something to figure that out? LOL!
Yes, Steve, I know - you are going to focus on my couple of sentences and
completely miss the fact that I did not mean it as a full and complete
lesson on the judicial system. You, however, did write more... and what you
wrote is not correct, as I show below.
> If, like Snit, you fail to understand how important this obligation is, you'll
> likely only learn about it when you are the one facing the erroneous
> charges... where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits who
> have learned about the presumption of innocence from some bizarre perspective
> as he has.
Wow: once again you try to start your absurd little debates by spewing your
insults. You still deny you are consumed by your hatred, right? LOL!
> I guarantee you the prosecutor, a fundamental part of the "legal system", does
> not *presume* the person he is prosecuting is innocent... any more than does
> the part of the "legal system" that holds a person in a cell against his will
> when it has yet to be proven he is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the
> legal system". A poster once wrote this to Snit... about a thing Snit
> obviously still has not learned and probably never will:
>
> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
Instead of just showing how much you are consumed by your hatred, Steve, why
don't you try to learn?
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html>
------
During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial,
I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some
misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and
would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury
brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those
who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view
that the truth of an event from the past magically changes
when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until
proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal
description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not
kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a
jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
...
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia
Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we
all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury
reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an
acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was
innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in
law or logic.
...
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of
innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence
is an important constitutional protection for the accused.
It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant
guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the
jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the
defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and
the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a
person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we
all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal
circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty
man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct
of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds
that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a
crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest
of us--the people of the United States who are not serving
on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to
think or say.
------
and: <http://www.fff.org/freedom/0790a.asp>
------
I used to be a civil and criminal trial attorney. I was
often asked, "Don't you lose sleep when you get guilty
people off the hook?" My answer was, "Never." In fact, of
all the criminal cases I handled ‹ drug, murder, theft,
assault, embezzlement, fraud ‹ I lost sleep for several
weeks in only one case. That was the case in which I
believed, and still believe, that I had lost an innocent man
to ten years in the federal penitentiary.
...
To this day, when I hear an American judge instructing a
jury to presume the defendant innocent and not to convict
him unless convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I
take great pride in being an American...
The Founding Fathers and the American people of the 1700s
were not naive. They knew that the procedural safeguards in
the Bill of Rights would result in the release of many
guilty people. But they were willing to accept that price in
order to ensure that innocent people were never, or rarely,
convicted. They fully recognized that which freedom devotees
on the Right recognized ‹ that those who violate the rights
of others need to be punished. But what they also recognized
is what those on the Right so often do not: that sometimes
people are wrongly accused of violating the rights of
others.
-----
Do you have any *useful* commentary on that Steve that does not include
clear signs of your irrational hatred and your unending need to try to start
battles in CSMA?
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-6FDECE....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 9:02 AM:
>
> >>>>> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
> >>>
> >>>> There is considerable doubt.
> >>>
> >>>> If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
> >>>
> >>> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty
> >>> of
> >>> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> >>> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> >>> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> >>> need for due process / adjudication.
> >>
> >> Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
> >
> > I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
> > this
> > particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
>
> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
There's nothing to debate... anyone can see that you're wrong. If the truth
insults you perhaps you should do what is necessary to not have it do so.
Snit
>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>
> There's nothing to debate...
Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
insults such BS:
Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
where guilt and laws are concerned.
and
where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits
And then, of course, when I push to bring the conversation to a more mature
level and actually show you *information* as to why your views and claims
are simply wrong, you snip them.
You, Steve, clearly had no desire to talk about the issue - you wanted to
start another of your circuses. Sorry, Steve, I am not joining you this
time. I will, however, note that you showed no sign of even reading the
material I posted:
----------
----------
And, clearly, you have nothing useful to add. OK. Thanks for making that
clear.
> anyone can see that you're wrong. If the truth insults you perhaps you should
> do what is necessary to not have it do so.
You can try to excuse your repulsive behavior however you wish.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-C71994....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:
>
> >> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >
> > There's nothing to debate...
>
> Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
> insults such BS:
>
> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
> where guilt and laws are concerned.
How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
Snit
> In article <C276427F.81CB1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-C71994....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:
>>
>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>>>
>>> There's nothing to debate...
>>
>> Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
>> insults such BS:
>>
>> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
>> where guilt and laws are concerned.
>
> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
disagreement with you and present expert opinions as to why, you snip those
comments. Clearly even you know you have no leg to stand on. Sure, you
will deny that, Steve, but your actions have spoken for you - you make
proclamations that you are certain you are right and then run from contrary
data. You are scared and uncertain and purposely blind. If you think you
have a better explanation for your bad showing feel free to share, but do
not expect me to believe you unless it is darn good!
The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start your trolling
games. You are unable to post in a respectful and adult way. I have been
noting this to help Sandman to understand how you often start silly debates
without starting new threads. I have also pointed to new threads he has
started that quickly became homes of silly debates and noted that he is not
really to blame. Hopefully your trolling here serves the purpose to help
Sandman understand why his thread-starting counts do not serve the purpose
he claimed they did.
KDT
> So much for better quality products:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
"But the real rub here is that every 6-bit panel I've come across is
rated at being able to output 16+ million colors. Because of this
it's almost impossible for the end user to tell whether they're buying
a 6-bit panel or an 8-bit panel. By claiming that their 6-bit panels
are 16+ million color capable, all Apple is doing is passing on the
specs being given to them. So if you're going to sue Apple for this,
then extend the suit to cover all other OEMs and manufacturers,
because they all do the same."
New Bee
IOW, Apple's quality standards are no higher than any other PC?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-753AA2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:53 PM:
>
> > In article <C276427F.81CB1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-C71994....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >>>
> >>> There's nothing to debate...
> >>
> >> Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
> >> insults such BS:
> >>
> >> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
> >> where guilt and laws are concerned.
> >
> > How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>
> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
No, there isn't.
> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
> disagreement with you and present expert opinions
Expert opinion that you disagreed with? Are you insane? Expert opinion doesn't
count for much when it tries to subvert reality. The 'experts' you quoted don't
take into account that their ideology tends to poison the jury pool, the one
area where it's crucial for there to be an "obligation" to presume innocence. I
do rather like the quote you clipped away:
"Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the
courts. We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them
as "bigots".
--
Snit
If they were do you think that would mean they never made a mistake?
Snit
> In article <C2765065.81CBE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-753AA2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:53 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C276427F.81CB1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>>> noone-C71994....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing to debate...
>>>>
>>>> Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
>>>> insults such BS:
>>>>
>>>> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
>>>> where guilt and laws are concerned.
>>>
>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>
>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>
> No, there isn't.
I accept that you do not recognize the two questions present.
>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
>> disagreement with you and present expert opinions
>
> Expert opinion that you disagreed with? Are you insane? Expert opinion
> doesn't count for much when it tries to subvert reality. The 'experts' you
> quoted don't take into account that their ideology tends to poison the jury
> pool, the one area where it's crucial for there to be an "obligation" to
> presume innocence.
LOL! The funny thing is I think you really believe that!
> I do rather like the quote you clipped away:
>
> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
Ok, so you like quotes from people who do not know what the word "bigots"
mean. Funny how you quote that while you run from the following:
There are two questions present in this thread between us,
Steve.
One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
when I show disagreement with you and present expert
opinions as to why, you snip those comments. Clearly even
you know you have no leg to stand on. Sure, you will deny
that, Steve, but your actions have spoken for you - you make
proclamations that you are certain you are right and then
run from contrary data. You are scared and uncertain and
purposely blind. If you think you have a better explanation
for your bad showing feel free to share, but do not expect
me to believe you unless it is darn good!
Note, your only other "explanation" is that while you cannot show *where*,
you will simply belittle not just me but also Sherry F. Colb and Jacob G.
Hornberger by questioning if they are even "experts" in their fields. While
you may disagree with them, however, they are *clearly* experts - as is easy
to see based on the links I provided you! In other words, Steve, your
explanation to excuse your bad showing was simply not good enough. :)
The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start
your trolling games. You are unable to post in a respectful
and adult way. I have been noting this to help Sandman to
understand how you often start silly debates without
starting new threads. I have also pointed to new threads he
has started that quickly became homes of silly debates and
noted that he is not really to blame. Hopefully your
trolling here serves the purpose to help Sandman understand
why his thread-starting counts do not serve the purpose he
claimed they did.
And this issue, which as I note is the bigger one, is something you just run
from. Once again, Steve, you show you simply are not capable of acting like
an adult.
If you have nothing of value to add, Steve, let's just end this thread here.
No need to continue your little circus.
New Bee
> "New Bee" <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 9:59 pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 18, 5:41 pm, PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >> "But the real rub here is that every 6-bit panel I've come across is
> >> rated at being able to output 16+ million colors. Because of this
> >> it's almost impossible for the end user to tell whether they're buying
> >> a 6-bit panel or an 8-bit panel. By claiming that their 6-bit panels
> >> are 16+ million color capable, all Apple is doing is passing on the
> >> specs being given to them. So if you're going to sue Apple for this,
> >> then extend the suit to cover all other OEMs and manufacturers,
> >> because they all do the same."
>
> > IOW, Apple's quality standards are no higher than any other PC?
>
> If they were do you think that would mean they never made a mistake?
A mistake? How did Apple manage to ship computers without realizing
their screens didn't look as good as people would expect them to?
That doesn't sound like good quality control to me.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F849C8....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 8:17 PM:
>
> > In article <C2765065.81CBE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-753AA2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:53 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C276427F.81CB1%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >>>> noone-C71994....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 6:14 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's nothing to debate...
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok... and yet you *still* try to start a stupid Usenet debate by spewing
> >>>> insults such BS:
> >>>>
> >>>> Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
> >>>> where guilt and laws are concerned.
> >>>
> >>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
> >>
> >> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
> >
> > No, there isn't.
>
> I accept that
Good.
> >> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
> >> disagreement with you and present expert opinions
> >
> > Expert opinion that you disagreed with? Are you insane? Expert opinion
> > doesn't count for much when it tries to subvert reality. The 'experts' you
> > quoted don't take into account that their ideology tends to poison the jury
> > pool, the one area where it's crucial for there to be an "obligation" to
> > presume innocence.
>
> LOL! The funny thing is I think you really believe that!
Here's another laugh for you... I also believe that a person such as yourself
should never be allowed to sit on a jury.
>
> > I do rather like the quote you clipped away:
> >
> > "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
> > have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
>
> Ok, so you like quotes from people who do not know what the word "bigots"
> mean.
I disagree... I'm quite confident this person knows exactly what the word means.
Snit
>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>>
>>> No, there isn't.
>>
>> I accept that you do not recognize the two questions present.
>
> Good.
Ok.
>>>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
>>>> disagreement with you and present expert opinions
>>>>
>>> Expert opinion that you disagreed with? Are you insane? Expert opinion
>>> doesn't count for much when it tries to subvert reality. The 'experts' you
>>> quoted don't take into account that their ideology tends to poison the jury
>>> pool, the one area where it's crucial for there to be an "obligation" to
>>> presume innocence.
>>>
>> LOL! The funny thing is I think you really believe that!
> Here's another laugh for you... I also believe that a person such as yourself
> should never be allowed to sit on a jury.
Given your open hatred of me that is hardly a shock.
>>> I do rather like the quote you clipped away:
>>>
>>> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
>>> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
>>
>> Ok, so you like quotes from people who do not know what the word "bigots"
>> mean.
> I disagree... I'm quite confident this person knows exactly what the word
> means.
I do not disagree that you are "quite confident" in many of your absurd
beliefs. OK.
>> Funny how you quote that while you run from the following:
>>
>> There are two questions present in this thread between us,
>> Steve.
>>
>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
>> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
>> opinions as to why, you snip those comments. Clearly even
>> you know you have no leg to stand on. Sure, you will deny
>> that, Steve, but your actions have spoken for you - you make
>> proclamations that you are certain you are right and then
>> run from contrary data. You are scared and uncertain and
>> purposely blind. If you think you have a better explanation
>> for your bad showing feel free to share, but do not expect
>> me to believe you unless it is darn good!
>>
>> Note, your only other "explanation" is that while you cannot show *where*,
>> you will simply belittle not just me but also Sherry F. Colb and Jacob G.
>> Hornberger by questioning if they are even "experts" in their fields. While
>> you may disagree with them, however, they are *clearly* experts - as is easy
>> to see based on the links I provided you! In other words, Steve, your
>> explanation to excuse your bad showing was simply not good enough. :)
Gee, Steve - no comment from you. Isn't this where you start to hear
crickets? LOL!
>> The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start
>> your trolling games. You are unable to post in a respectful
>> and adult way. I have been noting this to help Sandman to
>> understand how you often start silly debates without
>> starting new threads. I have also pointed to new threads he
>> has started that quickly became homes of silly debates and
>> noted that he is not really to blame. Hopefully your
>> trolling here serves the purpose to help Sandman understand
>> why his thread-starting counts do not serve the purpose he
>> claimed they did.
>>
>> And this issue, which as I note is the bigger one, is something you just run
>> from. Once again, Steve, you show you simply are not capable of acting like
>> an adult.
>>
>> If you have nothing of value to add, Steve, let's just end this thread here.
>> No need to continue your little circus.
OK, feel free to get the last word in, Steve... I just posted this to show
how much you run. If Sandman cannot see the point now he likely never will.
Sandman
> > I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on this
> > particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
>
> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
of yours in a new thread?
I agree.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com on 5/20/07 11:36 PM:
Well, you are close - he is bringing up old issues of *his*, not mine. But
close enough.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com on 5/20/07 11:36 PM:
>
> > In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
> >>> this
> >>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
> >>
> >> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >
> > Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
> > of yours in a new thread?
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Well, you are close - he is bringing up old issues of *his*, not mine. But
> close enough.
I.e. you started debates when you posted new threads with old issues
in them. Good that you start to see it that way too. I realize that
you've started tons of debates by hijacking threads as well, they're
not so easily measurable, though.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C276929C.81D02%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com on 5/20/07 11:36 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
>>>>> this
>>>>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
>>>>
>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>>>
>>> Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
>>> of yours in a new thread?
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>
>> Well, you are close - he is bringing up old issues of *his*, not mine. But
>> close enough.
>
> I.e. you started debates when you posted new threads with old issues
> in them.
Incorrect.
> Good that you start to see it that way too.
Why are you trying to speak for me?
> I realize that you've started tons of debates by hijacking threads as well,
> they're not so easily measurable, though.
And now you are going against your clean slate *and* trying to instigate.
I have given you every chance at the fresh start you asked for, Sandman, and
you are blowing it.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You blew it with the first post you posted after trying to claim that
you were granting *me* antyhing. I don't want anything from you other
than you being honest. You blew that right away, as I have shown.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
You asked for a clean slate:
<mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET >
I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step
would be to let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat
each others with respect and behave in an honest and
honorable way. I hope you will join me in reaching an
agreement to do just that.
I granted it to you. Since then you have asked me to go against it and talk
about your actions from before that grant, you have made accusations against
me based on your views from before that grant, you have made *new*
accusations, you have outright lied, etc.
Seriously, I had hoped for better from you.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > You blew it with the first post you posted after trying to claim that
> > you were granting *me* antyhing. I don't want anything from you other
> > than you being honest. You blew that right away, as I have shown.
> >
> You asked for a clean slate:
>
> <mr-1EDE87.09...@News.Individual.NET >
> I would love to end the BS as well. I think the first step
> would be to let the past go. Start on a clean slate. Treat
> each others with respect and behave in an honest and
> honorable way. I hope you will join me in reaching an
> agreement to do just that.
That is not me asking for a clean slate for *me*. I want YOU to start
on a clean slate for *CSMA*. For the benefit of csma. You are
dishonestly limiting your promise to be about me only. I want you to
extend it to csma as a whole.
And a "clean slate" is not something you "grant" me, it's something
you start from. The slate is *yours*, not mine. *You* need to start on
a clean slate. I could also benefit from starting on a clean slate,
but a "clean slate" is not something we grant each others, it's
something we grant *ourselves*. Your honesty should not depend on the
behaviour of others. Start on a clean slate *for you* and *for csma*.
It has nothing to do with me.
When you are ready to be honest and honorable, as you have shown that
you currently are not, then I would be happy to join you in an
agreement that is for the benefit of *csma*.
--
Sandman[.net]
nospamatall
limited to what is available. Some things they design and stipulate
themselves, others they buy 'off the shelf'. The overall quality of
Apple's stuff is in the higher levels compared to other PCs, this is to
be expected because they don't sell cheap PCs. This doesn't mean that
their products are perfect, nor that they are immune to the problems
other manufacturers have with supplied parts. This, if it turns out to
be true and apply across all the macbooks, would contribute to an
overall lessening of the aggregate quality, but doesn't constitute a
basis for any absolute statements like the above.
I have seen statements here that I think exaggerate apple's superiority,
sure, and can see how they would annoy wintrolls (or please them?) but
as far as I am concerned Windows is still not an option for me and it
would take a huge discrepancy in hardware standards coupled with drastic
changes in MS's modus operandi to change that. Or a police state, of
course.
Andy
nospamatall
>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>
> No, there isn't.
Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet. We don't know
each other and writing is a fundamentally different mental process than
talking. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Use the
advantages and minimise the disadvantages. Try to ignore WHO is writing
and concentrate on what they're saying. We can learn from each other; I
have often learnt something useful even while having a really bad
argument with someone. But once the thread descends into personal shit
it becomes useless. One can take on board facts that prove one wrong in
a non-personal way, and there is no need even to admit wrongness if you
don't want to, just take it on board, often only subcosciously, but as
soon as personal insults get in there, the blocks to learning rise up.
Just thinking aloud. I don't claim to implement this policy very well
myself.
If I see something I disagree with the only way I know to react to that
is to say what my problem is with it. That often seems like an attack,
but it doesn't matter, often the response can modify my opinion, even
without me realising it consciously. this is what advertising and
bullshit mainstream media is all about. I'd rather read stuff here than
do that. Even the wintrolls will come up with more than a regurgitation
of propaganda if pushed. I can find out more about other PCs from them
than from publications paid for by advertisers, becuase they use the
machines regularly and I do not.
And the other day even Zara posted something funny. With more than one
line.
Andy
Edwin
Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
maker.
Edwin
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 05:38:55 GMT, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> > Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > So much for better quality products:
>
> >> >http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
>
> >There is considerable doubt.
>
> >If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for alawsuitor a trial...
>
> evidence of guilt, so long as someone refuses to plead guilty there's
> going to be a trial.
The bottom line is...
... Alan Baker is wrong...
... AGAIN! <G>
Edwin
> On 19 May 2007 15:55:46 -0700, New Bee <New.BeeZ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 19, 12:44 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> >> alangbaker-525858.22385518052...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
>
> >> > <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> >> > Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> So much for better quality products:
>
> >> >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
>
> >> >> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
>
> >> > There is considerable doubt.
>
>
> >> Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
> >> committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> >> *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> >> reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> >> need for due process / adjudication.
>
> >Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
>
How many times has Alan accused others of "punking out?"
nospamatall
> Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
> wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
> their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
> Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
> that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
> maker.
>
All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price. The
OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
Snit
5/21/07 7:08 AM:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>
>> No, there isn't.
>
> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
in:
One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
when I show disagreement with you and present expert
opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least to
try to defend his views. He is not... so instead he focused on the second
debate:
The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start
your trolling games. You are unable to post in a respectful
and adult way.
> We don't know each other and writing is a fundamentally different mental
> process than talking. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Use the
> advantages and minimise the disadvantages. Try to ignore WHO is writing and
> concentrate on what they're saying. We can learn from each other; I have often
> learnt something useful even while having a really bad argument with someone.
> But once the thread descends into personal shit it becomes useless. One can
> take on board facts that prove one wrong in a non-personal way, and there is
> no need even to admit wrongness if you don't want to, just take it on board,
> often only subcosciously, but as soon as personal insults get in there, the
> blocks to learning rise up.
What I have seen is that people start to assume they know the other persons'
view... and often they are incorrect. Sometimes the view was stated poorly,
sometimes the reader misunderstood... sometimes the "misunderstanding", I
suspect, is on purpose. That is why I asked people I often debate with to
explain their views on questions where there has been misunderstandings...
and I agreed to answer any reasonable questions about my views. The
questions I asked Steve were:
* Did I ever state that Sandman's work was not pro because
one of his sites didn't validate correctly?
* Being that I have never called myself an "IT Teacher" and
have corrected you on many occasions, why do you call me an
"IT Teacher"?
* What made you think I was not aware of the
Command+Control+Option+8 feature on a Mac? If you never did
think that then noting such would be a reasonable answer.
* What is the most recent post of yours, Steve, where you
did not lie about me or, at best, post material which is
deceptive about me?
* threats of violence, accusations of rape and other sex
crimes, and even accusations of taking debates out of CSMA
and bringing them to unwanted emails to loved ones and
making unwanted phone calls - *none* of these things are
appropriate. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
* Did you ever state in CSMA or otherwise tell me *when* you
got married (assuming you did get married)?
* Did John ever blame Sandman for the expiration of *any*
beta software that you know of?
* Have you ever commented on problems you attributed to a
Linksys router?
* Is it possible for someone who does not use PDFs much to
understand that Apple likely has more PDF options than
Windows?
* What is the purpose of a beta release of software?
Steve has not been willing to answer a single question... nor have the
others I asked: Sandman, Edwin, and Tim Adams. In each case they show no
sign of wanting to understand each other, though with Sandman he quickly
noted that he did not want to answer the questions and asked for a clean
slate. I granted him that ... but he has not been treating his new slate
well. A shame.
> Just thinking aloud. I don't claim to implement this policy very well
> myself.
>
> If I see something I disagree with the only way I know to react to that
> is to say what my problem is with it. That often seems like an attack,
> but it doesn't matter, often the response can modify my opinion, even
> without me realising it consciously.
If you look at my recent discussions with Tim Adams you will see this: I
noted he answered a "why" question as though it was a "yes/no" question and
noted that was "odd". I did not belittle him for it, though I did not note
he used a comma incorrectly in his reply. He responded by lashing out and
trying to defend his error - and in his defense showed he did not understand
how the commas were being used in the sentence he replied to. When I
corrected him on that and explained what a non-essential phrase was and
removed it from the sentence to show him how the "why" was essential, he
lashed out again and accused me of dishonestly snipping the sentence.
I would have preferred if Adams could have been honest and reasonable and
answered the original "why" question or at least noted his mistake; instead
he lashed out and taught me a bit more about his ignorance... not what I was
looking for at all!
> this is what advertising and bullshit mainstream media is all about. I'd
> rather read stuff here than do that. Even the wintrolls will come up with more
> than a regurgitation of propaganda if pushed. I can find out more about other
> PCs from them than from publications paid for by advertisers, becuase they use
> the machines regularly and I do not.
>
> And the other day even Zara posted something funny. With more than one
> line.
LOL!
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
> > wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
> > their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
> > Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
> > that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
> > maker.
>
> All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
higher quality.
<The
> OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
> that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
> manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
> of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
You created a straw man argument.
Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
Snit
1179761559.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 5/21/07 8:32 AM:
> On May 21, 9:53 am, nospamatall <nospamat...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> Edwin wrote:
>>> Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
>>> wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
>>> their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
>>> Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
>>> that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
>>> maker.
>>
>> All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
>
> That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> higher quality.
What makes you think they are higher? Price comparisons do not show so:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>.
As always, if you have other comparisons you want to add, just ask!
>
> <The
>> OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
>> that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
>> manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
>> of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
>
> You created a straw man argument.
>
> Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
Apple does lead in many areas but not all. Amazing how much they do lead
considering their size.
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
> > > wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
> > > their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
> > > Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
> > > that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
> > > maker.
> >
> > All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
>
> That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> higher quality.
I think most price comparisons shows that Apple has a lot better
pricing today than, say, five years ago.
>> The OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to
>> think that in order to have a general perception of overall
>> superior quality a manufacturer needs to have superiority of every
>> model over every model of every competing manufacturer. This is
>> obviously false.
>
> You created a straw man argument.
>
> Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
I don't believe you think this is true. We don't need your approval of
Apples innovation. Business week have already stated that Apple is the
most innovative company for the third year in a row. And we don't even
need Business Week's approval either. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Dr. zara
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1179761559.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You must admit - he tries hard to distort the facts.
Dr. zara
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-5C9D3D.17...@News.Individual.NET...
Yeah - thank God for the iPod.
Edwin
> In article <1179761559.425578.122...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
> > > > wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
> > > > their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
> > > > Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
> > > > that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
> > > > maker.
>
> > > All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
>
> > That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> > Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> > higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> > higher quality.
>
> I think most price comparisons shows that Apple has a lot better
> pricing today than, say, five years ago.
Irrelevant.
> >> The OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to
> >> think that in order to have a general perception of overall
> >> superior quality a manufacturer needs to have superiority of every
> >> model over every model of every competing manufacturer. This is
> >> obviously false.
>
> > You created a straw man argument.
>
> > Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> > They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
>
> I don't believe you think this is true.
Then you need to correct your mistaken beliefs.
> We don't need your approval of
> Apples innovation.
Apple doesn't have the approval of their own customers. Those are
the people who are suing them.
> Business week have already stated that Apple is the
> most innovative company for the third year in a row. And we don't even
> need Business Week's approval either. :)
Your approval counts for nothing, just as all of your opinions count
for nothing.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2s95c$ia$1...@aioe.org on
> 5/21/07 7:08 AM:
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> >>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
> >>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
> >>
> >> No, there isn't.
> >
> > Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
> > treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
> > the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
>
> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
> in:
>
> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
>
> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least to
> try to defend his views.
I obviously stated it... in fact, I did so before you began any of your whining:
"Realistically, the presumption of innocence by the "legal system" is only
theoretical in nature in a criminal trial (note that this case is not a criminal
case). This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are detained out
of a concern that they won't show for trial; if such people were truly
*presumed* innocent by the "obligation" Snit claims the "legal system" has to
make such a presumption, they could not rightfully be held against their will,
yet they are held. The "obligation" to presume innocence with respect to the
"legal system" mainly belongs to the juror (and any perspective jurors... i.e. -
any one of us) and rightfully so".
You are the guy who responded to this by doing as Andy said (getting personal):
"Gee, Steve, you figured out that the presumption of innocence is not 100%
and sometimes the accused is held against their will. Wow, Steve, did you
go to law school or something to figure that out? LOL!"
Steve Carroll
wrote:
I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.
Further, I didn't purposely intend to insult anyone, I pointed out an error. If
reality insults Snit he should do what he needs to do to prevent that from
happening. If our legal system had a genuine obligation to presume innocence
then no person who has yet to be officially pronounced guilty would see the
inside of a cell. Being that we know this isn't the case, Snit's position is
obviously erroneous. I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes
from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't like
the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here it is:
"Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the
courts. We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them
as "bigots".
Easy enough to see why Snit would have a problem with this, he doesn't like the
idea that anything he engages in could be labeled as bigotry. Realistically,
there's nothing to debate here...there is only a reality Snit is trying hard to
avoid. Again... I didn't hijack this thread with an old issue... I addressed a
topic and an error made by the person who brought the topic in. That Snit sees
calling him on his error and surrounding contextual inconsistencies as insulting
actions is his problem (despite his blustering, this doesn't fit your criteria).
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-BAF073....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/20/07 8:44 PM:
>
> >>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
> >>>
> >>> No, there isn't.
> >>
> >> I accept that you do not recognize the two questions present.
> >
> > Good.
>
> Ok.
>
> >>>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that when I show
> >>>> disagreement with you and present expert opinions
> >>>>
> >>> Expert opinion that you disagreed with? Are you insane? Expert opinion
> >>> doesn't count for much when it tries to subvert reality. The 'experts'
> >>> you
> >>> quoted don't take into account that their ideology tends to poison the
> >>> jury
> >>> pool, the one area where it's crucial for there to be an "obligation" to
> >>> presume innocence.
> >>>
> >> LOL! The funny thing is I think you really believe that!
>
> > Here's another laugh for you... I also believe that a person such as
> > yourself should never be allowed to sit on a jury.
>
> Given your open hatred of me that is hardly a shock.
Quit your whining... no one would (or should) want anyone to sit on a jury when
he displays a propensity to make up his mind before all the facts are in. If I
had to define you in 15 words or less that'd be the definition.
Snit
> In article <C2770581.81D75%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2s95c$ia$1...@aioe.org on
>> 5/21/07 7:08 AM:
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>>>
>>>> No, there isn't.
>>>
>>> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
>>> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
>>> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
>>
>> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
>> in:
>>
>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
>> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
>> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
>>
>> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least to
>> try to defend his views.
>
>
> I obviously stated it...
And when I countered your comments with my own views and those of legal
experts you snipped those comments in their entirety. You were not willing
to talk about the actual topic - you preferred to troll and make things
personal. Below you re-posted what you wrote that was countered... I
snipped that because it has been dealt with.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > We don't need your approval of
> > Apples innovation.
>
> Apple doesn't have the approval of their own customers. Those are
> the people who are suing them.
>
> > Business week have already stated that Apple is the
> > most innovative company for the third year in a row. And we don't even
> > need Business Week's approval either. :)
>
> Your approval counts for nothing, just as all of your opinions count
> for nothing.
I rather not discuss anything with you when you're in this mood. If
you ever get back to the mood you were in when you wrote this:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b8c3aab82b3f8
0b4>
Then let me know.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com>, Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
>>>> this
>>>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
>>>
>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>>
>> Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
>> of yours in a new thread?
>>
>> I agree.
>
> I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.
Incorrect. You clearly brought up your ideas from the past:
Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
where guilt and laws are concerned.
and
where you hope and pray that the jury isn't a box full of Snits
When you did so, Steve, you left the current comments behind and entered
into your sad little world of personal attacks. When I then countered your
comments about what you called my "errors" by showing you expert opinions
that clearly differed from your own, you not only snipped those comments you
then started questioning if those people were experts, even though their
credentials were listed on the pages I linked to!
In the end, Steve, I would prefer to *not* play the blame game. Let us get
back to the topic. Why can't you respond honestly to the following:
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html>
------
During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial,
I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some
misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and
would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury
brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those
who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view
that the truth of an event from the past magically changes
when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until
proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal
description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not
kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a
jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
...
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia
Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we
all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury
reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an
acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was
innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in
law or logic.
...
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of
innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence
is an important constitutional protection for the accused.
It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant
guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the
jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the
defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and
the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a
person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we
all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal
circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty
man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct
of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds
that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a
crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest
of us--the people of the United States who are not serving
on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to
think or say.
------
<http://www.fff.org/freedom/0790a.asp>
------
I used to be a civil and criminal trial attorney. I was
often asked, "Don't you lose sleep when you get guilty
people off the hook?" My answer was, "Never." In fact, of
all the criminal cases I handled ‹ drug, murder, theft,
assault, embezzlement, fraud ‹ I lost sleep for several
weeks in only one case. That was the case in which I
believed, and still believe, that I had lost an innocent man
to ten years in the federal penitentiary.
...
To this day, when I hear an American judge instructing a
jury to presume the defendant innocent and not to convict
him unless convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I
take great pride in being an American...
The Founding Fathers and the American people of the 1700s
were not naive. They knew that the procedural safeguards in
the Bill of Rights would result in the release of many
guilty people. But they were willing to accept that price in
order to ensure that innocent people were never, or rarely,
convicted. They fully recognized that which freedom devotees
on the Right recognized ‹ that those who violate the rights
of others need to be punished. But what they also recognized
is what those on the Right so often do not: that sometimes
people are wrongly accused of violating the rights of
others.
-----
Note how your views on presumption of innocence are clearly countered. Do
you have a reasoned reply?
Below you just repeat what you have written before - making personal
attacks, avoiding the information I posted, above, and generally just
trolling.
> Further, I didn't purposely intend to insult anyone, I pointed out an error.
> If reality insults Snit he should do what he needs to do to prevent that from
> happening. If our legal system had a genuine obligation to presume innocence
> then no person who has yet to be officially pronounced guilty would see the
> inside of a cell. Being that we know this isn't the case, Snit's position is
> obviously erroneous. I even provided him a quote by another person (if it
> comes from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he
> didn't like the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it.
> Here it is:
>
> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
>
> Easy enough to see why Snit would have a problem with this, he doesn't like
> the idea that anything he engages in could be labeled as bigotry.
> Realistically, there's nothing to debate here...there is only a reality Snit
> is trying hard to avoid. Again... I didn't hijack this thread with an old
> issue... I addressed a topic and an error made by the person who brought the
> topic in. That Snit sees calling him on his error and surrounding contextual
> inconsistencies as insulting actions is his problem (despite his blustering,
> this doesn't fit your criteria).
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-059668....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 10:06 AM:
>
> > In article <C2770581.81D75%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2s95c$ia$1...@aioe.org on
> >> 5/21/07 7:08 AM:
> >>
> >>> Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
> >>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, there isn't.
> >>>
> >>> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
> >>> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
> >>> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
> >>
> >> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
> >> in:
> >>
> >> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
> >> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
> >> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
> >>
> >> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least
> >> to
> >> try to defend his views.
> >
> >
> > I obviously stated it...
>
> And when I countered your comments with my own views
The 'counter' your "own views" were accompanied with consisted of what you just
snipped away. Here it is again:
"Gee, Steve, you figured out that the presumption of innocence is not 100%
and sometimes the accused is held against their will. Wow, Steve, did you
go to law school or something to figure that out? LOL!"
You are doing exactly what Andy talked about. Of course, you will ignore this
again... like you just tried to by snipping it away.
> and those of legal experts you snipped those comments in their entirety.
I could get the "views" of other "legal experts" to point out how the error that
the "expert" (Colb) you brought forth holds a very dangerous set of "views". Do
you really believe that would convince you of anything... where the basic logic
of the situation failed to do so? Common sense tells you not to rush to
judgement in a criminal case. That you are not sitting on the jury at the
present time doesn't make it all disappear. Does it really make sense to you to
pass judgement on anyone prior to hearing all the facts? Your answer is a
resounding YES... yet, you fail to see it. I don't need the view of an alleged
"expert" to tell me why that's wrong.
You want to address your articles? Fine...we'll first look at Colb's view on
"The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial" - she writes:
"What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a
criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional
protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the
defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even
when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the
defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to
acquit".
She's talking about the exact same thing I was talking about... how the correct
roll for the presumption of innocence is that of it being exercised by the jury.
Let's look at what I wrote:
"The "obligation" to presume innocence with respect to the "legal system" mainly
belongs to the juror (and any perspective jurors... i.e. - any one of us) and
rightfully so".
Here is where Colb and I part. She continued with:
"None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people
of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's
jury--are obligated to think or say".
Conceptually, I disagree with this idea. While she is technically correct about
"the people" not being "obligated" in any particular direction regarding what
"to think or say", she misses the fundamental principle behind abstaining from
rushing to judgement under any conditions (in court or out). The same people who
will rush judgement for years on end over cases where they've heard bits and
pieces when not sitting in the jury box will someday find themselves in that
box... unable to easily change their own nature that has been bolstered by
articles like Colb's and a society that feeds on this sort of thing.
On to Hornberger's article... the only pertinent part you quoted read:
"To this day, when I hear an American judge instructing a jury to presume the
defendant innocent and not to convict him unless convinced of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, I take great pride in being an American..."
This readily aligns with what I quoted of my own text above.
> You were not willing to talk about the actual topic
What's to talk about? You believe it's just fine to call someone guilty based on
not hearing all the facts, I don't... there's really nothing to discuss.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-EEA908....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 10:08 AM:
>
> > In article <mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com>, Sandman
> > <m...@sandman.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
> >>>> this
> >>>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
> >>>
> >>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >>
> >> Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
> >> of yours in a new thread?
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >
> > I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.
>
> Incorrect.
You are incorrect... I did not bring this issue up.
Snit
>>>>>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>>>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
>>>>> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
>>>>> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
>>>> in:
>>>>
>>>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
>>>> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
>>>> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
>>>>
>>>> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least
>>>> to try to defend his views.
>>>
>>> I obviously stated it...
>>
>> And when I countered your comments with my own views
>
> The 'counter' your "own views" were accompanied with consisted of what you
> just snipped away. Here it is again:
>
> "Gee, Steve, you figured out that the presumption of innocence is not 100% and
> sometimes the accused is held against their will. Wow, Steve, did you go to
> law school or something to figure that out? LOL!"
>
> You are doing exactly what Andy talked about. Of course, you will ignore this
> again... like you just tried to by snipping it away.
What are you even talking about? Do you agree with me or disagree with me
that the presumption of innocence is not 100% and sometimes the accused is
held against their will? You seem to, but you are also arguing *against*
me... so please state, clearly, if you agree or disagree.
>
>> and those of legal experts you snipped those comments in their entirety.
>
> I could get the "views" of other "legal experts" to point out how the error
> that the "expert" (Colb) you brought forth holds a very dangerous set of
> "views".
If you have something to counter the views I expressed please do so! I
would love to see you get on topic and not just spout off your personal
insults.
> Do you really believe that would convince you of anything... where the basic
> logic of the situation failed to do so?
At this point, Steve, I have no idea what point you are even supporting.
Maybe you can clarify:
* Do you agree with me that the presumption of innocence is not 100%?
I think you do, but I am not sure.
* Do you agree with me that it is OK for people to look at the facts of
an event and determine for themselves if someone has broken the law -
even outside of a court of law?
I think you disagree with me there though below you focus not on this
but on a subset (where people "rush to judgment"). Maybe you do not
see the difference and think the only way to get pertinent facts is
in a trial? I would love to have you clear this up.
I am not interested in the meta-debates nor the personal attacks. If you
want to discuss the issues, either those I list above or others that are not
of a personal attack nature I am open to it. If all you can do is continue
to troll then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Please note, Steve, I am giving you every chance to be reasonable and to
focus on actual topics and not just BS trolling.
> Common sense tells you not to rush to judgement in a criminal case.
Agreed!
> That you are not sitting on the jury at the present time doesn't make it all
> disappear.
Agreed!
> Does it really make sense to you to pass judgement on anyone prior to hearing
> all the facts?
Well, unless you play silly games with the phrase "all the facts", then no,
you should not pass judgment without knowing what the facts are about the
event you are judging.
> Your answer is a resounding YES... yet, you fail to see it.
Incorrect: though now we know where you misunderstand my views... and oddly
enough you think you can speak for my views better than I can. That is
absurd. To repeat parts of a quote from an earlier post of mine:
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html>
------
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia
Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we
all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury
reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an
acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was
innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in
law or logic.
-----
I would agree with that. You seem to disagree. Fair?
-----
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of
innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence
is an important constitutional protection for the accused.
It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant
guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the
jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the
defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the
defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and
the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
-----
Again, I agree with that. You?
-----
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest
of us--the people of the United States who are not serving
on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to
think or say.
------
Again, I agree. You seem not to... above you imply that by thinking for
oneself that somehow implies one should pass judgment in the absence of
sufficient facts. Personally I think that one can have sufficient facts
even outside of what the legal system tells us.
> I don't need the view of an alleged "expert" to tell me why that's wrong.
What makes you think you were being asked to use the view of anyone other
than yourself. *I* did, that is true... I quoted multiple experts; that
does not imply that *you* need to do so to have an honest response... but
when you just snip and run from the concepts you have no good answer for,
then *that* is dishonest. And that is exactly what you did.
>
> You want to address your articles? Fine...we'll first look at Colb's view on
> "The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial" - she writes:
>
> "What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a
> criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional
> protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the
> defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove
> guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not
> guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows,
> even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of
> proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution
> order the jury to acquit".
>
> She's talking about the exact same thing I was talking about... how the
> correct roll for the presumption of innocence is that of it being exercised by
> the jury.
>
> Let's look at what I wrote:
>
> "The "obligation" to presume innocence with respect to the "legal system"
> mainly belongs to the juror (and any perspective jurors... i.e. - any one of
> us) and rightfully so".
You add all "perspective" jurors (I assume you meant "prospective") and then
conclude that necessarily includes everyone. That is absurd! There are
many things that can prevent someone from being a reasonable prospective
juror! If I saw a crime take place I am not able to be a juror - I am a
*witness*. Even if I did not see the crime take place but have done
research on it or otherwise have a lot of information about the case -
information where a reasoned person may already have an educated view - then
I also generally would not be able to be on the jury (there are gray areas
where some cases are very, very well known, but this is quite rare).
>
> Here is where Colb and I part. She continued with:
>
> "None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the
> people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal
> defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say".
As I noted: you add everyone else into the mix... and you do with no
reasoned support.
> Conceptually, I disagree with this idea.
Conceptually? Not sure what you are getting at... do you agree with it
emotionally or something?
> While she is technically correct about "the people" not being "obligated" in
> any particular direction regarding what "to think or say", she misses the
> fundamental principle behind abstaining from rushing to judgement under any
> conditions (in court or out).
Who said anything about "rushing to judgment"? Not her. Not I.
> The same people who will rush judgement for years on end over cases where
> they've heard bits and pieces when not sitting in the jury box will someday
> find themselves in that box... unable to easily change their own nature that
> has been bolstered by articles like Colb's and a society that feeds on this
> sort of thing.
Do you mean to imply some sort of juror Karma? And why do you keep talking
about rushing to judgment? Neither she nor I have suggested people should
do this (I will flat out say I think it is wrong to do so - though I think
people have the right to do so).
> On to Hornberger's article... the only pertinent part you quoted read:
>
> "To this day, when I hear an American judge instructing a jury to presume the
> defendant innocent and not to convict him unless convinced of guilt beyond a
> reasonable doubt, I take great pride in being an American..."
>
> This readily aligns with what I quoted of my own text above.
Ok, good. So we agree on this. I like it when we can reach understanding
*and* agreement.
>> You were not willing to talk about the actual topic
>
> What's to talk about? You believe it's just fine to call someone guilty based
> on not hearing all the facts, I don't... there's really nothing to discuss.
You are misrepresenting my views... which helps me to understand where you
are confused (assuming you are not merely lying).
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
> In article <C2772B6A.81DA5%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-EEA908....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 10:08 AM:
>>
>>> In article <mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com>, Sandman
>>> <m...@sandman.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
>>>>
>>>> Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
>>>> of yours in a new thread?
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> You are incorrect... I did not bring this issue up.
You did not bring up the current issue... but you did try to tie the current
issue with your old issues. I have quoted where you have done so. Here is
just one example:
Snit has a LOT of trouble with things like context, especially
where guilt and laws are concerned.
You lied about me, or, at best, spouted off ignorant opinions about me - and
*I* was not the topic of discussion. You tried to turn the discussion into
a forum for spewing your vile about me. It is repulsive and speaks very
poorly of you.
nospamatall
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2s95c$ia$1...@aioe.org on
> 5/21/07 7:08 AM:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>> No, there isn't.
>> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
>> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
>> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
>
> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
> in:
>
> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
>
> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least to
> try to defend his views. He is not... so instead he focused on the second
> debate:
>
> The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start
> your trolling games. You are unable to post in a respectful
> and adult way.
Yeah but that's what happens on newsgroups. If it gets too much try just
re-stating the question on its own with no other distraction to give
something else to answer to. People snip things to stop threads getting
too long, specially when you only have a couple of lines to cotribute.
If everyone answered every paragraph we'd have ever-expanding numbers of
longer and longer posts per day. Sometimes that gets used to advantage,
but you can always re-state the question on its own, and if th eperson
you're arguing with doesn't respond, well it doesn't really matter.
>
> What I have seen is that people start to assume they know the other persons'
> view... and often they are incorrect. Sometimes the view was stated poorly,
> sometimes the reader misunderstood... sometimes the "misunderstanding", I
> suspect, is on purpose. That is why I asked people I often debate with to
> explain their views on questions where there has been misunderstandings...
> and I agreed to answer any reasonable questions about my views.
You obviousy derive some benefit from these arguments you get into, or
just find them interesting in some way, but it isn't a good place to be
doing it. Those who oppose you will never back down in public, better
just to move on and know when you were right.
> If you look at my recent discussions with Tim Adams you will see this: I
> noted he answered a "why" question as though it was a "yes/no" question and
> noted that was "odd". I did not belittle him for it, though I did not note
> he used a comma incorrectly in his reply. He responded by lashing out and
> trying to defend his error - and in his defense showed he did not understand
> how the commas were being used in the sentence he replied to. When I
> corrected him on that and explained what a non-essential phrase was and
> removed it from the sentence to show him how the "why" was essential, he
> lashed out again and accused me of dishonestly snipping the sentence.
It was just a misreading of a typo though. It wasn't odd, it was obvious
to me he'd misread it (or read it in another way than I had, seeing as
it made no sense literally). It's because of all the personal stuff
between you previously that these things happen. If you just treat each
posting on its own merits you'd have an easier time, is all. I might
have an advantage over you there because I tend to forget who said what
previously anyway. That is only partly due to bad memory though, it's
also because I don't go looking for personal insults so I tend not to
notice them. When they do happen they are really only reactions to what
I said, seeing as the respondent knows not a lot about me, so how can
they really be personal? When someone you've never met who knows almost
nothing about you calls you an ignorant fucktard, it's funny, it's not
serious because even if you actually are, they are only guessing and
don't know that. If your mother says it, it might be time to think about
night classes or therapy.
Also you stand out more than most so you make yourself prone to such
things. I remember years ago there was a lot of stuff about you being a
nutcase (elizabot et al), and it took a long time for that to blow over,
but if you'd ignored it it would have gone a lot quicker.
nospamatall
> On May 21, 9:53 am, nospamatall <nospamat...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> Edwin wrote:
>>> Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
>>> wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
>>> their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
>>> Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
>>> that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
>>> maker.
>> All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
>
> That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> higher quality.
Apple's prices are always higher than what? It's been shown that they
are not always higher than 'comparable' PCs. That statement is just as
absolutist and vague as a claim that Macs are always better quality than
PCs. Which macs? Which PCs?
> <The
>> OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
>> that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
>> manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
>> of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
>
> You created a straw man argument.
It was a response to your idea that Apple's quality is no higher than
that of any other major PC maker. Some PCs must surely be better quality
than some macs. And some macs must... vice versa. It's too vague to be
meainingful either way. And I don't agree with either side of that
argument. It isn't a straw man.
> Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
Whatever, That doesn't bother me. So long as they are easy to use and
run OS X. With the ability to run other OSs too now I can get rid of the
PC box. Hardly ever use it now anyway. Since I got this iMac I haven't
even switched it on once.
nospamatall
> On May 21, 10:52 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> We don't need your approval of
>> Apples innovation.
>
> Apple doesn't have the approval of their own customers. Those are
> the people who are suing them.
2 of them! If that was their only legal problem they'd be doing very well.
nospamatall
I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes
> from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't like
> the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here it is:
>
> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the
> courts. We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them
> as "bigots".
I was a bit mystified by that. Maybe there was some context missing. How
is someone who doesn't think the courts do not have a presumption of
innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how a bigot?
Andy
Snit
5/21/07 2:19 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2s95c$ia$1...@aioe.org on
>> 5/21/07 7:08 AM:
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> How can you "debate" that when it has been so amply proven? You can't.
>>>>> There are two questions present in this thread between us, Steve.
>>>> No, there isn't.
>>> Why can't both (or all) of you stop being so personal? Why not just
>>> treat threads as threads? Argue with what you disagree with rather than
>>> the person? Seems to me that's the best way with usenet.
>>
>> Agreed... which is why I pointed out the two debates that Steve and I were
>> in:
>>
>> One deals with the legal system - and you have shown that
>> when I show disagreement with you and present expert
>> opinions as to why, you snip those comments.
>>
>> If Steve disagrees with me he should state why and be willing to at least to
>> try to defend his views. He is not... so instead he focused on the second
>> debate:
>>
>> The second issue is the bigger one: you are trying to start
>> your trolling games. You are unable to post in a respectful
>> and adult way.
>
> Yeah but that's what happens on newsgroups. If it gets too much try just
> re-stating the question on its own with no other distraction to give
> something else to answer to.
When I do that those who troll me whine I am merely copying and pasting. It
is a silly game they play... and, frankly, I simply give them too many
chances.
> People snip things to stop threads getting too long, specially when you only
> have a couple of lines to cotribute. If everyone answered every paragraph we'd
> have ever-expanding numbers of longer and longer posts per day. Sometimes that
> gets used to advantage, but you can always re-state the question on its own,
> and if th eperson you're arguing with doesn't respond, well it doesn't really
> matter.
I do that, also - respond just at the bottom, especially when the same
points are made over and over again, which sometimes happens in an honest
way just by the nature of the medium. Again, those that troll me do not
like that!
>> What I have seen is that people start to assume they know the other persons'
>> view... and often they are incorrect. Sometimes the view was stated poorly,
>> sometimes the reader misunderstood... sometimes the "misunderstanding", I
>> suspect, is on purpose. That is why I asked people I often debate with to
>> explain their views on questions where there has been misunderstandings...
>> and I agreed to answer any reasonable questions about my views.
>
> You obviousy derive some benefit from these arguments you get into, or
> just find them interesting in some way, but it isn't a good place to be
> doing it. Those who oppose you will never back down in public, better
> just to move on and know when you were right.
Fair enough... as I noted above, I give them far, far too many chances.
>> If you look at my recent discussions with Tim Adams you will see this: I
>> noted he answered a "why" question as though it was a "yes/no" question and
>> noted that was "odd". I did not belittle him for it, though I did not note
>> he used a comma incorrectly in his reply. He responded by lashing out and
>> trying to defend his error - and in his defense showed he did not understand
>> how the commas were being used in the sentence he replied to. When I
>> corrected him on that and explained what a non-essential phrase was and
>> removed it from the sentence to show him how the "why" was essential, he
>> lashed out again and accused me of dishonestly snipping the sentence.
>
> It was just a misreading of a typo though. It wasn't odd, it was obvious
> to me he'd misread it (or read it in another way than I had, seeing as
> it made no sense literally).
Ok, "odd" might not be the perfect word, but it is clearly not derogatory.
> It's because of all the personal stuff between you previously that these
> things happen. If you just treat each posting on its own merits you'd have an
> easier time, is all.
I did ... note that I did not put him down or ridicule him... though I did
point out how his "defense" of his reading error only made him look worse.
As you have noted, he will never back down... we will likely never know if
he is simply unwilling to admit to his mistake or unable to see it.
> I might have an advantage over you there because I tend to forget who said
> what previously anyway. That is only partly due to bad memory though, it's
> also because I don't go looking for personal insults so I tend not to notice
> them. When they do happen they are really only reactions to what I said,
> seeing as the respondent knows not a lot about me, so how can they really be
> personal? When someone you've never met who knows almost nothing about you
> calls you an ignorant fucktard, it's funny, it's not serious because even if
> you actually are, they are only guessing and don't know that. If your mother
> says it, it might be time to think about night classes or therapy.
For the longest time I could not keep track of who said what... but I have
been here a long time.
>
> Also you stand out more than most so you make yourself prone to such
> things. I remember years ago there was a lot of stuff about you being a
> nutcase (elizabot et al), and it took a long time for that to blow over,
> but if you'd ignored it it would have gone a lot quicker.
I do tend to respond to most of the trolling BS against me. As I said - I
error on the side of giving people far, far too many chances to explain
themselves. Even recently, I was looking to give them a chance to explain
the areas where there is confusion and offering them a chance to ask me
questions as well. Even with that they found fault with me - it is clear
that no matter what I do they will simply spew accusations about me.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Snit
5/21/07 2:33 PM:
I look forward to seeing Steve answer this.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Edwin
> In article <1179766584.397544.25...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > We don't need your approval of
> > > Apples innovation.
>
> > Apple doesn't have the approval of their own customers. Those are
> > the people who are suing them.
>
> > > Business week have already stated that Apple is the
> > > most innovative company for the third year in a row. And we don't even
> > > need Business Week's approval either. :)
>
> > Your approval counts for nothing, just as all of your opinions count
> > for nothing.
>
> I rather not discuss anything with you when you're in this mood.
IOW, you can't take what you dish out.
> If
> you ever get back to the mood you were in when you wrote this:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b8c3aab82b3f8
> 0b4>
That is irrelevant to the current discussion.
> Then let me know.
Done.
Edwin
> Edwin wrote:
> > On May 21, 9:53 am, nospamatall <nospamat...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >> Edwin wrote:
> >>> Your apology is top notch, and your evasion skills are a thing of
> >>> wonder. Were still left wondering why nobody at Apple could see what
> >>> their customers could so plainly see. So spare us excuses about
> >>> Apple "passing on specifications." Just simply and outrightly admit
> >>> that Apple's quality is no higher than that of any other major PC
> >>> maker.
> >> All that is needed is to be of the same quality for the same price.
>
> > That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> > Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> > higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> > higher quality.
>
> Apple's prices are always higher than what?
Than any other PC maker.
> It's been shown that they
> are not always higher than 'comparable' PCs.
Such a thing has only ever been "shown" by juggling what is considered
"comparable" to be whatever favored the Mac. The Mac was used as the
baseline, and it was demanded that the PC include everything the Mac
had, while anything the PC had that the Mac did not have was ignored.
>That statement is just as
> absolutist and vague as a claim that Macs are always better quality than
> PCs. Which macs? Which PCs?
The Mac only becomes a value for the money when compared against high-
end workstations. It has never matched the price (or power) of mid-
range to low end PCs.
> > <The
> >> OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
> >> that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
> >> manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
> >> of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
>
> > You created a straw man argument.
>
> It was a response to your idea that Apple's quality is no higher than
> that of any other major PC maker. Some PCs must surely be better quality
> than some macs. And some macs must... vice versa. It's too vague to be
> meainingful either way.
It may suit you to give vague, jumbled statements to obfuscate the
issue, but it isn't as hard to figure out as you're trying to make it
out as.
> And I don't agree with either side of that
> argument. It isn't a straw man.
It *is* a straw man: "You seem to think that in order to have a
general perception of overall superior quality a manufacturer needs to
have superiority of every model over every model of every competing
manufacturer."
That was not my argument, that was the straw man you set up to topple
over to 'win' the argument.
> > Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> > They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
>
> Whatever, That doesn't bother me.
Sure it does. You wouldn't be here arguing with me now if it didn't
bother you.
> So long as they are easy to use and
> run OS X. With the ability to run other OSs too now I can get rid of the
> PC box. Hardly ever use it now anyway. Since I got this iMac I haven't
> even switched it on once.
Okay, then just agree that Apple doesn't lead the industry, and
they're just another Wintel OEM, and we're done here.
Elizabot v2.0.3
> Also you stand out more than most so you make yourself prone to such
> things. I remember years ago there was a lot of stuff about you being a
> nutcase (elizabot et al), and it took a long time for that to blow over,
> but if you'd ignored it it would have gone a lot quicker.
Actually, he's been baiting me again recently. Earlier today, he flatly
ignored my requests as to why he's bringing that old stuff back up. He's
baited me possibly dozens of times in the last few months, but I've not
brought it to attention in this group.
Edwin
You should have read the lawsuit. Lots more than two people are
involved.
Dr. zara
"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:f2t30f$i3o$2...@aioe.org...
Did you miss the words "class action suit"?
nospamatall
> Fair enough... as I noted above, I give them far, far too many chances.
But you don't have to give them chances. It doesn't matter if they
continue to disagree with you, and you with them, regardless of who is
right. It gets to the point where it isn't worth pursuing. It's happened
many times, and you always end up with still no resolution. It's gone
beyond winning and losing. The only way to win is to stop. You have no
control over whether someone agrees with you or not, or admits to
something, but you can stop the argument really easily and there's
nothing anyone can do about that. It's beautiful! Your opponent might
believe he has 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn
anything anyway.
Andy
nospamatall
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2t36v$i3o$3...@aioe.org on
> 5/21/07 2:33 PM:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes from me he rejects
>>> it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't like the quote and
>>> attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here it is:
>>>
>>> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
>>> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
>> I was a bit mystified by that. Maybe there was some context missing. How
>> is someone who doesn't think the courts do not have a presumption of
>> innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how a bigot?
>
> I look forward to seeing Steve answer this.
>
>
the courts have a presumption of innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how
a bigot?"
Had too many negatives in there.
Elizabot v2.0.3
<big snip>
> It's beautiful! Your opponent might
> believe he has 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn
> anything anyway.
>
> Andy
I'm curious about something, Andy. How many years posting on USENET did
it take you to figure this out? Maybe just months or days? If someone
has been posting on USENET for nearly 15 years, do you think he should
already realize what you've written is true by now?
nospamatall
>>> Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
>>> They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.
>> Whatever, That doesn't bother me.
>
> Sure it does. You wouldn't be here arguing with me now if it didn't
> bother you.
Fine, I thought you were interested. I'll stop.
nospamatall
bothered reading the rest so I will stop commenting and wait for the
outcome.
Andy
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What you countered my view with obviously. I realize you don't read what I
writing prior to responding... but you really should read what you write.
> Do you agree with me or disagree with me
> that the presumption of innocence is not 100% and sometimes the accused is
> held against their will? You seem to, but you are also arguing *against*
> me... so please state, clearly, if you agree or disagree.
I clearly stated my view that answers this bogus question of yours. if you need
to, I suggest you get someone to explain it to you - no, that's not intended as
an insult... anyone that can read can plainly see it is an extremely appropriate
answer given what you are asking me as it's already been answered before you
asked the question
> >> and those of legal experts you snipped those comments in their entirety.
> >
> > I could get the "views" of other "legal experts" to point out how the error
> > that the "expert" (Colb) you brought forth holds a very dangerous set of
> > "views".
>
> If you have something to counter the views I expressed please do so! I
> would love to see you get on topic and not just spout off your personal
> insults.
>
> > Do you really believe that would convince you of anything... where the
> > basic logic of the situation failed to do so?
>
> At this point, Steve, I have no idea what point you are even supporting.
Of course not... you continually prove, over and over, that you are unable to
comprehend what you've read (as I show above... again).
Snit
If you have a point, Steve, feel free to share!
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
5/21/07 5:18 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Fair enough... as I noted above, I give them far, far too many chances.
>
> But you don't have to give them chances.
Correct. I do not have to but I do. Look at my recent debate with Tim
Adams, for example: he *clearly* misread a sentence and answered a "why"
question as if it were a "yes/no" question.
No big deal by itself, but in his responses he has made it clear he does not
understand the sentence he responded to - even when his mistake has been
pointed out.
I am curious, though, if he *really* is as ignorant as he is claiming or if
he has figured out his mistake but is just not willing to admit to it. I am
interested in psychology, even have a degree in it, and since in my day to
day life I simply do not associate with people who show such ignorance CSMA
is a pretty good way to "study" them - as long as one does not take such
studies too seriously.
> It doesn't matter if they continue to disagree with you, and you with them,
> regardless of who is right. It gets to the point where it isn't worth
> pursuing. It's happened many times, and you always end up with still no
> resolution.
Well, not publicly *agreed* on resolution... their actions often show they
know they are wrong even when they refuse to admit to it.
> It's gone beyond winning and losing. The only way to win is to stop. You have
> no control over whether someone agrees with you or not, or admits to
> something, but you can stop the argument really easily and there's nothing
> anyone can do about that. It's beautiful! Your opponent might believe he has
> 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn anything anyway.
For the most part I agree... here is the only disagreement: when I do ignore
them for a while they continue to lie about me and spew accusation about me
(in some cases in their *every* post). When new people come to CSMA they
see a number of people (Carroll, Adams, and Sandman, for example) all bad
mouthing me. If I do not offer some counter to their lies then people might
believe them. Then again, their lies get bigger and bigger and bigger...
and frankly I assume most people can see through their BS. Maybe I do not
have a disagreement with you after all. :)
nospamatall
Hehe, have you never learned the same thing over and over again, and
still carried on as if you hadn't?
In answer to your first question, maybe months. Each time... Second
question, I really don't know. Could be everyone knows this but doesn't
always act on it, same as me, or could be I'm wrong completely and there
really is an Objective Truth out there on such matters as a superior
platform.
How come you and Snit aren't embroiled in those long drawn-out battles
any more? I think that's pertinent.
Andy
Snit
5/21/07 7:29 PM:
> Elizabot v2.0.3 wrote:
>> nospamatall wrote:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>>> It's beautiful! Your opponent might
>>> believe he has 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn
>>> anything anyway.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> I'm curious about something, Andy. How many years posting on USENET did
>> it take you to figure this out? Maybe just months or days? If someone
>> has been posting on USENET for nearly 15 years, do you think he should
>> already realize what you've written is true by now?
>
> Hehe, have you never learned the same thing over and over again, and
> still carried on as if you hadn't?
It would be insane for me to *believe* that Steve and the others will act
better... but it is merely overly optimistic, perhaps, for me to *hope* they
will mature.
> In answer to your first question, maybe months. Each time... Second
> question, I really don't know. Could be everyone knows this but doesn't
> always act on it, same as me, or could be I'm wrong completely and there
> really is an Objective Truth out there on such matters as a superior
> platform.
With many of the debates we have there is one objective truth - for example
there is *no* doubt that if you have a sentence with a structure of:
Why, [non-essential phrase], did you X?
It is incorrect to respond to the question as though someone asked:
Did you X?
I use that example because it is a current debate Tim and I are having.
Look at the debate I am having with Steve - he is creating a false dichotomy
where he claims I either:
A) Accept truth comes only from trials
B) Rush to judgement
*Objectively* his dichotomy is a logical fallacy. Or one of my other
debates with him where he has made an accusation... one he claims is based
on an observation. Even if it were that would be irrelevant, but he uses
that to deny he is making an accusation. Objectively he is simply wrong.
> How come you and Snit aren't embroiled in those long drawn-out battles
> any more? I think that's pertinent.
I will not discuss that in public but I will if you email me.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
KDT
> That won't satisfy Maccie claims that Apple quality is higher. And
> Apple doesn't sell for the "same price." Apple's prices are always
> higher, and Maccies have always justified the higher price by claiming
> higher quality.
MacBook $1099
2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
80GB Hard Drive (5400rpm)
CD-RW/DVD-ROM
Gigabit Ethernet
802.11n
Bluetooth
Remote
1 year support
Dell Inspiron E1405 $1086
2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo (upgrade)
Vista Home Premium (upgrade)
WXGA (1280x800)
80GB Hard drive (5400 rpm)
24x CD-RW/DVD-ROM
Intel 950 integrated graphics
802.11n (upgrade)
Bluetooth (upgrade)
Remote (upgrade)
1 year support
The Macbook's price is a whole $13.00 higher than the Dell.
Macbook $1299
2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo
1GB RAM
120GB Hard Drive (5400rpm)
CD-RW/DVD-RW DL
Gigabit Ethernet
802.11n
Bluetooth
Remote
1 year support
13" LCD (1280x800)
Intel 950 Graphics
Dell XPS M1210 $1761
2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (upgrade)
Vista Home Premium (upgrade)
1GB Ram
CD-RW/DVD-RW DL (upgrade)
10/100 Ethernet
802.11n (upgrade)
Bluetooth (upgrade)
remote (upgrade)
webcam (upgade)
1 year support
12.1" LCD WXGA
Intel 950 graphics
The MacBook is $462 cheaper
As you were saying about the Mac "always" being more expensive.
>
> <The
>
> > OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
> > that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
> > manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
> > of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
>
> You created a straw man argument.
>
KDT
> Than any other PC maker.
I just posted an exact comparison between Dell and the comparable
MacBook. The Dell came out $13 cheaper than the 2.0GHz Macbook and
over $400 more expensive when comparing the 2.16Ghz Macbook to a Dell
with the same specs.
>
> > It's been shown that they
> > are not always higher than 'comparable' PCs.
>
> Such a thing has only ever been "shown" by juggling what is considered
> "comparable" to be whatever favored the Mac. The Mac was used as the
> baseline, and it was demanded that the PC include everything the Mac
> had, while anything the PC had that the Mac did not have was ignored.
I just did in a previous reply. I've done so plenty of times and
often the MacBook came out cheaper than the Dell. I added the
hardware to the Dell to match it up as closely as possible to the
MacBook and the Dell still had a slower NIC and was heavier.
>
> >That statement is just as
> > absolutist and vague as a claim that Macs are always better quality than
> > PCs. Which macs? Which PCs?
>
> The Mac only becomes a value for the money when compared against high-
> end workstations. It has never matched the price (or power) of mid-
> range to low end PCs.
Nope, the lowend MacBooks are also the same price or cheaper than the
equivalent Dell.
> Okay, then just agree that Apple doesn't lead the industry, and
> they're just another Wintel OEM, and we're done here.
So you can buy a Mac from Apple with Windows on it?
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes
> > from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't
> > like
> > the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here it
> > is:
> >
> > "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the
> > courts. We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them
> > as "bigots".
>
> I was a bit mystified by that. Maybe there was some context missing.
For you... probably, but I didn't write it to you. I did figure that Sandman
(who I wrote it to) was aware of the situation as he'd seen it often enough.
> How
> is someone who doesn't think the courts do not have a presumption of
> innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how a bigot?
Sigh... I wasn't going to go here with you. It's a bit more complicated than
addressing this crap. If you're interested... the bottom line is that Snit
passed judgement without considering all the pertinent facts on Bush and Iraq
when he stated that "Bush is guilty of breaking the law" regarding sending the
U.S. into Iraq. Plenty of facts were pointed out by numerous posters... only to
see Snit ignore them or deny them as facts. This is clearly a form of bigotry...
of the type that Michelle Ronn was talking about in Snit's case.
--
bigot
noun
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
--
What Snit should have stated is that he holds a *belief* Bush is guilty and then
offer his explanation as to why he holds such a belief. This differs from
stating that Bush is guilty while admitting your evidence offers no proof at
all... which is *exactly* what Snit did (see below).
In Michelle's discussion with Snit... Michelle reminded Snit of this:
"Let me quickly remind you that you stated that the presumption of
innocence was for the court, and not the individual. This statement is
incorrect, as presumption of innocence is a fundamental building block
of Western law and culture. This is a disturbing anti-social behavior
on your part".
I agree with Michelle here, most notably so regarding the cultural aspect that
Snit is busy trying to destroy. Snit said that Michelle was wrong about this.
From the same thread Michelle also explained to Snit's deaf ear the following
(as I had done many times):
"It is not Steves burden to prove Bush's innocence. It is your burden to
prove his guilt".
Snit obviously doesn't understand this concept. Because his argument lives
outside of a courtroom he figures that he has no burden to prove someone is
guilty as he simultaneously and unequivocally proclaims their guilt. This notion
is absurd and counter to all that is our culture. Regarding the evidence that
Snit used to proclaim Bush's guilt Snit has stated:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
As you can see, Snit freely admits that his evidence does not contain one single
true thing from which something else can necessarily follow from it. How can
Snit claim that an argument where he flatly states the evidence "does not offer
proof" (where Snit himself even defines what proof is) has evidence that
"strongly supports" the conclusion he has reached? Does this make sense to you?
How can the argument be supported *at all* when there is nothing he can point to
that is true so that something else necessarily follows from it?
(cue up more of Snit's bullshit arguments about "proof" and "math")
This very day I asked Snit:
"Does it really make sense to you to pass judgement on anyone prior to hearing
all the facts?"
Snit's reply:
"Well, unless you play silly games with the phrase "all the facts", then no,
you should not pass judgment without knowing what the facts are about the
event you are judging".
What "facts" did Snit use if his evidence "does not offer proof" as he has
defined it?
I don't know if you are just another one of Snit's many sock puppets or shills
but I'll get a pretty good indication by how you answer that question.
Elizabot v2.0.3
> Elizabot v2.0.3 wrote:
>> nospamatall wrote:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>>> It's beautiful! Your opponent might
>>> believe he has 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn
>>> anything anyway.
>>>
>>> Andy
>> I'm curious about something, Andy. How many years posting on USENET did
>> it take you to figure this out? Maybe just months or days? If someone
>> has been posting on USENET for nearly 15 years, do you think he should
>> already realize what you've written is true by now?
>
> Hehe, have you never learned the same thing over and over again, and
> still carried on as if you hadn't?
Not sure if I have. It might not appear that way to others though.
> In answer to your first question, maybe months. Each time... Second
> question, I really don't know. Could be everyone knows this but doesn't
> always act on it, same as me, or could be I'm wrong completely and there
> really is an Objective Truth out there on such matters as a superior
> platform.
Perhaps it is a question of whether the needs of the one outweigh the
needs of the many? Or was that the other way around?
> How come you and Snit aren't embroiled in those long drawn-out battles
> any more? I think that's pertinent.
My answer is anecdotal. There is no way for me to "prove" it, as the
emails no longer exist on any server, but it has nothing to do with
anything like court orders that I'm aware of. I'd like to answer this.
But answer me something first. Do you see these posts as "baiting"?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5550bdcff9ea5eca?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0bc319b648ad0aa3?hl=en&
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I made my point, Snit;)
New Bee
I went here http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_inspn_e1405?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
and compared that to the MacBook. Both were $1,099.
> The Macbook's price is a whole $13.00 higher than the Dell.
You're wrong. The $1099 Dell has 2 GB of RAM.
Add $175 to the Mac.
The Dell has two year in home service.
Add $249 to the Mac.
The Dell has a 120 GB HD.
Add $75 to the Mac.
The Dell comes with a Dell All-In-One Printer 926.
Add $99 to the Mac.
That's $1099 for the Dell compared to $1697 for the Mac.
You're wrong again. The price here is $1199 for the Dell, $100
cheaper than the Mac.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m1210?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn
> As you were saying about the Mac "always" being more expensive.
You'll have to try harder to prove that's wrong.
>
>
> > <The
>
> > > OS makes enough of a difference to make the choice. You seem to think
> > > that in order to have a general perception of overall superior quality a
> > > manufacturer needs to have superiority of every model over every model
> > > of every competing manufacturer. This is obviously false.
>
> > You created a straw man argument.
>
> > Apple does not lead the industry, in either quality or innovation.
> > They're nothing but another Wintel OEM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f2tkhm$68m$1...@aioe.org on
> 5/21/07 7:29 PM:
>
> > Elizabot v2.0.3 wrote:
> >> nospamatall wrote:
> >>
> >> <big snip>
> >>
> >>> It's beautiful! Your opponent might
> >>> believe he has 'won' but what does that matter, he wasn't going to learn
> >>> anything anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>
> >> I'm curious about something, Andy. How many years posting on USENET did
> >> it take you to figure this out? Maybe just months or days? If someone
> >> has been posting on USENET for nearly 15 years, do you think he should
> >> already realize what you've written is true by now?
> >
> > Hehe, have you never learned the same thing over and over again, and
> > still carried on as if you hadn't?
>
> It would be insane for me to *believe* that Steve and the others will act
> better... but it is merely overly optimistic, perhaps, for me to *hope* they
> will mature.
Pretty interesting commentary coming from a guy for whom the CSMA moderator has
shown virtually every poster to come through here has called you a liar, troll
or worse. LOL!
(snip crap)
> > How come you and Snit aren't embroiled in those long drawn-out battles
> > any more? I think that's pertinent.
>
> I will not discuss that in public but I will if you email me.
Of course;)
Snit
> In article <f2t36v$i3o$3...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes
>>> from me he rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't
>>> like the quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here
>>> it is:
>>>
>>> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts. We
>>> have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as "bigots".
>>>
>> I was a bit mystified by that. Maybe there was some context missing.
>>
> For you... probably, but I didn't write it to you. I did figure that Sandman
> (who I wrote it to) was aware of the situation as he'd seen it often enough.
>
>> How is someone who doesn't think the courts do not have a presumption of
>> innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how a bigot?
>
> Sigh... I wasn't going to go here with you. It's a bit more complicated than
> addressing this crap. If you're interested... the bottom line is that Snit
> passed judgement without considering all the pertinent facts on Bush and Iraq
> when he stated that "Bush is guilty of breaking the law" regarding sending the
> U.S. into Iraq.
Iraq? Bush? They have *nothing* to do with this conversation. Nothing.
If you need to bring Bush and Iraq into the conversation to explain your
comments in *this* discussion, Steve, then it is clear your above comments
are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
So, Steve, without bringing up past topics that have been beaten to death,
do you have an explanation for your above accusation of bigotry as it
applies to *this* conversation?
OK, Steve, you just spend about 500 words trying to build an argument
against me - one that has *nothing* to do with the current discussion. My
refutation, easy:
One can have proof beyond a reasonable doubt without
having absolute proof.
Kinda funny how easy it is to shoot down your off topic BS, eh? Also funny
how you felt the need to run to that flawed argument of yours to try to
defend your actions in *this* discussion.
> I don't know if you are just another one of Snit's many sock puppets or shills
> but I'll get a pretty good indication by how you answer that question.
Do you *really* think that if people do not buy into your bizarre
hate-filled world view then they *must* be my sock puppet or shill?
Do you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred? LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-B8BFEF....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 12:18 PM:
>
> > In article <C2772B6A.81DA5%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-EEA908....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 10:08 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <mr-FF1F11.08...@apc.aptilo.com>, Sandman
> >>> <m...@sandman.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <C275D00E.81C5E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know... but I'm going to clear something up here... as usual on
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> particular topic, Snit's knowledge is found wanting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: Steve tries to start a debate by insulting others...
> >>>>
> >>>> Is Steve starting a debate here, where he is bringing up an old issue
> >>>> of yours in a new thread?
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't bring the issue up, I merely addressed Snit's error regarding it.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> > You are incorrect... I did not bring this issue up.
>
> You did not bring up the current issue... but you did try to tie the current
> issue with your old issues.
I don't have an "old issue". The issue here is yours... you were wrong, I just
pointed it out. To a poster, you wrote:
"Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
*presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt by the legal system"
This is *clearly* incorrect... which is why I wrote the following to the poster:
"Realistically, the presumption of innocence by the "legal system" is only
theoretical in nature in a criminal trial (note that this case is not a criminal
case). This is evidenced by the fact that there are people who are detained out
of a concern that they won't show for trial; if such people were truly
*presumed* innocent by the "obligation" Snit claims the "legal system" has to
make such a presumption, they could not rightfully be held against their will,
yet they are held".
You spun a bunch of BS from there... the way you usually do when proven wrong.
Snit
Your above comments seem to indicate that you agree with me that the
presumption of innocence is not 100%? Good (even if you have to troll me as
you say it, it is good to see we are in agreement).
My question for you is do you also agree with me that it is OK for people to
look at the facts of an event and determine for themselves if someone has
broken the law - even outside of a court of law? If I understand you
correctly you do not: you believe that people either accept what the
judicial system decides *or* they are must be rushing to judgment. If that
is *not* a correct statement of your views please clarify them... if it is
(as it seems) please be aware that not everyone shares your worship of the
judicial system.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Your need to control everything is noted... but I regret to inform you that this
particular conversation is taking place between Andy and myself. He asked me a
question. If you really must know... I'm assuming he'll be able to read between
the lines far better than you'll ever hope to. The quote that Andy asked me
about was taken from a thread where you were discussing the presumption of
innocence, as such, it ties into this conversation and "strongly supports" my
argument regarding your error on the topic that *you* brought into this thread
(the presumption of innocence).
> Nothing.
> If you need to bring Bush and Iraq into the conversation to explain your
> comments in *this* discussion, Steve, then it is clear your above comments
> are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
It won't work, Snit... what is clear to you often has nothing to do with reality.
> So, Steve, without bringing up past topics that have been beaten to death,
> do you have an explanation for your above accusation of bigotry as it
> applies to *this* conversation?
Of course... you have a prejudicial idea that is erroneous as it pertains to the
presumption of innocence. You have been completely intolerant of ideas that were
expressed by others on this issue and I noted but one example of it that
involved Michelle Ronn, yet another person who pointed out another one of your
errors regarding the presumption of innocence... you know... the topic that
*you* brought into this thread. Tell me, will I need to continually remind you
of that all the way through the beating reality is going to give you?
That's your take... and I don't personally put any stock into it. My argument is
not only relevant to the topic you brought into this thread with your
accompanying error, it is also 'strongly supported' by my evidence.
> My
> refutation, easy:
>
> One can have proof beyond a reasonable doubt without
> having absolute proof.
>
> Kinda funny how easy it is to shoot down your off topic BS, eh?
I fail to see the relevance as you have clearly stated you had *no* proof.
"It does not offer proof".
How can NO proof be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? Never mind... I'm sure I
don't want to hear your answer on that. I don't get it... why are you arguing
about something you feel isn't relevant? Can you not stop yourself... even when
the argument is irrelevant to you?
> Also funny
> how you felt the need to run to that flawed argument of yours to try to
> defend your actions in *this* discussion.
The only "flawed argument" here is your "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
argument... that one for which you are NOW trying to claim the evidence proved
something "beyond a reasonable doubt" while not actually having ANY proof
whatsoever. I would only expect to see this kind of crap coming from you.
> > I don't know if you are just another one of Snit's many sock puppets or
> > shills
> > but I'll get a pretty good indication by how you answer that question.
>
> Do you *really* think that if people do not buy into your bizarre
> hate-filled world view then they *must* be my sock puppet or shill?
See, that's the point here, Snit... I *really* think that if a person reads what
you just wrote they'll see where you error is *immediately*. If they can't spot
it with a little bit of help... there's a *really* good chance that the person
is a troll or one of your puppets/shills. Yes, I believe it's that cut and
dried. We know what you have to say... we'll see what Andy has to say... after
all... he did ask me about something I had written to Sandman.
> Do you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred? LOL!
I'm aware that having me "hate" you is a plus for what you need to tell
yourself. Hatred has nothing to do with anything... which is why you keep
bringing it up.
Snit
> In article <C277BFBD.81E47%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-7E741B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/21/07 8:42 PM:
>>
>>> In article <f2t36v$i3o$3...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> I even provided him a quote by another person (if it comes from me he
>>>>> rejects it outright) that explained why... of course, he didn't like the
>>>>> quote and attacked the knowledge of the poster who wrote it. Here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Our culture is what declares a presumption of innocence. Not the courts.
>>>>> We have a word for people who think otherwise, we refer to them as
>>>>> "bigots".
>>>>>
>>>> I was a bit mystified by that. Maybe there was some context missing.
>>>>
>>> For you... probably, but I didn't write it to you. I did figure that Sandman
>>> (who I wrote it to) was aware of the situation as he'd seen it often enough.
>>>
>>>> How is someone who doesn't think the courts do not have a presumption of
>>>> innocnce a bigot? Wrong, maybe, but how a bigot?
>>>>
>>> Sigh... I wasn't going to go here with you. It's a bit more complicated than
>>> addressing this crap. If you're interested... the bottom line is that Snit
>>> passed judgement without considering all the pertinent facts on Bush and
>>> Iraq when he stated that "Bush is guilty of breaking the law" regarding
>>> sending the U.S. into Iraq.
>>
>> Iraq? Bush? They have *nothing* to do with this conversation.
>
> Your need to control everything is noted...
I noted that your comments were completely off the topic of this discussion.
How horrid of me to try to keep you focused! Worse yet, I pointed out how
your previous comments about bigotry were clearly not on topic for this
discussion. Man, egg on my face there... what was I thinking?
:)
> but I regret to inform you that this particular conversation is taking place
> between Andy and myself.
Oh my! I responded to your publicly posted message in a public forum. The
utter insensitivity I show!
[psst, Steve, if you cannot tell I am mocking your silly excuses]
> He asked me a question. If you really must know... I'm assuming he'll be able
> to read between the lines far better than you'll ever hope to. The quote that
> Andy asked me about was taken from a thread where you were discussing the
> presumption of innocence, as such, it ties into this conversation and
> "strongly supports" my argument regarding your error on the topic that *you*
> brought into this thread (the presumption of innocence).
Oh, *that* explains why you posted the silly comments about bigotry.... LOL!
>> Nothing. If you need to bring Bush and Iraq into the conversation to explain
>> your comments in *this* discussion, Steve, then it is clear your above
>> comments are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> It won't work, Snit... what is clear to you often has nothing to do with
> reality.
Well, Steve has said it... it *must* be true, eh?
[Yes, Steve, I am *still* mocking you]
>> So, Steve, without bringing up past topics that have been beaten to death,
>> do you have an explanation for your above accusation of bigotry as it
>> applies to *this* conversation?
>
> Of course... you have a prejudicial idea that is erroneous as it pertains to
> the presumption of innocence.
Oh, Steve, and what is this idea of "mine"? Be as specific as you can...
and then try to show how it pertains to my comments in *this* discussion.
> You have been completely intolerant of ideas that were expressed by others on
> this issue and I noted but one example of it that involved Michelle Ronn, yet
> another person who pointed out another one of your errors regarding the
> presumption of innocence... you know... the topic that *you* brought into this
> thread. Tell me, will I need to continually remind you of that all the way
> through the beating reality is going to give you?
Ah, *I* brought the idea of presumption is innocence into this thread so you
feel the need to talk about Bush, Iraq, Michelle Ronn, and bigotry. Makes
complete sense, Steve... LOL!
<snip />
>>
>> OK, Steve, you just spend about 500 words trying to build an argument
>> against me - one that has *nothing* to do with the current discussion.
>
> That's your take... and I don't personally put any stock into it. My argument
> is not only relevant to the topic you brought into this thread with your
> accompanying error, it is also 'strongly supported' by my evidence.
Yeah, this thread was just screaming its need for comments about Bush, Iraq,
Michelle Ronn and your semantic games. It was inevitable someone would go
there, you just got their first... :)
[Yes, Steve, I am *still* mocking you]
>> My refutation, easy:
>>
>> One can have proof beyond a reasonable doubt without
>> having absolute proof.
>>
>> Kinda funny how easy it is to shoot down your off topic BS, eh?
>
> I fail to see the relevance as you have clearly stated you had *no* proof.
>
> "It does not offer proof".
>
> How can NO proof be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? Never mind... I'm sure
> I don't want to hear your answer on that. I don't get it... why are you
> arguing about something you feel isn't relevant? Can you not stop yourself...
> even when the argument is irrelevant to you?
OK, Steve, you *can* play idiotic semantic games. Do you have an actual
point to make though?
>> Also funny how you felt the need to run to that flawed argument of yours to
>> try to defend your actions in *this* discussion.
>
> The only "flawed argument" here is your "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
> argument... that one for which you are NOW trying to claim the evidence proved
> something "beyond a reasonable doubt" while not actually having ANY proof
> whatsoever. I would only expect to see this kind of crap coming from you.
Hey! You already used that game in this very post! No fair!
>>> I don't know if you are just another one of Snit's many sock puppets or
>>> shills but I'll get a pretty good indication by how you answer that
>>> question.
>>
>> Do you *really* think that if people do not buy into your bizarre
>> hate-filled world view then they *must* be my sock puppet or shill?
>
> See, that's the point here, Snit... I *really* think that if a person reads
> what you just wrote they'll see where you error is *immediately*. If they
> can't spot it with a little bit of help... there's a *really* good chance that
> the person is a troll or one of your puppets/shills. Yes, I believe it's that
> cut and dried. We know what you have to say... we'll see what Andy has to
> say... after all... he did ask me about something I had written to Sandman.
Your defense is, well, funny.
>> Do you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred? LOL!
>
> I'm aware that having me "hate" you is a plus for what you need to tell
> yourself. Hatred has nothing to do with anything... which is why you keep
> bringing it up.
You did not answer the question: Do you *still* deny you are consumed by
your hatred?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
KDT
>
> and compared that to the MacBook. Both were $1,099.
>
> > The Macbook's price is a whole $13.00 higher than the Dell.
>
> You're wrong. The $1099 Dell has 2 GB of RAM.
"Continue" takes you here.....
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_xpsnb_m1210?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
It clearly shows the $1099 XPS1210 has the following specs
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.83GHz
Vista Home Premium
1GB Ram
24x Combo drive
Intel 950 graphics
The base MacBook for $1099 has the following specs
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
1GB Ram
24x Combo drive
Intel 950 graphics
802.11n adapter (as opposed to 802.11g)
Gigabit Ethernet (as opposed to 100Mbps
>
> Add $175 to the Mac.
>
> The Dell has two year in home service.
Not the base model
>
> Add $249 to the Mac.
>
> The Dell has a 120 GB HD.
>
Not the base model
> Add $75 to the Mac.
>
> The Dell comes with a Dell All-In-One Printer 926.
>
> Add $99 to the Mac.
Not the base model.
>
> That's $1099 for the Dell compared to $1697 for the Mac.
Well actually you're referring to the "Mobile Media Guru" which is
$1758...not $1099
You still have to add
+$75.00 for the 2.00Ghz upgrade
+49,00 for the 802.11n upgrade
+20.00 Bluetooth
-70 for the tuner and just the remote
Now you're at $1832.
The comparable MacBook is $1299
+$175 1GB RAM upgrade
+$249 three year support
Now you're at $1723
But let's now upgrade the Dell to add 3 year support and a 2.16Ghz
processor and at least get close to the 120GB hard drive that the
MacBook has...
+Chose three year support
+chose the 160GB hard drive
Now you're at $2250. Thank you for playing.
> http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsnb_m1210?...
>
Are you unable to read? I upgraded the Dell to match the specs of the
MacBook *exactly* did you do the same? Your own url doesn't show what
you said.
> > As you were saying about the Mac "always" being more expensive.
>
> You'll have to try harder to prove that's wrong.
Actually you just need to read your own links....
The link you posted doesn't show the specs...You have to click on
continue and go here
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_xpsnb_m1210?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
The $1199 "Performance Mobility" does not have the specs you are
referring to. The "Mobile Media Guru" is $1758 and is the only one on
that page that comes standard with those specs.
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > I rather not discuss anything with you when you're in this mood.
>
> IOW, you can't take what you dish out.
I've done nothing but been polite to you for the last weeks. I even
defended you recently.
I don't "dish out" insults as replies to normal posts.
>> If you ever get back to the mood you were in when you wrote this:
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b8c3aab82b3f8
> > 0b4>
>
> That is irrelevant to the current discussion.
That discussion is irrelevant, of course. But I liked your mod in the
post. I would like to be notified when you're back in the same mood.
> > Then let me know.
>
> Done.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I've already covered this. You responded to the post I wrote to Andy, why didn't
you read it? I stated what I felt you *should* have limited your action to:
"What Snit should have stated is that he holds a *belief* Bush is guilty and
then offer his explanation as to why he holds such a belief. This differs from
stating that Bush is guilty while admitting your evidence offers no proof at
all... which is *exactly* what Snit did (see below)".
And, once again, the part I reference by telling Andy to "(see below)" reads:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof." - Snit
You obviously didn't "look at the facts" that showed one single thing was proven
true so as to have something else follow from it. The "event" you looked at
while reaching your "determination" was devoid of any "facts" that offered *any*
proof at all.
> you believe that people either accept what the
> judicial system decides *or* they are must be rushing to judgment.
Wrong. You clearly rushed to judgement if you can find someone guilty when you
flatly admit there is NO proof for doing so. There is nothing complicated about
this, Snit... and none of your game playing will change a thing.
> If that is *not* a correct statement of your views please clarify them...
My views have been clarified over and over many times. You are not interested in
the reality that beats the living hell outta you. I know it... you know it...
and anyone who has ever watched this reality kick your ass knows it.
>if it is
> (as it seems) please be aware that not everyone shares your worship of the
> judicial system.
Projecting your trait onto me... a weak troll on your part.
Alan Baker
New Bee <New.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 12:44 am, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> stated in post
> > alangbaker-525858.22385518052...@news.telus.net on 5/18/07 10:38 PM:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <colalovesmacs-333673.20415618052...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> > > Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> PC Guy <p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> So much for better quality products:
> >
> > >>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=416
> >
> > >> no doubt about it, apple fucked up.
> >
> > > There is considerable doubt.
> >
> > > If there were no doubt, there'd be no need for a lawsuit or atrial...
> >
> > Not true: even if there is *no* reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of
> > committing a crime there is still an obligation for the legal system to
> > *presume* innocence until the accused has been proved guilty beyond a
> > reasonable doubt by the legal system - in other words, there is still the
> > need for due process / adjudication.
>
> Why doesn't Alan answer any of us?
Because Alan's been out of town playing golf. :-D
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."