10.5.8 Released - Excellent
John
Chance Furlong
John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
You know that would be boring to the resident Wintrolls.
MuahMan
> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
Same old story with me too. Installed on 3 machines. All essentially
brand new. It crashed them all and fucked up the Plist. Apple doesn't
even test their shit weekly patches.
ZnU
<1fdd6bed-8b60-4c61...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
"fucked up the Plist" tends to imply that you think OS X has something
called "the Plist" which is the equivalent of the Windows registry.
This is, like most of what you say, wrong.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
David
> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
Any problem with iCal?
I am finding that versions after 3.0 are trouble prone.
I just installed v3.0 with 10.5.7 and all was well - no hassles. But
when I updated to 10.5.8 iCal wouldn't display any of my tasks or
appointments etc, and refused to shut down. Had to force quit to stop
it.
So, I reinstalled v3.0 and all is well again
I dont know why or where the problem is, but since iCAL v3.0 works fine
I will stick to that
David
Tommy Troll
You must not do anything other than boot up and play with Finder.
Steve Carroll
"the Plist"?
LOL!
Steve Hix
David <post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
iCal 3.0.8 works and quits normally here under 10.5.8 (MBP, 2.4GHz,
4GB), so it's at least not a universal issue.
Snit
8/6/09 10:39 AM:
I use iCal pretty much daily - and, using BusySync, I have it sync directly
across my home computers (yes, I know, I could have it go through the web
solutions... but this more direct and does not publish my calendars). Works
great. There are some quirks to the program, as there are with almost any.
what issues are you having?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tommy Troll
Ah yes, Apple integration at its best.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Hix stated in post sehix-0CF868.10395806082...@news.speakeasy.net on
> 8/6/09 10:39 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <postings-FAEAF6.14263006082...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > David <posti...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <x5ednZht0ozYt-fXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdn...@giganews.com>,
> >> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
>
> >> Any problem with iCal?
>
> >> I am finding that versions after 3.0 are trouble prone.
>
> >> I just installed v3.0 with 10.5.7 and all was well - no hassles. But
> >> when I updated to 10.5.8 iCal wouldn't display any of my tasks or
> >> appointments etc, and refused to shut down. Had to force quit to stop
> >> it.
>
> >> So, I reinstalled v3.0 and all is well again
>
> >> I dont know why or where the problem is, but since iCAL v3.0 works fine
> >> I will stick to that
>
> > iCal 3.0.8 works and quits normally here under 10.5.8 (MBP, 2.4GHz,
> > 4GB), so it's at least not a universal issue.
>
> I use iCal pretty much daily - and, using BusySync, I have it sync directly
> across my home computers (yes, I know, I could have it go through the web
> solutions... but this more direct and does not publish my calendars). Works
> great. There are some quirks to the program, as there are with almost any.
> what issues are you having?
Issues? Steve Hix (the person you replied to) "very, very clearly"
said it "works" for him:
"Cal 3.0.8 works and quits normally here..."
Maybe it's time to back off the meds... again.
MuahMan
For those that don't know what Plist is.
Almost done formatting my third Mac after Apples latest P.o.S untested
crapware.
Snit
f3df9db1-610e-4e74...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 8/6/09
12:11 PM:
Good to see you did some research so you can understand why your claim that
an OS installation messed up "the Plist" is a very silly claim to make in
the absence of saying *what* plist. It would be like saying a Windows
update messed up "the INI" or maybe "the XML".
So now that you have done some research, can you say what plist file you
were claiming was messed up? Should be interesting to see if you can even
come up with an answer that is not absurd. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Lloyd Parsons
<f3df9db1-610e-4e74...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
In a word, bullshit! You've done nothing of the kind.
And there isn't one plist, nor is there one called just 'plist'
There are many plists for many different things. Trashing one of them
doesn't trash the system
Fa-groon
(in article
<e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
And you must not power-up your Windows machine AT ALL.
Nigel Ratburn
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_list
>
> For those that don't know what plist is.
>
> Almost done formatting my third Mac after Apple's latest piece of shit untested
> crapware.
I corrected your grammar.
Alan Baker
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_list
>
> For those that don't know what Plist is.
"the plist" was what you said, Pratt-fall.
^^^
That's what made it so funny.
>
> Almost done formatting my third Mac after Apples latest P.o.S untested
> crapware.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Snit
alangbaker-F3146...@news.shawcable.com on 8/6/09 4:09 PM:
> In article
> <f3df9db1-610e-4e74...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_list
>>
>> For those that don't know what Plist is.
>
> "the plist" was what you said, Pratt-fall.
> ^^^
>
> That's what made it so funny.
He has yet to say *what* plist file. There are *many* on even a default
install of OS X.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Murray
> On Aug 5, 8:56ï¿œpm, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Same old story. ï¿œThree machines, ZERO problems.
>
> Same old story with me too. Installed on 3 machines. All essentially
> brand new. It crashed them all and fucked up the Plist. Apple doesn't
> even test their shit weekly patches.
The more you say, the more clear it is you're lying.
Steve Hix
Tim Murray <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 23:08:07 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 8:56�pm, John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Same old story. �Three machines, ZERO problems.
> >
> > Same old story with me too. Installed on 3 machines. All essentially
> > brand new. It crashed them all and fucked up the Plist. Apple doesn't
> > even test their shit weekly patches.
>
> The more you say, the more clear it is you're lying.
The funniest part of it all is that he clearly doesn't even understand
how anyone could tell.
John
"Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I run many professional applications like Photoshop CS4, Final Cut Pro 7,
and Logic Studio. Outstanding performance with heavy duty applications.
Snit
5:58 PM:
Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
John
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C6A248D7.40435%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
Snit
9:27 PM:
Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to be
fair he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know... so
maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of professional and amateur programs...
though even for him that just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or
just insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
"He knows nobody believes him, but he just cannot let it go."-Snit
Irony thy name is Snit! LOL
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
> >> applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
> >
> >
> > That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
> >
> Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners.
I see you are back to lying about me again, proving that you have no
wish to "let the past go" and are eager to bring up things from the
past, further illustrating that you're a troll and a far cry from
being "honest" and "honorable".
Not that it was you - not I - that brought this up in an unrelated
thread. I didn't have an urge to "lash out" against you as you call
it. I didn't have an urge to bring up old topics. It's all you. 100%.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
"fucked up the Plist"? Haha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/8/09 1:23 AM:
The topic of the CS4 suite being for professionals was brought up by John...
not me. I merely noted *someone* disagreed. I did not even say who until
John guessed incorrectly.
But I can see where you would not want me to bring up your view on this... I
do not blame you for being embarrassed about your claim - it is a rather
silly one. OK, let's let it go...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> John stated in post k8ednbnyX9c5Y-HXnZ2dnUVZ_sedn...@giganews.com on 8/7/09
> 9:27 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C6A248D7.40435%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> 8/7/09
> >> 5:58 PM:
>
> >>> "Tommy Troll" <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >>>>> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
>
> >>>>> You know that would be boring to the resident Wintrolls.
>
> >>>> You must not do anything other than boot up and play with Finder.
>
> >>> I run many professional applications like Photoshop CS4, Final Cut Pro 7,
> >>> and Logic Studio. Outstanding performance with heavy duty applications.
>
> >> Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
> >> applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
>
> > That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
>
> Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners.
Point to him 'insisting' this.
> Well, to be fair he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know...
You admit this, yet, you just said the following things... neither of
which can be true if you aren't lying directly above:
"Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of
"professional
applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs." -
Snit
"Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners" - Snit
So which statements are your lies, Snit?
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-45E3CB.10233608082...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/8/09 1:23 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C6A24DA9.40445%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
> >>>> applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
>
> >>> That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
>
> >> Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners.
>
> > I see you are back to lying about me again, proving that you have no
> > wish to "let the past go" and are eager to bring up things from the
> > past, further illustrating that you're a troll and a far cry from
> > being "honest" and "honorable".
>
> > Not that it was you - not I - that brought this up in an unrelated
> > thread. I didn't have an urge to "lash out" against you as you call
> > it. I didn't have an urge to bring up old topics. It's all you. 100%.
>
> The topic of the CS4 suite being for professionals was brought up by John...
Yup... and you lied, as is your way, when you you falsely claimed:
"Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners" - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> The topic of the CS4 suite being for professionals was brought up by John...
> not me. I merely noted *someone* disagreed. I did not even say who until
> John guessed incorrectly.
The amazing thing is that ... If John were asked to it's my bet that he
could supply far more support for his view than you could for yours Snit!
And yet you claim that his opinion is incorrect? LOL
> But I can see where you would not want me to bring up your view on this...
There is little risk of you bringing up Sandman's *actual* view on this Snit
when you can simply attribute whatever you like to him!
> I do not blame you for being embarrassed about your claim -
Attributed claim Snit!...
"Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners."-Snit
*note.... "CS4 suite"!
"he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know"-Snit
*note.... "one application from the suite as far as I know"!
So again Snit's own word proves that he lied! .... Surprised?
> it is a rather silly one.
For one of your made up attributed claims it is about par for the course
Snit!
> OK, let's let it go...
LOL!
Steve Carroll
> On 8/8/09 9:45 PM, in article C6A2CF76.404D8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > The topic of the CS4 suite being for professionals was brought up by John...
> > not me. I merely noted *someone* disagreed. I did not even say who until
> > John guessed incorrectly.
>
> The amazing thing is that ... If John were asked to it's my bet that he
> could supply far more support for his view than you could for yours Snit!
>
> And yet you claim that his opinion is incorrect? LOL
>
> > But I can see where you would not want me to bring up your view on this...
>
> There is little risk of you bringing up Sandman's *actual* view on this Snit
> when you can simply attribute whatever you like to him!
>
> > I do not blame you for being embarrassed about your claim -
>
> Attributed claim Snit!...
>
> "Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners."-Snit
>
> *note.... "CS4 suite"!
>
> "he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know"-Snit
>
> *note.... "one application from the suite as far as I know"!
Also notable here is Snit's use of the term:
"the suite"
Hmmm... I wonder what specific CS4 suite Snit's claiming for his false
statement about Sandman.
My prediction: Snit is lacing up his track shoes right now;)
> So again Snit's own word proves that he lied! .... Surprised?
>
> > it is a rather silly one.
>
> For one of your made up attributed claims it is about par for the course
> Snit!
>
> > OK, let's let it go...
>
> LOL!
I've said it before... you can't buy this kind of comedy;)
Snit
9:31 PM:
As of now: no less than five posts from the completely predictable trolls
who *everyone* knew would jump in to try to defend Sandman on this... the
funny thing is Sandman had already jumped in. The trolls who try to defend
him do not think he can speak for himself. I shall not bite and respond to
the trolls other than in this post. They simply are not going to be honest
or honorable... they will just lie to try to obfuscate the facts.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Snit stated in post C6A24DA9.40445%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 8/7/09
> 9:31 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 9:27 PM:
>
> >> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >>news:C6A248D7.40435%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >>> 8/7/09
> >>> 5:58 PM:
>
> >>>> "Tommy Troll" <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >>>>>> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
>
> >>>>>> You know that would be boring to the resident Wintrolls.
>
> >>>>> You must not do anything other than boot up and play with Finder.
>
> >>>> I run many professional applications like Photoshop CS4, Final Cut Pro 7,
> >>>> and Logic Studio. Outstanding performance with heavy duty applications.
>
> >>> Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
> >>> applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
>
> >> That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
>
> > Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to be
> > fair he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know... so
> > maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of professional and amateur programs...
> > though even for him that just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or
> > just insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
>
> > That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
>
> As of now:
Snit has lied about what someone said... as "*everyone* knew" he
would.
"Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners."-Snit
Even though I'm 99.999% sure Snit is lying I'll do the honest and
honorable thing and let Snit have a chance at proving what he has
claimed...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snit's proof that "Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for
beginners" goes here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My prediction: Snit will run in 3... 2... 1...
LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Translation:
A number of people have noted Snit's attempt to falsely attribute a
statement to Sandman!
> the funny thing is Sandman had already jumped in.
Snit finds it funny that Sandman was the first to deny Snit's false claims?
> The trolls who try to defend him do not think he can speak for himself.
HUH? If Sandman had "already jumped in" then it would be obvious to all
concerned (except Snit apparently) that Sandman *can* speak for himself!
What Snit fails to realize is that his lies always leave plenty of scope for
anyone and everyone to comment on depending on their particular point of
view!
> I shall not bite and respond to the trolls other than in this post.
Like it was ok that Adam only had *one* bite of the apple? LOL
> They simply are not going to be honest
> or honorable... they will just lie to try to obfuscate the facts.
Snit makes a series of contradictory claims as shown by a number of
different people, and yet in Snit's diseased mind it is they who are
obfuscating the facts? ROTFL!
Sermo Malifer
> Snit stated in post C6A24DA9.40445%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 8/7/09
> 9:31 PM:
>
> > John stated in post k8ednbnyX9c5Y-HX...@giganews.com on 8/7/09
> > 9:27 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >> news:C6A248D7.40435%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >>> John stated in post MrydnTg3NoRPUOHX...@giganews.com on
> >>> 8/7/09
> >>> 5:58 PM:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <x5ednZht0ozYt-fX...@giganews.com>,
> >>>>>> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> As of now: no less than five posts from the completely predictable trolls
> who *everyone* knew would jump in to try to defend Sandman on this... the
> funny thing is Sandman had already jumped in. The trolls who try to defend
> him do not think he can speak for himself. I shall not bite and respond to
> the trolls other than in this post. They simply are not going to be honest
> or honorable... they will just lie to try to obfuscate the facts.
At least Sandman doesn't have to resort to sock puppets to have somebody
on his side.
Do you have any idea how paranoid you make yourself appear? I doubt
it.
Sermo Malifer
Comedy? Is that what you call it? I call it a waste of time and
life. For both you and Snit.
Why don't you guys get pet dogs, or take up bicycling, or go watch a
baseball game? Anything but posting and reading this insanity on
Usenet. Even collecting bottle caps would be more worthwhile!
Sermo Malifer
Okay, you really nailed Snit yet again, Wally. Paste another gold star
on your calendar.
When all is said and done, did you do anything but feed Snit's unhealthy
need for attention? You don't really think he's devastated when you
catch him in lies do you? You must realize he'll respond with a
blizzard of new lies and laugh as you work to rebut them all.
These unending Snit circuses aren't enhancing the reputation of Mac
users, I must say. Perhaps the originator and participants of them
ought to consider what they're doing to the computer they're supposed to
be here to advocate.
Sermo Malifer
Since it is so readily apparent that Snit does have mental problems, why
do you persist in arguing with him? Would you go down to an asylum to
have shouting matches with the inmates in the padded cells?
What do your victories over Snit earn you that make them worth the time
it took to achieve them? I would hope you have more worthwhile ways to
spend the precious short time we mortals have alloted to us.
Steve Carroll
Of course Snit's actions are comical. It must suck to still not have a
sense of humor, Edwin.
(snip 'advice' about life by Edwin;)
Snit
on 8/9/09 6:49 AM:
True... I have never known him to act like his friends in that regard. I do
not have "friends" such as Edward Stanfield and Petruzzellis Kids jumping in
to "defend" me.
> Do you have any idea how paranoid you make yourself appear? I doubt
> it.
Gee: I can predict that when Sandman - or anyone - trolls me, Steve Carroll
will jump in to claim they are right and I am not. Steve is completely
consumed by his hatred... over an incident that so humiliates him he will
not even acknowledge its existence! This is just a fact. And, sadly, Steve
has managed to get a couple of people with clear mental deficiencies to join
him in his trolling: one who calls utter gibberish "coherent and well
ordered" and insists {} and {0} mean the same thing and the other who has
trolling me in his *every* post for years.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 8/9/09 7:13 AM:
> Okay, you really nailed Snit yet again, Wally. Paste another gold star
> on your calendar.
>
> When all is said and done, did you do anything but feed Snit's unhealthy
> need for attention? You don't really think he's devastated when you
> catch him in lies do you? You must realize he'll respond with a
> blizzard of new lies and laugh as you work to rebut them all.
>
> These unending Snit circuses aren't enhancing the reputation of Mac
> users, I must say. Perhaps the originator and participants of them
> ought to consider what they're doing to the computer they're supposed to
> be here to advocate.
I said:
Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to
be fair he has only named one application from the suite as
far as I know... so maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of
professional and amateur programs... though even for him that
just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or just
insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
And Wally and Carroll are too busy proving me right. Sandman soon will.
They cannot help themselves - they are amazingly predictable in their
trolling.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
Your response to what I wrote leads to one to believe either you're
mentally ill, or your goal is to tarnish the reputation of Mac users, or
both.
Snit
on 8/9/09 8:22 AM:
>> I said:
>>
>> Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to
>> be fair he has only named one application from the suite as
>> far as I know... so maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of
>> professional and amateur programs... though even for him that
>> just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or just
>> insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
>>
>> That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
>>
>> And Wally and Carroll are too busy proving me right. Sandman soon will.
>> They cannot help themselves - they are amazingly predictable in their
>> trolling.
>
> Your response to what I wrote leads to one to believe either you're
> mentally ill, or your goal is to tarnish the reputation of Mac users, or
> both.
Well, considering the "one" is you, I cannot argue against the idea that
*you* will come to such a conclusion. I trust others, however, to use logic
and reasoning and thus not come to such a conclusion.
I will agree, though, that the constant trolling of the above named, as
amusing as it sometimes is in it predictability (and sometimes even in its
surprises!), does Mac advocacy a disservice.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
It seems Snit and you are peas in a pod, assuming you're not just
another Snit sock puppet.
Sermo Malifer
> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1249831379.1...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
> on 8/9/09 8:22 AM:
>
> >> I said:
> >>
> >> Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to
> >> be fair he has only named one application from the suite as
> >> far as I know... so maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of
> >> professional and amateur programs... though even for him that
> >> just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or just
> >> insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
> >>
> >> That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
> >>
> >> And Wally and Carroll are too busy proving me right. Sandman soon will.
> >> They cannot help themselves - they are amazingly predictable in their
> >> trolling.
> >
> > Your response to what I wrote leads to one to believe either you're
> > mentally ill, or your goal is to tarnish the reputation of Mac users, or
> > both.
>
> Well, considering the "one" is you, I cannot argue against the idea that
> *you* will come to such a conclusion. I trust others, however, to use logic
> and reasoning and thus not come to such a conclusion.
I doubt you've persuaded anybody to see things your way!
> I will agree, though, that the constant trolling of the above named, as
> amusing as it sometimes is in it predictability (and sometimes even in its
> surprises!), does Mac advocacy a disservice.
Who are you agreeing with? Certainly not with me!
As there no apparent reason why you continue your campaign to degrade
Mac users, one has no choice but to assume mental illness on your part.
MuahMan
It can't be funny anymore. We've all known that Snit is mentally
insane for a decade now. You have wasted so many years arguing with
that retard. You are his primary reason for even existing.
Sermo Malifer
You are correct sir!
Snit
on 8/9/09 9:02 AM:
> On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 08:28 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> Sermo Malifer stated in post 1249831379.1...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain
>> on 8/9/09 8:22 AM:
>>
>>>> I said:
>>>>
>>>> Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to
>>>> be fair he has only named one application from the suite as
>>>> far as I know... so maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of
>>>> professional and amateur programs... though even for him that
>>>> just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or just
>>>> insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
>>>>
>>>> That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
>>>>
>>>> And Wally and Carroll are too busy proving me right. Sandman soon will.
>>>> They cannot help themselves - they are amazingly predictable in their
>>>> trolling.
>>>
>>> Your response to what I wrote leads to one to believe either you're
>>> mentally ill, or your goal is to tarnish the reputation of Mac users, or
>>> both.
>>
>> Well, considering the "one" is you, I cannot argue against the idea that
>> *you* will come to such a conclusion. I trust others, however, to use logic
>> and reasoning and thus not come to such a conclusion.
>
> I doubt you've persuaded anybody to see things your way!
What makes you think most people need "persuading" to use logic and
reasoning?
>> I will agree, though, that the constant trolling of the above named, as
>> amusing as it sometimes is in it predictability (and sometimes even in its
>> surprises!), does Mac advocacy a disservice.
>
> Who are you agreeing with? Certainly not with me!
>
> As there no apparent reason why you continue your campaign to degrade
> Mac users, one has no choice but to assume mental illness on your part.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
db385f4a-f949-4bdb...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com on 8/9/09
9:05 AM:
>> Of course Snit's actions are comical. It must suck to still not have a
>> sense of humor, Edwin.
>>
>> (snip 'advice' about life by Edwin;)
>
> It can't be funny anymore. We've all known that Snit is mentally
> insane for a decade now. You have wasted so many years arguing with
> that retard. You are his primary reason for even existing.
Actually, I wish Steve would listen to Sandman and *stop* trolling me...
just as I was very happy when Sandman managed to stop for a while. For that
matter, your trolling is not something I look forward to. I would prefer if
CSMA became a place to discuss Macs in comparison to other systems... but I
also accept that is unlikely to happen.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Gee, I can predict that when Sandman, or anyone, trolls me, Steve Carroll
> will jump in to claim they are right and I am not. Steve is completely
> consumed by his hatred, over an incident that so humiliates him he will
> not even acknowledge its existence! This is just a fact. And, sadly, Steve
> has managed to get a couple of people with clear mental deficiencies to join
> him in his trolling: one who calls utter gibberish "coherent and well ordered"
> and insists {} and {0} mean the same thing and the other who has
> trolling me in his every post for years.
And I predict that you have already begged for their attention.
Steve Carroll
> MuahMan stated in post
> db385f4a-f949-4bdb-9634-a617085d3...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com on 8/9/09
See what I mean (Pratt, Edwin)? You just can't buy this kind of
comedy;)
You guys are just pissed cuz a Mac user (Snit) out-trolled you and did
what you couldn't do (bring down the ng). LOL!
Snit
T-Bone-A0FC83....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 8/9/09 12:03 PM:
I did not respond to most of their trolling... but in a discussion about it
I did comment on it.
And you call that begging for their attention... the irony is extreme.
In any case, I would prefer if they gave me *no* attention. Just stopped
trolling me. But they are not capable of doing so.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Then why do you directly or indirectly bring them up? Because you are an
attention whore.
Sandman
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't it a bit curious to read your first post in this thread, which I
agree wholeheartedly with, about not feeding the Snit Circus, and then
seeing you do exactly the same? I don't blame you. Really, I don't.
This is what Snit does.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>>>> Gee, I can predict that when Sandman, or anyone, trolls me, Steve Carroll
>>>> will jump in to claim they are right and I am not. Steve is completely
>>>> consumed by his hatred, over an incident that so humiliates him he will not
>>>> even acknowledge its existence! This is just a fact. And, sadly, Steve has
>>>> managed to get a couple of people with clear mental deficiencies to join
>>>> him in his trolling: one who calls utter gibberish "coherent and well
>>>> ordered" and insists {} and {0} mean the same thing and the other who has
>>>> trolling me in his every post for years.
>>>>
>>> And I predict that you have already begged for their attention.
>>>
>> I did not respond to most of their trolling... but in a discussion about it I
>> did comment on it.
>>
>> And you call that begging for their attention... the irony is extreme.
>>
>> In any case, I would prefer if they gave me *no* attention. Just stopped
>> trolling me. But they are not capable of doing so.
>>
> Then why do you directly or indirectly bring them up? Because you are an
> attention whore.
It is completely predictable - 100% - that Steve Carroll will jump in to try
to "rescue" folks who troll against me. This is a given. For me to pretend
this is not the case would be dishonest. I do hope that by pointing out how
predictable his trolling is, Steve will at least try to be more creative in
his trolling (he will not stop). So far, I admit, that has failed. He has
backed away from some of his more hideous behaviors since I stopped
responding to his posts in any direct way. So you know, I went months
without referencing him in any way - it did not stop him from trolling me...
barely slowed him down (if at all).
In any case, you repeatedly just jump in to threads to get the type of
attention I just gave you. Can you think of any other goal you might be
able to claim you are pursuing?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
Who are you talking to? I don't see any posters here named either
Pratt or Edwin.
Buy this kind of comedy? It's a poor bargain when offered for free. I
ought to be compensated for reading it!
I was going to tell the group about my new HP computer, and how it's a
better deal than a Mac, but I doubt there's anybody here sane enough to
give a reply that would matter to me!
How strange for two Mac advocates to be proud of destroying a Mac
advocacy group. I wonder if Apple shares your glee.
Snit
on 8/9/09 1:40 PM:
> I was going to tell the group about my new HP computer, and how it's a
> better deal than a Mac
I would love to hear about that. Might even lead to some interesting
discussion - no doubt there will be some disagreement. :) By having a
specific example, though, it will make for a very real world discussion.
What tasks did you get the machine for? What did you end up with?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sermo Malifer
I believe you find I've answered Snit far fewer times than have you, and
that I have been much more successful in ignoring his trolls.
Snit isn't running his circuses alone. He gets a lot of help from you,
Steve Carroll, Wally, Tim Adams, and even Chance Furlong, among others.
So be it. I really don't give two hoots about the Mac and who's using
it anyway. Answering Mactrolls who invaded COLA on their own turf is
what brought me here. Keep the place a cesspool if that's what pleases
you. I'm not going to stay here to wallow in it with you.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Chance Furlong stated in post
> T-Bone-A91EAC....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 8/9/09 12:58 PM:
>
> >>>> Gee, I can predict that when Sandman, or anyone, trolls me, Steve
> >>>> Carroll
> >>>> will jump in to claim they are right and I am not. Steve is completely
> >>>> consumed by his hatred, over an incident that so humiliates him he will
> >>>> not
> >>>> even acknowledge its existence! This is just a fact. And, sadly, Steve
> >>>> has
> >>>> managed to get a couple of people with clear mental deficiencies to join
> >>>> him in his trolling: one who calls utter gibberish "coherent and well
> >>>> ordered" and insists {} and {0} mean the same thing and the other who
> >>>> has
> >>>> trolling me in his every post for years.
> >>>>
> >>> And I predict that you have already begged for their attention.
> >>>
> >> I did not respond to most of their trolling... but in a discussion about
> >> it I
> >> did comment on it.
> >>
> >> And you call that begging for their attention... the irony is extreme.
> >>
> >> In any case, I would prefer if they gave me *no* attention. Just stopped
> >> trolling me. But they are not capable of doing so.
> >>
> > Then why do you directly or indirectly bring them up? Because you are an
> > attention whore.
>
> It is completely predictable,100%, that Steve Carroll wll jump in to try
> to "rescue" folks who troll against me. This is a given. For me to pretend
> this is not the case would be dishonest. I do hope that by pointing out how
> predictable his trolling is, Steve will at least try to be more creative in
> his trolling (he will not stop). So far, I admit, that has failed. He has
> backed away from some of his more hideous behaviors since I stopped
> responding to his posts in any direct way. So you know, I went months
> without referencing him in any way, it did not stop him from trolling me...
> barely slowed him down (if at all).
It is sad that you are so obsessed with Steve Carroll.
> In any case, you repeatedly just jump in to threads to get the type of
> attention I just gave you. Can you think of any other goal you might be
> able to claim you are pursuing?
Fantasizing about me again?
Snit
on 8/9/09 2:19 PM:
...
> Snit isn't running his circuses alone. He gets a lot of help from you,
> Steve Carroll, Wally, Tim Adams, and even Chance Furlong, among others.
Heck, the only reason it is "my" circus is I often respond to those
trolls... though not Carroll so much since he went too far and started
targeting *every* group he could find I posted in - including health-support
groups. Utterly reprehensible.
> So be it. I really don't give two hoots about the Mac and who's using
> it anyway. Answering Mactrolls who invaded COLA on their own turf is
> what brought me here. Keep the place a cesspool if that's what pleases
> you. I'm not going to stay here to wallow in it with you.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>>> Then why do you directly or indirectly bring them up? Because you are an
>>> attention whore.
>>
>> It is completely predictable,100%, that Steve Carroll wll jump in to try
>> to "rescue" folks who troll against me. This is a given. For me to pretend
>> this is not the case would be dishonest. I do hope that by pointing out how
>> predictable his trolling is, Steve will at least try to be more creative in
>> his trolling (he will not stop). So far, I admit, that has failed. He has
>> backed away from some of his more hideous behaviors since I stopped
>> responding to his posts in any direct way. So you know, I went months
>> without referencing him in any way, it did not stop him from trolling me...
>> barely slowed him down (if at all).
>
> It is sad that you are so obsessed with Steve Carroll.
I note his behavior, but that is hardly an obsession. Heck, I do not even
correct most of the lies he tells about me any more... I used to correct
most of them, but frankly who has the time. He lies about me pretty much in
his every post.
>> In any case, you repeatedly just jump in to threads to get the type of
>> attention I just gave you. Can you think of any other goal you might be
>> able to claim you are pursuing?
>
> Fantasizing about me again?
A simple "no" would have done - you cannot even think of any other possible
reason you jump in pretending I am begging for anyone's attention.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
If you feel that strongly about it send Snit a bill. LOL!
Wally
1249827181.1...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain, "Sermo Malifer"
<sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 22:22 +0800, Wally wrote:
>> On 8/8/09 9:45 PM, in article C6A2CF76.404D8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The topic of the CS4 suite being for professionals was brought up by John...
>>> not me. I merely noted *someone* disagreed. I did not even say who until
>>> John guessed incorrectly.
>>
>> The amazing thing is that ... If John were asked to it's my bet that he
>> could supply far more support for his view than you could for yours Snit!
>>
>> And yet you claim that his opinion is incorrect? LOL
>>
>>> But I can see where you would not want me to bring up your view on this...
>>
>> There is little risk of you bringing up Sandman's *actual* view on this Snit
>> when you can simply attribute whatever you like to him!
>>
>>> I do not blame you for being embarrassed about your claim -
>>
>> Attributed claim Snit!...
>>
>> "Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners."-Snit
>>
>> *note.... "CS4 suite"!
>>
>> "he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know"-Snit
>>
>> *note.... "one application from the suite as far as I know"!
>>
>> So again Snit's own word proves that he lied! .... Surprised?
>>
>>> it is a rather silly one.
>>
>> For one of your made up attributed claims it is about par for the course
>> Snit!
>>
>>> OK, let's let it go...
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Okay, you really nailed Snit yet again, Wally. Paste another gold star
> on your calendar.
Why?
> When all is said and done, did you do anything but feed Snit's unhealthy
> need for attention?
Yes!
> You don't really think he's devastated when you
> catch him in lies do you?
Do you consider that publicizing someone's lies is done in the interest of
the person telling them? How Snit feels about his lies being displayed is
immaterial as far as I am concerned!
> You must realize he'll respond with a
> blizzard of new lies and laugh as you work to rebut them all.
It takes very little *work* to rebut most of what Snit claims, in fact 99.9%
of the time it merely takes an ability to read and to understand what was
read!
As for his response to it all... Frankly I simply don't care how he reacts!
>
> These unending Snit circuses aren't enhancing the reputation of Mac
> users, I must say.
I don't see that Snit's reputation or any response made to him would be
construed as a typical Mac user trait at all! Perhaps you had not noticed
that Snit's detractors are wide ranging and encompass *all* platforms!
> Perhaps the originator and participants of them
> ought to consider what they're doing to the computer they're supposed to
> be here to advocate.
I would have thought that you demonstrating an inability to ignore certain
threads that clearly have no interest to you would be more likely to effect
the reputation of the group of people that you claim concern for rather than
a post to a person that has the universal condemnation that Snit has!
Wally
1249827756.1...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain, "Sermo Malifer"
<sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 12:23 +0800, Wally wrote:
>> On 8/8/09 10:38 PM, in article C6A2DBE6.404EE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit stated in post C6A24DA9.40445%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 8/7/09
>>> 9:31 PM:
>>>
>>>> John stated in post k8ednbnyX9c5Y-HX...@giganews.com on 8/7/09
>>>> 9:27 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C6A248D7.40435%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>>>> John stated in post MrydnTg3NoRPUOHX...@giganews.com on
>>>>>> 8/7/09
>>>>>> 5:58 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tommy Troll" <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
news:e832b3eb-ac7c-4099...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com..>>>>>>>
.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <x5ednZht0ozYt-fX...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Same old story. Three machines, ZERO problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know that would be boring to the resident Wintrolls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You must not do anything other than boot up and play with Finder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I run many professional applications like Photoshop CS4, Final Cut Pro
>>>>>>> 7,
>>>>>>> and Logic Studio. Outstanding performance with heavy duty
>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you sure the Adobe CS4 suite is considered a suite of "professional
>>>>>> applications"? I have been told in CSMA that it is for amateurs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That comes mainly from the technically incompetent Windows Wingnuts.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope... Sandman insists that the CS4 suite is for beginners. Well, to be
>>>> fair he has only named one application from the suite as far as I know...
>>>> so
>>>> maybe he thinks the suite is a mix of professional and amateur programs...
>>>> though even for him that just seems weird. Bet he jumps to that claim - or
>>>> just insists I am wrong and never actually says what his view is.
>>>>
>>>> That is OK... we all know who will jump in to defend him.
>>>>
>>> As of now: no less than five posts from the completely predictable trolls
>>> who *everyone* knew would jump in to try to defend Sandman on this...
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> A number of people have noted Snit's attempt to falsely attribute a
>> statement to Sandman!
>>
>>> the funny thing is Sandman had already jumped in.
>>
>> Snit finds it funny that Sandman was the first to deny Snit's false claims?
>>
>>> The trolls who try to defend him do not think he can speak for himself.
>>
>> HUH? If Sandman had "already jumped in" then it would be obvious to all
>> concerned (except Snit apparently) that Sandman *can* speak for himself!
>>
>> What Snit fails to realize is that his lies always leave plenty of scope for
>> anyone and everyone to comment on depending on their particular point of
>> view!
>>
>>> I shall not bite and respond to the trolls other than in this post.
>>
>> Like it was ok that Adam only had *one* bite of the apple? LOL
>>
>>> They simply are not going to be honest
>>> or honorable... they will just lie to try to obfuscate the facts.
>>
>> Snit makes a series of contradictory claims as shown by a number of
>> different people, and yet in Snit's diseased mind it is they who are
>> obfuscating the facts? ROTFL!
>
> Since it is so readily apparent that Snit does have mental problems, why
> do you persist in arguing with him?
Our exchanges cannot be construed as arguments, for them to be so Snit would
need to offer some form of support for his views ... He doesn�t!
> Would you go down to an asylum to
> have shouting matches with the inmates in the padded cells?
Would they hear me if I did?
> What do your victories over Snit earn you that make them worth the time
> it took to achieve them? I would hope you have more worthwhile ways to
> spend the precious short time we mortals have alloted to us.
Do you consider you stating what a person should or should not do with his
time time well spent?
Why is it that you can use your precious time to suggest what I do in
threads that clearly have no interest to you in the first place?
Snit
>> You must realize he'll respond with a
>> blizzard of new lies and laugh as you work to rebut them all.
>
> It takes very little *work* to rebut most of what Snit claims, in fact 99.9%
> of the time it merely takes an ability to read and to understand what was
> read!
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
If there was a more amusing debate in COLA, I cannot recall it. Seriously,
you went above and beyond in making an amusing fool of yourself... and you
also proved you lack the very ability you say would be needed to catch me in
a lie: the "ability to read and to understand what was read."
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>> Since it is so readily apparent that Snit does have mental problems, why
>> do you persist in arguing with him?
>
> Our exchanges cannot be construed as arguments, for them to be so Snit would
> need to offer some form of support for his views ... He doesn�t!
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
Where if you say "*that* is a fact" you can be trusted, right? LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
1249850420.1...@ubuntu.ubuntu-domain, "Sermo Malifer"
<sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
That makes no sense at all considering the vast majority of people in the
'From' column take no part in the Snit threads!
There are plenty of "sane" people for you to get the feedback that you seem
to consider so necessary before you could state your opinion wrt your HP!
Snit
8/9/09 1:23 PM:
>> Who are you agreeing with? Certainly not with me!
>>
>> As there no apparent reason why you continue your campaign to degrade
>> Mac users, one has no choice but to assume mental illness on your part.
>
> Isn't it a bit curious to read your first post in this thread, which I
> agree wholeheartedly with, about not feeding the Snit Circus, and then
> seeing you do exactly the same? I don't blame you. Really, I don't.
> This is what Snit does.
Ah, no taking responsibility for your own actions nor expecting others to -
you just blame me for your trolling and anyone else's. You cannot actually
point to wrong doing by me, so you just accuse me of making everyone else do
wrong. Whatever.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it a bit curious to read your first post in this thread, which I
> > agree wholeheartedly with, about not feeding the Snit Circus, and then
> > seeing you do exactly the same? I don't blame you. Really, I don't.
> > This is what Snit does.
>
> I believe you find I've answered Snit far fewer times than have you
I'm sure you have.
> Snit isn't running his circuses alone. He gets a lot of help from you,
> Steve Carroll, Wally, Tim Adams, and even Chance Furlong, among others.
Of course. No argument there.
> So be it. I really don't give two hoots about the Mac and who's using
> it anyway. Answering Mactrolls who invaded COLA on their own turf is
> what brought me here. Keep the place a cesspool if that's what pleases
> you. I'm not going to stay here to wallow in it with you.
Best of luck to you and your family.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Do you ever read what you write before you post it Snit?
Snit
AM:
You did not find that sentence to be "coherent and well ordered"? LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A61F15.18C7B%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/10/09 4:01
> AM:
>
>> On 10/8/09 8:48 AM, in article C6A4BC78.4088B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C6A58D42.18C58%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/9/09 5:39 PM:
>>>
>>>>> Since it is so readily apparent that Snit does have mental problems, why
>>>>> do you persist in arguing with him?
>>>>
>>>> Our exchanges cannot be construed as arguments, for them to be so Snit
>>>> would
>>>> need to offer some form of support for his views ... He doesn�t!
>>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>>>
>>> Where if you say "*that* is a fact" you can be trusted, right? LOL!
>>
>> Do you ever read what you write before you post it Snit?
>>
> You did not find that sentence to be "coherent and well ordered"? LOL!
>
Who would?
Yet strangely if I were to list ... say a dozen of such statements from you
Snit then they could then be considered "coherent and well ordered" as it
would all come down to context! ;-)
Snit
PM:
...
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>>>>
>>>> Where if you say "*that* is a fact" you can be trusted, right? LOL!
>>>
>>> Do you ever read what you write before you post it Snit?
>>>
>> You did not find that sentence to be "coherent and well ordered"? LOL!
>>
>
> Who would?
Watch this video for your answer!
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
> Yet strangely if I were to list ... say a dozen of such statements from you
> Snit then they could then be considered "coherent and well ordered" as it
> would all come down to context! ;-)
Oh no! A typo! Man, on man... Wally is ready to just rip me apart with his
database of typos I have made over the last few years. Poor Wally... he
wants to obfuscate his obvious and serious comprehension problems so badly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A6DD22.18CB6%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/10/09 5:32
> PM:
>
> ...
>>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where if you say "*that* is a fact" you can be trusted, right? LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Do you ever read what you write before you post it Snit?
>>>>
>>> You did not find that sentence to be "coherent and well ordered"? LOL!
>>>
>>
>> Who would?
>
> Watch this video for your answer!
You know full well that I do not visit your movie links Snit!
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>
>> Yet strangely if I were to list ... say a dozen of such statements from you
>> Snit then they could then be considered "coherent and well ordered" as it
>> would all come down to context! ;-)
>
> Oh no! A typo!
Again?
> Man, on man... Wally is ready to just rip me apart with his
> database of typos I have made over the last few years.
I have no such data base Snit, as your mistakes are extremely easy to find
there is no need for one!
But I have no doubt that for an alleged teacher you make far too many
grammatical mistakes for that particular claim to be taken serious!
> Poor Wally... he
> wants to obfuscate his obvious and serious comprehension problems so badly.
If I wanted to Snit ... Then I would.
The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
Snit
AM:
>> Poor Wally... he
>> wants to obfuscate his obvious and serious comprehension problems so badly.
>
> If I wanted to Snit ... Then I would.
Well, you sure try! Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious
inability to tell gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well
ordered"
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
Seriously, your comments about the gibberish are just hilarious. And
"*that* is a fact"! LOL!
> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C6A783A6.18CE1%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/11/09 5:23
> AM:
>
> >> Poor Wally... he
> >> wants to obfuscate his obvious and serious comprehension problems so badly.
>
> > If I wanted to Snit ... Then I would.
>
> Well, you sure try! Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious
> inability to tell gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well
> ordered"
Considering that you rarely write anything other than the equivalent
of "gibberish filler text" everyone reading your drivel shares the
"inability" to differentiate it from what *you* call text that is
"coherent and well ordered".
(poor Snit... his meds have him making an endless stream of
"mistakes". LOL!)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A783A6.18CE1%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/11/09 5:23
> AM:
>
>>> Poor Wally... he
>>> wants to obfuscate his obvious and serious comprehension problems so badly.
>>
>> If I wanted to Snit ... Then I would.
>
> Well, you sure try! Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious
> inability to tell gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well
> ordered"
I have told you before Snit they are your delusions, *you* deal with them!
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>
> Seriously, your comments about the gibberish are just hilarious. And
> "*that* is a fact"! LOL!
You never did get to look up 'gibberish' did you Snit? ... It shows!
Perhaps your kids will help you out on their next visit?
>
>> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
>
> Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right. LOL!
So you now admit that I havent tried which contradicts your earlier
position!
Way too easy!
Snit
PM:
>> Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious inability to tell
>> gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well ordered"
>>
> I have told you before Snit they are your delusions, *you* deal with them!
Your denial might hold some weight if I did not have absolute proof, as
shown in the video, below:
>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>>
>> Seriously, your comments about the gibberish are just hilarious. And
>> "*that* is a fact"! LOL!
>
> You never did get to look up 'gibberish' did you Snit? ... It shows!
>
> Perhaps your kids will help you out on their next visit?
If you do not think the following is gibberish, please explain what it means
in your own words:
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.�
Seriously, this should be *good*. Please do tell me exactly what that
paragraph means to you. The "doom loop and doom zoom" part should be
particularly amusing. :)
>>> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
>>
>> Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right. LOL!
>
> So you now admit that I havent tried which contradicts your earlier
> position!
>
> Way too easy!
You do find it easy to babble senselessly. No doubt!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A82A42.18D0D%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/11/09 5:13
> PM:
>
>>> Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious inability to tell
>>> gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well ordered"
>>>
>> I have told you before Snit they are your delusions, *you* deal with them!
>
> Your denial might hold some weight if I did not have absolute proof, as
> shown in the video, below:
Do try and make up your mind Snit...
"Look at how you do not even comment......."-Snit
"Your denial might hold some weight.......""-Snit
So did I not comment ... Or did I deny Snit?
Do you even have a clue about it?
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>>>
>>> Seriously, your comments about the gibberish are just hilarious. And
>>> "*that* is a fact"! LOL!
>>
>> You never did get to look up 'gibberish' did you Snit? ... It shows!
>>
>> Perhaps your kids will help you out on their next visit?
>
> If you do not think the following is gibberish, please explain what it means
> in your own words:
In my own words!
Was it intended to be "gibberish" Snit? if you are as unsure about that as
you are about whether I made a comment or not (see above) then examine the
original thread and find where I supplied you with a quote from the creator
of the filler text generator in question, and you may if you can enlist
enough help have your answer!
But an example of what I consider "gibberish" can be seen here... (my
example differs alarmingly from what you have termed "gibberish" Snit)
>
> Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
> project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
> whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
> reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
> profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
> what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
> key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
> patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
> parameters and principles.�
>
> Seriously, this should be *good*. Please do tell me exactly what that
> paragraph means to you.
It means very little to me, why should it be otherwise?
That text was supposedly taken from actual manuals by the creator of that
particular text generator, so why must there be an assumption that I am
familiar with every one Snit?
> The "doom loop and doom zoom"
Can't help you with the other one Snit, the creator of the generator would
be your best bet, get back when you have his explanation of it?
> part should be particularly amusing. :)
No Snit, what is amusing is that just because you haven't encountered a
particular term you immediately consider it to be "gibberish", whereas I
would not jump to that conclusion instead I would realize that there are
many many terms in many walks of life that I have not and probably will not
ever encounter!
>
>>>> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
>>>
>>> Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right. LOL!
>>
>> So you now admit that I havent tried which contradicts your earlier
>> position!
>>
>> Way too easy!
>
> You do find it easy to babble senselessly. No doubt!
No doubt until you contradict yourself yet again you mean?
Snit
AM:
> On 12/8/09 8:54 AM, in article C6A760C1.40CB8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C6A82A42.18D0D%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/11/09 5:13
>> PM:
>>
>>>> Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious inability to tell
>>>> gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well ordered"
>>>>
>>> I have told you before Snit they are your delusions, *you* deal with them!
>>
>> Your denial might hold some weight if I did not have absolute proof, as
>> shown in the video, below:
>
> Do try and make up your mind Snit...
>
> "Look at how you do not even comment......."-Snit
>
> "Your denial might hold some weight.......""-Snit
>
> So did I not comment ... Or did I deny Snit?
>
> Do you even have a clue about it?
You refused to comment on the video... you denied your inabilities.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Oh, that is right: you cannot
understand *anything* you read.
Before you insisted it was "coherent"... even "coherent and well ordered."
Even insisted "*that* is a fact". And you are *still* denying it is
gibberish.
So what does that "coherent and well ordered" text mean to you? Spit it
out, Wally... I really want to know what "the doom loop and doom zoom" means
to you. Me: I think that paragraph is utter gibberish... but feel free to
explain it to me so I can understand the meaning!
LOL!
> That text was supposedly taken from actual manuals by the creator of that
> particular text generator, so why must there be an assumption that I am
> familiar with every one Snit?
You need not be familiar with anything but the text you insist is *not*
gibberish. Explain it.
>> The "doom loop and doom zoom"
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cuwzu7
>
> Can't help you with the other one Snit, the creator of the generator would
> be your best bet, get back when you have his explanation of it?
He is not the one defending the gibberish as being anything other than
gibberish. You are.
>> part should be particularly amusing. :)
>
> No Snit, what is amusing is that just because you haven't encountered a
> particular term you immediately consider it to be "gibberish", whereas I
> would not jump to that conclusion instead I would realize that there are
> many many terms in many walks of life that I have not and probably will not
> ever encounter!
Wally: the paragraph is gibberish - devoid of any coherent meaning. Much
like your thought processes!
>>
>>>>> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
>>>>
>>>> Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right.
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> So you now admit that I havent tried which contradicts your earlier
>>> position!
>>>
>>> Way too easy!
>>
>> You do find it easy to babble senselessly. No doubt!
>
> No doubt until you contradict yourself yet again you mean?
You, the man who finds utter gibberish filler text to be "coherent and well
ordered" and claims "*that* is a fact", is saying you think I contradict
myself... based on your "evidence" that you refused to talk about one thing
and denied another.
Yeah, you are one to judge what people say. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A8C253.18D2A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/12/09 4:02
> AM:
>
>> On 12/8/09 8:54 AM, in article C6A760C1.40CB8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C6A82A42.18D0D%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/11/09 5:13
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>>> Look at how you do not even comment on your obvious inability to tell
>>>>> gibberish filler text from text that is "coherent and well ordered"
>>>>>
>>>> I have told you before Snit they are your delusions, *you* deal with them!
>>>
>>> Your denial might hold some weight if I did not have absolute proof, as
>>> shown in the video, below:
>>
>> Do try and make up your mind Snit...
>>
>> "Look at how you do not even comment......."-Snit
>>
>> "Your denial might hold some weight.......""-Snit
>>
>> So did I not comment ... Or did I deny Snit?
>>
>> Do you even have a clue about it?
>
> You refused to comment on the video... you denied your inabilities.
I did not refuse to comment on the video, I simply did not view it Snit and
I told you so ... *that* is a comment concerning the video!
> Why is this so hard for you to understand? Oh, that is right: you cannot
> understand *anything* you read.
Says the guy that cannot differentiate between "gibberish" and "mumbo
jumbo"! LOL
"I made a post. ....It was utter gibberish"-Snit
"You, at first, called my "mumbo-jumbo" coherent,"-Snit
The second quote is actually rather quite interesting because I in fact
referred to your post as garbled and disjointed Snit!...
"I called your post garbled and disjointed!"-Wally
The document that I referred to as "coherent" was the document that I linked
to suggesting that it could serve as the source for the text in your post
Snit!
"I called the document that I linked to the possible source for your text,
and stated by belief that *it* was coherent!"-Wally
You of course after a sizeable delay denied that possibility stating in
stead that you had used a text generator.
But now here we see you stating that the text that I called "coherent" was
in fact *your* mumbo jumbo! ROTFLMAO!
You clearly have no idea what you wrote, what text you were referencing you
are completely lost in your lies once again Snit!
And all because a course of action that I took to force you to reveal the
source of the text that you posted ... text which you were hell bent on not
revealing the source for ... Worked so well that you got so confused that
you could no longer which was your text and which wasn�t! LOL
What was it you said Snit.....
"Oh, that is right: you cannot understand *anything* you read."-Snit
In your case we can add that you do not understand *anything* you post
either! LOL
It is not gibberish Snit!
Mumbo jumbo is not "gibberish" Snit!
The creator of that generator has explained to you in an alleged email that
it was intended to be "mumbo jumbo" Snit, why do you persist in claiming
that you know better than he does?
> Explain it.
Look up "mumbo jumbo" Snit particularly it's purpose!
>>> The "doom loop and doom zoom"
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cuwzu7
>>
>> Can't help you with the other one Snit, the creator of the generator would
>> be your best bet, get back when you have his explanation of it?
>
> He is not the one defending the gibberish as being anything other than
> gibberish. You are.
Of course he isn't as he has described it to you as "mumbo jumbo" *not*
gibberish!
Only you have done that Snit!
>>> part should be particularly amusing. :)
>>
>> No Snit, what is amusing is that just because you haven't encountered a
>> particular term you immediately consider it to be "gibberish", whereas I
>> would not jump to that conclusion instead I would realize that there are
>> many many terms in many walks of life that I have not and probably will not
>> ever encounter!
>
> Wally: the paragraph is gibberish - devoid of any coherent meaning. Much
> like your thought processes!
Nope!
>>>
>>>>>> The fact that I haven't shows that I do not want to!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, your failures are an indication you do not even try. Yeah, right.
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> So you now admit that I havent tried which contradicts your earlier
>>>> position!
>>>>
>>>> Way too easy!
>>>
>>> You do find it easy to babble senselessly. No doubt!
>>
>> No doubt until you contradict yourself yet again you mean?
>
> You, the man who finds utter gibberish filler text to be "coherent and well
> ordered" and claims "*that* is a fact", is saying you think I contradict
> myself... based on your "evidence" that you refused to talk about one thing
> and denied another.
>
> Yeah, you are one to judge what people say. LOL!
And you are the one that alters what people have explained to you Snit, such
as the text being described to you as "mumbo jumbo" but you insisting that
you know better than the creator of the text generator when you wrongly
describe it as "gibberish"!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> gibberish. Explain it.
So you don't need to be familiar with a particular term to be able to
"explain" what it means Snit?
Sure you want to stick with that? :-)
Snit
PM:
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.�
You are the one who has insisted the above meaningless nonsense, text that
is *clearly* and utterly unintelligible, is something other than
"gibberish". In fact you have called it, and the rest of the gibberish it
came from, as "coherent and well ordered". So explain what you think that
"coherent and well ordered" text means!
And then get a good laugh:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
You showed you cannot understand what you read - and you did so in the most
extreme way I have ever seen anyone online do so. And you did so in a very,
very funny way - full of overconfidence and hubris. Come on, Wally, can't
you admit your mistake was at least a little funny.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
...
>> You refused to comment on the video... you denied your inabilities.
>
> I did not refuse to comment on the video, I simply did not view it Snit and
> I told you so ... *that* is a comment concerning the video!
LOL! Ah, so your best comment about the way you humiliated yourself, and
the video that shows it, is to insist you did not even look at the data.
That is really, really funny. More funny than your insistence that it is
somehow inconsistent to note someone *not* commenting about one thing and
denying *another*. You try so hard to climb yourself out of the holes you
dig, but you just keep digging deeper!
>> Why is this so hard for you to understand? Oh, that is right: you cannot
>> understand *anything* you read.
>
> Says the guy that cannot differentiate between "gibberish" and "mumbo
> jumbo"! LOL
LOL! Oh, do tell! What is the difference between gibberish and mumbo
jumbo.
> "I made a post. ....It was utter gibberish"-Snit
>
> "You, at first, called my "mumbo-jumbo" coherent,"-Snit
>
> The second quote is actually rather quite interesting because I in fact
> referred to your post as garbled and disjointed Snit!...
>
> "I called your post garbled and disjointed!"-Wally
Well, as you contradicted your past claims:
Snit:
... what makes you think I did not write the above
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent...
Yeah, you said of the utter gibberish, the complete mumbo jumbo filler text
not *meant* to have a shred of coherency, that it was easy to see it was not
written by me because it was "coherent". That was funny. Very funny,
really. And documented along with some of your other absurdities here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
But you are going to pretend you have not viewed that. Best defense, eh?
LOL!
> The document that I referred to as "coherent" was the document that I linked
> to suggesting that it could serve as the source for the text in your post
> Snit!
Well, you called that one "coherent", too. Yeah. And it was, clearly, just
as much gibberish - made with the same tool to auto-generate text. In the
video I show that, too!
...
>> You need not be familiar with anything but the text you insist is *not*
>> gibberish.
>
> It is not gibberish Snit!
>
> Mumbo jumbo is not "gibberish" Snit!
>
> The creator of that generator has explained to you in an alleged email that
> it was intended to be "mumbo jumbo" Snit, why do you persist in claiming
> that you know better than he does?
Do you not see how absurd you are being. Oh, Wally... I fear you do not.
But do tell me the difference between gibberish and mumbo jumbo... I look so
forward to your lesson! LOL!
>> Explain it.
>
> Look up "mumbo jumbo" Snit particularly it's purpose!
<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/mumbo%20jumbo>
-----
mumbo jumbo: 1. Unintelligible or incomprehensible language;
gibberish.
-----
LOL!
...
>> Wally: the paragraph is gibberish - devoid of any coherent meaning. Much
>> like your thought processes!
>
> Nope!
Oh, then explain it:
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.�
I say it is unintelligible or meaningless gobbledygook - gibberish. You
deny it is. OK, so let's hear what it means to you. Oh, please Wally... do
tell me just what that paragraph means to you!
...
>> You, the man who finds utter gibberish filler text to be "coherent and well
>> ordered" and claims "*that* is a fact", is saying you think I contradict
>> myself... based on your "evidence" that you refused to talk about one thing
>> and denied another.
>>
>> Yeah, you are one to judge what people say. LOL!
>
> And you are the one that alters what people have explained to you Snit, such
> as the text being described to you as "mumbo jumbo" but you insisting that
> you know better than the creator of the text generator when you wrongly
> describe it as "gibberish"!
You do realize, I hope, that "mumbo jumbo" is synonymous with "gibberish":
Synonyms of gibberish (emphasis mine):
-----
nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish; informal
drivel, gobbledygook, MUMBO-JUMBO, tripe, hogwash, baloney,
bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock.
-----
The paragraph in question is gibberish. Mumbo jumbo. Gobbledygook.
But you were just about to explain it... right? LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Sure you want to stick with that? :-)
> >
>
> Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
> project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
> whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
> reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
> profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
> what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
> key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
> patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
> parameters and principles.�
>
> You are the one who has insisted the above meaningless nonsense, text that
> is *clearly* and utterly unintelligible
The text comes from the Lorum Ipsum plugin in DreamWeaver, but it's
hardly gibberish.
Double loop learning basically means that you don't use different
methods to achieve the end result (single loop), but rather change the
underlying strategies and values of a company to redefine the goals
I.e., single loop learning is to continually reassess the plan and the
method, double loop learning is to continually reassess core values,
routines and strategy.
The "doom loop" and "doom zoom" metaphors in relation to this theory
is in reference to when a consultant fail in his mission for a given
company. You can read more about this in the book "On organizational
learning" where this "Double Loop Learning" theory is explained in
detail by its inventor.
So, in short, the above paragraph is fully intelligible, even though
I'm sure the Lorem Ipsum author that set this as the "corporate"
template for their plugin probably just cut'n'pasted it from some
company analyst presentation and deemed it "unintelligble corporate
speak", not being familiar with double loop learning.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/12/09 11:03 PM:
Maybe you can point out the predicates in each of the three sentences to
help me see the structure better. Wait. None of the three sentences even
is a real sentence (or at least not proper sentences) - they do not have
predicates. By removing the parenthetical elements this becomes more clear.
For example, the first sentence, without its parenthetical element, is:
Organizations capable of double-loop learning whenever
single-loop learning strategies go wrong.
And the second is:
Defensive reasoning in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved.
As I said: gibberish. Mumbo jumbo. Nonsense. Gobbledygook.
Here is the document the above paragraph comes from:
<http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/t23739_24.doc>
And what follows is the text Wally has deemed to be "coherent and well
ordered"... in its entirety. Perhaps the context will help you to
understand your error.
Introduction �
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.�
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.�
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.�
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Exploitation of core competencies as an essential enabler, in
order to build a shared view of what can be improved, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.�
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. From binary cause and
effect to complex patterns, working through a top-down,
bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and
doom zoom. By adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles, measure the process, not
the people. Motivating participants and capturing their
expectations, exploiting the productive lifecycle empowerment
of all personnel, not just key operatives.�
That will indubitably lay the firm foundations for any
leading company the components and priorities for the change
program maximization of shareholder wealth through separation
of ownership from management. The balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool measure the
process, not the people. Big is no longer impregnable
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, in a collaborative, forward-thinking
venture brought together through the merging of like minds.�
The components and priorities for the change program
empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives,
combined with optimal use of human resources. Exploiting the
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.�
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.�
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.�
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.�
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.�
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The new golden rule
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.�
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
The adoption of a proactive stance
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.�
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.�
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Single-loop learning strategies
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.�
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
firm foundations for any leading company to focus on
improvement, not cost.
Benchmarking �
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.�
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Double-loop learning �
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.�
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Exploitation of core competencies as an essential enabler, in
order to build a shared view of what can be improved, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.�
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. From binary cause and
effect to complex patterns, working through a top-down,
bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and
doom zoom. By adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles, measure the process, not
the people. Motivating participants and capturing their
expectations, exploiting the productive lifecycle empowerment
of all personnel, not just key operatives.�
That will indubitably lay the firm foundations for any
leading company the components and priorities for the change
program maximization of shareholder wealth through separation
of ownership from management. The balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool measure the
process, not the people. Big is no longer impregnable
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, in a collaborative, forward-thinking
venture brought together through the merging of like minds.�
The components and priorities for the change program
empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives,
combined with optimal use of human resources. Exploiting the
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.�
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.�
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.
Building a dynamic relationship
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.�
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.�
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis �
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.�
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.�
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.�
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.�
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.�
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.�
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.�
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
firm foundations for any leading company to focus on
improvement, not cost.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Which will you eventually settle on Snit?
I've heard of covering your bets ... But that is ridiculous! LOL
>
> Here is the document the above paragraph comes from:
>
> <http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/t23739_24.doc>
>
> And what follows is the text Wally has deemed to be "coherent and well
> ordered"... in its entirety.
"in it's entirety" Snit? And you will be supplying your support for that
statement ... When exactly?
Bearing in mind that the reason for linking to that document was to show a
possible/probable source for the text that *you* posted!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6A98437.18D4E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 8/12/09 5:49
> PM:
>
>> On 12/8/09 10:35 PM, in article C6A82130.40DF1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You need not be familiar with anything but the text you insist is *not*
>>> gibberish. Explain it.
>>
>> So you don't need to be familiar with a particular term to be able to
>> "explain" what it means Snit?
>>
>> Sure you want to stick with that? :-)
So you're not so sure? ... OK! LOL
>
> Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
> project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
> whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
> reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
> profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
> what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
> key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
> patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
> parameters and principles.�
>
> You are the one who has insisted the above meaningless nonsense, text that
> is *clearly* and utterly unintelligible, is something other than
> "gibberish".
As it is not "gibberish" then logically it *must* be something other than
"gibberish" Snit!
> In fact you have called it, and the rest of the gibberish it
> came from,
The relevancy of the document that I linked to was as a possible/probable
source for the text that you posted Snit the same text that you asked why I
thought you could not have written, therefore when I said that you would be
incapable of writing anything coherent that comment could only be relevant
to the text that you implied that you *had* written Snit!
But it is interesting to see you put so much emphasis on text that did *not*
form any part of your post Snit! LOL
> as "coherent and well ordered". So explain what you think that
> "coherent and well ordered" text means!
>
> And then get a good laugh:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
>
> You showed you cannot understand what you read - and you did so in the most
> extreme way I have ever seen anyone online do so. And you did so in a very,
> very funny way - full of overconfidence and hubris.
ROTFL!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Good grief!
After all this time and you *still* don't appreciate the difference between
being "synonymous" and being a "synonym" :-)
> -----
> nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish; informal
> drivel, gobbledygook, MUMBO-JUMBO, tripe, hogwash, baloney,
> bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock.
> -----
>
> The paragraph in question is gibberish.
Nope!
> Mumbo jumbo.
As explained to you by the creator of the generator in question!
> Gobbledygook.
Interesting choice Snit...
"language, especially used in official letters, forms and statements, which
seems difficult or meaningless because you do not understand it:"
Note*... "because you do not understand it" ... That does not mean that it
is not able to be understood!
Thank you for making my point Snit!
"It means very little to me, why should it be otherwise?
That text was supposedly taken from actual manuals by the creator of that
particular text generator, so why must there be an assumption that I am
familiar with every one Snit?"-Wally
>
> But you were just about to explain it... right? LOL!
See above!
Snit
AM:
Huh? Settle on? Are you so lost you think I am saying it is one of those?
>> Here is the document the above paragraph comes from:
>>
>> <http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/t23739_24.doc>
>>
>> And what follows is the text Wally has deemed to be "coherent and well
>> ordered"... in its entirety.
>
> "in it's entirety" Snit? And you will be supplying your support for that
> statement ... When exactly?
Click the link. I quoted the text in its entirety. The text you claimed
was "coherent and well ordered". And you *still* deny it is gibberish!
> Bearing in mind that the reason for linking to that document was to show a
> possible/probable source for the text that *you* posted!
Which you now know to be incorrect. You do know that... right? Maybe
not... you might be that lost.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
You still are *completely* lost. The gibberish I posted, which you claimed
was "coherent", and the gibberish you pointed to, which you called "coherent
and well ordered", are both examples of text with no coherency... meant
simply as filler text. Both came from the same tool, but neither came from
the other.
Really, Wally... the fact you still defend such as anything other than
gibberish is just absurd. Proves you cannot understand a thing you read.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
Oh, please - wise one - in the context I have just used the word, do explain
the difference. Your "lessons" are always so amusing. :)
>> -----
>> nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish; informal
>> drivel, gobbledygook, MUMBO-JUMBO, tripe, hogwash, baloney,
>> bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock.
>> -----
>>
>> The paragraph in question is gibberish.
>
> Nope!
Then explain its meaning. Hey, Sandman tried. LOL! You will not even do
that much.
>> Mumbo jumbo.
>
> As explained to you by the creator of the generator in question!
>
>> Gobbledygook.
>
> Interesting choice Snit...
>
> "language, especially used in official letters, forms and statements, which
> seems difficult or meaningless because you do not understand it:"
>
> Note*... "because you do not understand it" ... That does not mean that it
> is not able to be understood!
>
> Thank you for making my point Snit!
>
> "It means very little to me, why should it be otherwise?
>
> That text was supposedly taken from actual manuals by the creator of that
> particular text generator, so why must there be an assumption that I am
> familiar with every one Snit?"-Wally
The phrases were taken, it has been said, from manuals. Does not mean they
are anything other than gibberish when arbitrarily plopped together in a way
where they hold no meaning. The text is *filler text*. Gibberish.
>> But you were just about to explain it... right? LOL!
>
> See above!
LOL! Oh, Sandman embarrassed himself by trying to explain the "meaning" of
the gibberish... why won't you? It would so amuse me!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> -----
> >> nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish; informal
> >> drivel, gobbledygook, MUMBO-JUMBO, tripe, hogwash, baloney,
> >> bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> The paragraph in question is gibberish.
> >
> > Nope!
>
> Then explain its meaning. Hey, Sandman tried
I didn't try anything. I successfully explained the origin of the
placeholder text and explained the parts you struggled with. I also
acknowledged that the text was randomized, yet the meaning of the
parts were fully intelligible.
Lying about me doesn't make you look "honest and honorable", Michael.
Quite the contrary.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/13/09 12:01 PM:
> In article <C6A99708.41039%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> -----
>>>> nonsense, garbage, balderdash, blather, rubbish; informal
>>>> drivel, gobbledygook, MUMBO-JUMBO, tripe, hogwash, baloney,
>>>> bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock.
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> The paragraph in question is gibberish.
>>>
>>> Nope!
>>
>> Then explain its meaning. Hey, Sandman tried
>
> I didn't try anything.
Well, you sure looked like you were trying!
> I successfully explained the origin of the placeholder text and explained the
> parts you struggled with. I also acknowledged that the text was randomized,
> yet the meaning of the parts were fully intelligible.
The meaning is *gibberish*. The "sentences" are not even complete
sentences! Nobody has said that some of the phrases in the gibberish do not
have some meaning, but the text is still gibberish. Hey, take a crack at
the number of times the phrase " doom loop and doom zoom" is used in the
text Wally pointed to:
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to
experience a profound paradigm shift, in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, working
through a top-down, bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom.
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom
in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to
experience a profound paradigm shift, in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, working
through a top-down, bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom.
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom
in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals.
Gibberish, Sandman... utter gibberish.
> Lying about me doesn't make you look "honest and honorable", Michael.
> Quite the contrary.
Can you really not see how your attempt to show meaning in utter gibberish
was a failure, even *after* I have told you the "sentences" did not even
have predicates? Really? People who speak English as a foreign language,
as well as you do, usually have a better understanding of sentence
structure.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> That text was supposedly taken from actual manuals by the creator of that
> particular text generator, so why must there be an assumption that I am
> familiar with every one Snit?"-Wally
Lorem Ipsum was, largly, taken from one text. It is *still* gibberish.
In any case, ran across this today:
<http://www.cameroncreative.com/filler-text.html>
-----
Real English Gibberish
I don't know what else to call this. It's English words but
it's meaningless. Some people (myself included) prefer this
to Lorem Ipsum because it's sort of more obvious that you're
filling up a space with "crap text". I have had people ask me
what the Lorem Ipsum was all about, but this Gibberish Text
seems to have worked flawlessly so far - but you just can't
tell how dumb the next person is going to be! Here's an
example:
In integrating non-aligned structures into existing
legacy systems, a holistic gateway blueprint is a
backward compatible packaging tangible of immeasurable
strategic value in right-sizing conceptual frameworks
when thinking outside the box.
-----
"but you just can't tell how dumb the next person is going to be!"... yeah,
some will insist that such filler text gibberish is "coherent and well
ordered" [Wally] or "fully intelligible" [Sandman]! Really... it is just
amazing!
I am not surprised to see you so lost... but the fact Sandman jumped in and
claimed utter gibberish filler text was, to him, "fully intelligible" is
just amazing. Can you get some other trolls to support you? That would be
very funny... let's work on it together - see how many people will humiliate
themselves by claiming to understand such mumbo jumbo gibberish. Sandman
even went so far as to try to explain it... LOL! He was, in that way, more
hilarious than you! Sandman, though, will recognize his error and just
never talk about it again... though he will dishonestly insist I am lying
when I point out his absurd claim. Such is life... you each are amusing in
your own ways.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:00 AM:
>>> As I said: gibberish. Mumbo jumbo. Nonsense. Gobbledygook.
>>
>> Which will you eventually settle on Snit?
>>
>> I've heard of covering your bets ... But that is ridiculous! LOL
>
> Huh? Settle on? Are you so lost you think I am saying it is one of those?
Sigh... ambiguous wording will surely confuse you... to be more clear:
Are you so lost you think I am saying it is *JUST* one of those?
The point, clearly, being that it need not be just one... being that it is
clearly *all* of them. The filler text I posted, and the filler text you
pointed to, are accurately described by any of those terms: gibberish, mumbo
jumbo, nonsense or gobbledygook. There is no need to "settle" for one when
*all* work quite well!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Hahahah ... So it's none of those? ... All of those?... Maybe some of those?
And you talk about me being lost?..... ROTFLMAO!
>>> Here is the document the above paragraph comes from:
>>>
>>> <http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/t23739_24.doc>
>>>
>>> And what follows is the text Wally has deemed to be "coherent and well
>>> ordered"... in its entirety.
>>
>> "in it's entirety" Snit? And you will be supplying your support for that
>> statement ... When exactly?
>
> Click the link. I quoted the text in its entirety.
NEWSFLASH! *That* is only support of what you quoted Snit, It is not support
of anything that I stated concerning it!
> The text you claimed
> was "coherent and well ordered". And you *still* deny it is gibberish!
I have only stated that the text that *I* linked to was "coherent and well
ordered" Snit, and that was the text that I stated was the possible/probable
source for the text that you posted!
I have not commented on the bulk of that text that did not form part of the
text that you posted, the fact that you chose to quote *all* of it is
something that you will have to come to terms with Snit!
>> Bearing in mind that the reason for linking to that document was to show a
>> possible/probable source for the text that *you* posted!
>
> Which you now know to be incorrect. You do know that... right? Maybe
> not... you might be that lost.
Of course I know that *now*, but at the time I first proposed that
possibility you were steadfastly refusing to supply the source for the text
in your post, instead you were implying that you wrote it by asking....
"what makes you think I did not write the above."-Snit
And when I answered ...
"Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past is a very good
indicator Snit!"-Wally
You then said...
"Ah, so the above is just too coherent for you to think I wrote it,
eh?"-Snit
Did you ever explain what you meant by "too coherent" Snit?
How could it be "too coherent"? LOL
Oh yes! Then you expanded on that theme by calling it "far, far to coherent"
Snit...
"Right: you figured that the above was far, far to coherent for me to
have written it."-Snit
WTF did you mean by "too coherent" and "far, far to coherent"? Snit
Where do you get those sorts of ideas from Snit?
No I know you will not explain yourself ... But it's fun asking.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The record shows that I called the text that *you* posted garbled and
disjointed Snit!
> and the gibberish you pointed to,
I pointed to no gibberish!
> which you called "coherent and well ordered",
As I didn�t point to "gibberish" I couldn�t have called it anything Snit!
> are both examples of text with no coherency... meant
> simply as filler text. Both came from the same tool,
Both came from the exact same *source* that the tool used to generate the
text!
> but neither came from the other.
You cannot prove that the text that I linked to was not the source of the
text that you posted, in fact considering that you initially implied that
you wrote the text in your post right up until the time that I posted the
link to text that contained *all* of the text in your post I could make a
far better case for my point of view than you can for yours!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Wally will suffice Snit!
>- in the context I have just used the word, do explain
> the difference. Your "lessons" are always so amusing. :)
You have had the difference between synonymous and being a synonym explained
to you previously clearly you are too thick to take it all in!