Quotes! 02-DEC-2006
Anonymous
Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus equals
reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support), but you
run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely powerful."
Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have to
say about him.
--------- (DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS ---------
TheLetterK: "Just ignore him. It's obvious that being in my killfile
distresses him, else he would not resort to such childish and desperate
attempts to draw attention. "
Edwin: "I don't know why I bothered with you. I knew before I started
that it's futile to attempt any kind of normal or reasonable conversation
with you."
STravis: "Your stupid attempt at trying to take a pot shot at someone who
isn't even talking to you has been noted."
Alan Baker: "Nope. It means I have Snit in my killfile and can't figure out
why everyone doesn't."
Tim Adams: "Some day you'll learn when those two words you toss about mean.
In the mean time, those few of us still reading your lies and dishonest
posting laugh each and every time you claim to be 'honest and honorable'. It
all goes back to your editing a pdf file that you claimed was never edited.
(That last sentence is thrown in, as I know you'll once again ask for proof
of your dishonesty, even thought it gets proved on an almost dayily basis.)"
Sandman: "You're like a slightly more honest version of Snit, which is worse
than bad praise."
Muahman: "I fuck with lots of you Mactards. But you are the only one who is
truly truly insane. This is the first serious post I've ever made in here.
You are not stable."
OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled him?"
Sandman: "No matter how hard you try, Edwin, you'll never be as big of a
troll that Snit is. You're like a blind amateur compared to him.
But don't take it hard - you ARE one of the biggest trolls in the group.
You've accomplished a lot really. There are few that seem as stupid as you
or have as bad memory as you, so it's not like you're a complete loser.
BUt you'll never win the grand title, not by a long short. Snit has had that
welded to his forehead for a couple of years now. And the funny is that you
at least know and admit to being a troll, which may be your mistake. Snits
trick may just be to pretend that he isn't a troll at all! "
Josh McKee: "No thanks...I have no interest in anything Snit says. That's
why he's in my killfile."
Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew what
a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you. I
guess I had too much confidence in you."
Mark Kent: "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the same as it is
with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be impossible to
determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty ends. In my
primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs, and I recall
her going over the "cry wolf" story.
Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help
him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining if he's
ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
TheLetterK: "Worse still, Snit has to lie about my claims to justify his
personal attacks. This is why I have him in my killfile. It just shows how
sad and desperate he is, that he keeps responding to someone who is ignoring
his drivel."
Mark Kent: "He's also stuck in my killfile, and for very good reason. I'll
not waste my time with people who cannot grasp the concept of honesty."
----------- CSMA_MODERATOR'S ALL TIME FAVORITES! -----------
1- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour and
not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd leave too.
Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I have never
made the same wish of him."
2- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are
flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup."
3- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then
troll. Otherwise, maybe.
Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but it's fixed now."
4- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if
you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the
same.."
5- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but since
Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent discussion
about anything.
The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some people just
can't stop feeding him."
6- °b° unny: "snit makes me sad."
7- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
8- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so, for they way
he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot, and simply
refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."
9- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility.
Maybe it's time for you to learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming,
of course, that your Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
10- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to "win" an
argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you keep this
up? What results are you expecting?"
11- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already misread what I
had previously written. What makes you think that you're correctly
understanding what I'm writting now. You've got a history of reading into
things what you wanted people to have said instead of what they really said.
I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you look
foolish."
Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them
are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced degree
to figure out."
12- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a woman, do
something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!! "
13- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew
what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you.
I guess I had too much confidence in you."
14- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser
you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop
responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding
as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of
your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop
responding to you. you almost always start responding back in a semi normal
way, but inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask
that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for having to put
up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser
as well, just pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double
condolences to her). "
15- Edwin: "The worst troll this NG has ever seen is playing the part of the
victim... you can almost hear the violins playing in the background as he
whines... hilarious..."
16- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see a
doctor."
17- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in my
post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How childishly
typical of you, Snit. "
18- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA
I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in a room of
really young children trying there best to best the other person. The one
common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate to be like this, but
facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great percentage of
arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more about "look everybody,
I think he lied". Is there no end then all this picking at each other on
such a personal level. CSMA has always been al little adversarial but you
have personally crank it up to the point that this place is no longer fun.
Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this place your own personal
circus."
19- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit (AKA
Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you crazy with his
twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will
move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his
endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you and feed
him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
20- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else notices
that you are not honest and you have no honor."
21- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in a while, I
make the mistake in thinking that that you are starting to make sense in
your posts; I tend to agree with your politics. Then you post stuff like
this and it destroys any respect that I have for you."
22- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
23- hh: "Dodging qustions, changing the subject ... is "honorable" behavior?
Nope. It is little wonder that so few people have sufficient patience to
deal with Snit."
24- Jamie Hart (cola): "I was very deliberate in my choice of words, so far
in our exchange, you have claimed to say something you didn't, accused me of
deliberately removing context and accused me of calling you names.
You don't have a very good record so far, and I don't have the time to put
up with your posting style, so this is the last you will hear from me."
25- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on usenet
that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your screen
endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're a super
troll, or you're a super mess."
26- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
27- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
28- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me achieve a
greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and those
kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."
29- Jim Lee Jr.: "Troll."
30- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in
seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT things
and garbage?"
31- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
actually provide evidence for his claims.
Par for the course I suppose."
32- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall - in a
few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at passersby
'sucky sucky, $2...'"
33- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are you
bitching about?"
34- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??"
35- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings since
I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just
consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his name."
36- John Slade: "Snit is full of shit and knows little about computers.
However I don't think anyone should leave based on how stupid they are.
Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. If Snit wants to display his
ignorance and lack of knowledge, he should have that right."
37- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this posting?
Because I certainly cannot find it."
38- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even though
the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot is mostly
being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that keep
replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this place could
be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his
trolling to more fertile ground."
39- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother reading the
posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid excrescence.
Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position, instead of
sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping it'll all go away."
40- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem attacks.You make
silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're a liar
and a hypocrite and you always have been."
41- Lars Träger: "Yes, you are stupid."
42- Lefty Bigfoot: "I would hope that Snit decides to use this group for
something other than trolling, but that's not worth wasting time on."
43- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been an
annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense of trying
to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is trashtalk about
Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
44- Linønut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
45- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most cretinous, I
would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
46- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the same
as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be
impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty
ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs,
and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story.
Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help
him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining if he's
ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
47- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to this post
since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him today. A
friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and videotaped her
kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a DVD of it for her.
While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad because we quit
making him the center of attention and made that kid on the tv the center of
attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to block our view of it.
That's how Snit lives his whole life."
48- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see
you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone.
You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!"
49- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I can only
say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to inhabit CSMA
for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged you actually behave
further reinforces this notion. Please seek professional help."
50- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all rubbernecking.
We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious. Treat him the same way,
look but just keep moving on."
51- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly show
that you are crying out for attention."
52- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two about
social behavior."
53- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them are trolls,
if anyone here has issues it's not me."
54- Nashton: "This issue was beaten to death. I cannot imagine why Snit is
bringing it up and why anybody would bother to engage in conversation with
him on this topic."
55- Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a
total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now. Why bother
responding to his stupidities anyway?"
56- news/Andy: "Snit you obviously need to be more precise when you argue
with some people, or are you doing it deliberately?"
57- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled
him?"
58- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
Select offending Author, example Snit...
Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
Click "OK"
Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
Then to see your work...
Choose the Filter Menu again,
Then "Refilter Articles"...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
Enjoy!!!!!"
59- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit, for
whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?"
60- Pawel Wójciak: "Jesus Christ, snit...
<plonk> "
61- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher but I
thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten seconds later
and he's gone! Amazing."
62- Peter Bjørn Perlsø: "Don't let facts get in the way of you behaving like
an ass."
63- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told
me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."
64- Peter Köhlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as dishonest
as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma posters even more
stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There are certainly other csma
posters who lie nearly as much. But no others are so intent on trolling in
whatever way possible as Snot"
65- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
66- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long standing
war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you single out
persons to target your attentions upon and then continuously berate them
with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses,
which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous nature
aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting
this and other groups is to troll."
67- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
68- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous situation.
And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going on."
69- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll. I
am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is ...
somewhat clumsy."
70- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you quote
Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell of a
tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of looking
ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's your goal,
you're on the right track, and more power to you."
71- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category. Starting
crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to generate a flame
war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and how it can help you and
your supposed users why aren't you requesting help from a more
technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group?
As the old saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. Your posts
seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
72- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY- of
csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news group
before.
He has the ability to turn just about any person against him in just a few
posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part with Michael is
that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll - damn
what -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong.
Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
73- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice. Honestly, even the
nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront made more sense than this.
You been doing drugs or something?"
74- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're probably
dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to remove smut from
your harddrive."
75- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger, i
guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's
making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart.
indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and
he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted."
76- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is that he has:
* a monumental reading comprehension problem.
* nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
* built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small cities.
* been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll (or worse) by the vast majority.
* used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
* stolen IDs and admitted to it.
* gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
* twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
* made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
* virtually no life outside of csma."
77- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant dung,
and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit Circus", but then
the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like elephant dung."
78- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me for
your rediculous argument regarding this."
79- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses' when
referring to others.
Oh, how could the morally superior snit have fallen so low.. Please take a
moment out of your busy schedule to feel embarassed for him. Or perhaps we
should set up a fund to get him more happy glue (and the appropriate plastic
bags)."
80- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then. A
snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
81- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one
lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm right,
nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to demonstrate
their claim, you blindly continue to insist that they provide no evidence,
or that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse still, you fall back on
straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to portray the argument in your
favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA, Shit. *Edwin* is
more prone to fits of reason than you are. "
82- Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see, you
never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just the
other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in this NG
anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
83- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more compassion.
Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the poor sick fool can
get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to hanging out with and supporting
racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah. It is true that no-one likes him and
those that pretend they do are just using him or don't know him - but come
on- it's not his fault. He's sick. Have some compassion, eh? All these
idiot trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy, MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all so
alike. I pity each and every one of them"
84- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you could
actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
85- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
86- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of your
Circus acts?"
87- Tommy: "LIAR!!!"
88- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit. Most
people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'.
Just what would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity? Must
be some kind of severe mental illness."
89- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are nothing
more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define the rules,
but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules when
inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt anyone
would be foolish enough to play your game."
90- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
apologies for this, PLONK!
Feel proud about that. You're the first person to be plonked from my new
computer! :-) "
91- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
92- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to prove
what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people without lives,
like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping Snit to do a search -
you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry little life."
93- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to draw more
people into the debate I'm currently having with Steve/Elizabot/etc' tactic
is fairly trollish."
Hadron Quark
Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
together with little thought, reason or criteria.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and criteria.
The reason is snit's here.
The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit is.
And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
understand what you DO read.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Peter Köhlmann
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>
> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
> reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>
> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and criteria.
> The reason is snit's here.
> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit
> is. And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
>
> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
> understand what you DO read.
Oh, "kernel hacker" and "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark knows very well
what kind of hideous troll Snot really is.
Point is, he appreciates having that asshole trying to disrupt cola. For the
same reason his buddy flatfish constantly crossposts to csma
--
The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income
and add ten percent.
Snit
ekuj7s$81e$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 12/3/06 6:26 AM:
If you think I am as you say, Peter, then you should be able to post
examples of *my* behavior... behavior you find unacceptable.
But you can't.
I, on the other hand, can point to you lying - you altering other people's
online names in juvenile ways, etc.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
x7mz65x...@geemail.com on 12/3/06 3:44 AM:
> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
I have Steve Carroll kill filed. He posts this list under one sock puppet
or another whenever he is really tired of my not giving him attention.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>
> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
> reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>
> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
> criteria.
There is?
> The reason is snit's here.
Where is "here"? The 'net?
> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit is.
> And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch of
nyms talking rubbish.
>
> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
Yes. I cant read. Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you : "CS
Degree" Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
> understand what you DO read.
Come on, petty sniping apart, I don't see where he is supposed to be
trolling. Seems to be reasoned argument to me : and met with the usual
blanks stares and intolerance that is provided by the ignorant the world over.
Snit
Carroll collected - with some help of people who actually knew how to do web
searching - some nasty quotes about me. I returned the favor to Carroll,
but I did not use a sock puppet to do so, as Carroll did... and repeatedly
does.
Carroll and the other CSMA trolls have repeatedly been given the challenge
to point to *my* comments and words to support their claims against me.
They fail. Every time.
The most recent example is Sandman... I challenged him to put his best
evidence of his accusations "on the table" and I would do the same for his.
He ran... even he knows he is a cowardly, lying troll. Carroll is the same
way. Hell, Carroll shares his fantasies about my emailing his unmarried
"wife"... a claim even he later admitted he cannot support in any way,
including by even showing the supposed email she was sent... assuming she
exists!
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Rick
> "Anonymous" <n...@void.nul> writes:
>
>> Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
>>
>> Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus
>> equals reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support),
>> but you run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely
>> powerful."
>>
>> Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
>> posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have
>> to say about him.
(snip)
>>
>>
> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
.. to show how Snit is regarded by a large number of posters in CSMA and
COLA?
... and why did you have to quote the whole message to make a 2 line reply?
--
Rick
Rick
> spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>>
>> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought
>> or reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>>
>> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and criteria.
>
> There is?
Yes.
>
>> The reason is snit's here.
>
> Where is "here"? The 'net?
COLA.
>
>> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit
>> is. And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
>
> But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch of
> nyms talking rubbish.
Get glasses. Learn to read.
>
>
>> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
>
> Yes. I cant read. Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you :
> "CS Degree" Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
>
>> understand what you DO read.
>
> Come on, petty sniping apart, I don't see where he is supposed to be
> trolling. Seems to be reasoned argument to me : and met with the usual
> blanks stares and intolerance that is provided by the ignorant the world
> over.
Yes, we understand why you and flatfish think well of Snit.
--
Rick
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>>
>> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
>> reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
>> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
>> criteria.
> There is?
Yes, there is.
>> The reason is snit's here.
> Where is "here"? The 'net?
You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the moment
quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a metaphor
for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
>> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit is.
>> And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
> But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch of
> nyms talking rubbish.
Oh, of course, everyone who attacks a troll is a nym.
Unlike flatfish who has ADMITTED nymshifting and a good dozen or more of his
nyms have been identified.
Naturally EVERYONE else posting to usenet MUST be a nym too.
Apart from you of course, you're the only individual on the internet.
>> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
> Yes. I cant read.
You bring that into doubt when you ask stupid questions like the one here..
> Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you : "CS
> Degree" Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
I doubt mr kohlman ever accused me of having a fake degree, unlike you just
then.
>> understand what you DO read.
> Come on, petty sniping apart,
Yes?
> I don't see where he is supposed to be
> trolling. Seems to be reasoned argument to me
But then, you're an unreasonable troll.
Most of us have more exacting standards.
The fact that it's not just linux advocates who attack him...
It's windows advocates and mac advocates too...
Seems to me, snit is the only common ground the 3 "communities" have.
Odd that you seem to not see his posts as utter shit. You're one of the only
people to support him.
When the other ones supporting him include DFS and flatfish, all that shows
is that trolls of a feather flock together.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cc
spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> > spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
>
> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
> >>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
> >>
> >> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
> >> reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>
> Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit
and add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the
idiots squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've
all learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
> >> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
> >> criteria.
>
> > There is?
>
> Yes, there is.
>
> >> The reason is snit's here.
>
> > Where is "here"? The 'net?
>
> You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the moment
> quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a metaphor
> for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a
program. 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think
there are multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this
newsgroup.
> >> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit is.
> >> And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
>
> > But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch of
> > nyms talking rubbish.
>
> Oh, of course, everyone who attacks a troll is a nym.
> Unlike flatfish who has ADMITTED nymshifting and a good dozen or more of his
> nyms have been identified.
>
> Naturally EVERYONE else posting to usenet MUST be a nym too.
> Apart from you of course, you're the only individual on the internet.
>
> >> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
>
> > Yes. I cant read.
>
> You bring that into doubt when you ask stupid questions like the one here..
>
> > Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you : "CS
> > Degree" Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
>
> I doubt mr kohlman ever accused me of having a fake degree, unlike you just
> then.
I forgot Mr. Kohlman. Anytime I'm ready to hand "most stupid
individual" to chrisv, he comes back with something surprising. Did you
know he's the #1 troll feeder according to Roy Culley? Tsk. Tsk.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit
> and add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the
> idiots squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've
> all learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
So, in other words, quoting a massive article and then adding a line at the
bottom like some clueless AOL "ME TOO"er... is just your way of trolling...
What a surprise.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hadron Quark
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> > spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>
>> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> >>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>> >>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>> >>
>> >> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no thought or
>> >> reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>>
>> Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
>
> I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit
> and add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the
> idiots squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've
> all learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
>
>> >> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
>> >> criteria.
>>
>> > There is?
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>>
>> >> The reason is snit's here.
>>
>> > Where is "here"? The 'net?
>>
>> You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the
>> moment
No, that would be Rick. But then we cant all have, snigger, a CS Degree.
>> quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a metaphor
>> for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
It was a dig at your arrogant status about where Snit can and cant
go. The fact it sailed over your head is no great surprise.
>
> Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a
> program. 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think
> there are multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this
> newsgroup.
>
>
>> >> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll snit is.
>> >> And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit putdown.
>>
>> > But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch of
>> > nyms talking rubbish.
>>
>> Oh, of course, everyone who attacks a troll is a nym.
>> Unlike flatfish who has ADMITTED nymshifting and a good dozen or more of his
>> nyms have been identified.
Sad.
>>
>> Naturally EVERYONE else posting to usenet MUST be a nym too.
>> Apart from you of course, you're the only individual on the internet.
>>
>> >> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or can't
>>
>> > Yes. I cant read.
>>
>> You bring that into doubt when you ask stupid questions like the one here..
>>
>> > Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you : "CS
>> > Degree" Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
>>
>> I doubt mr kohlman ever accused me of having a fake degree, unlike you just
>> then.
I never accused you of having a fake degree. Lots of us have them : but
we dont feel the need to tell the world in a .sig which breaks usenet
netiquette,
>
> I forgot Mr. Kohlman. Anytime I'm ready to hand "most stupid
> individual" to chrisv, he comes back with something surprising. Did you
> know he's the #1 troll feeder according to Roy Culley? Tsk. Tsk.
>
--
If Bill Gates is the Devil then Linus Torvalds must be the Messiah.
-- Unknown source
Hadron Quark
> cc <scat...@hotmail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit
>> and add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the
>> idiots squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've
>> all learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
>
> So, in other words, quoting a massive article and then adding a line at the
> bottom like some clueless AOL "ME TOO"er... is just your way of trolling...
>
> What a surprise.
Says the man who posts a 5 line sig on EVERY post.
God, you're a self righteous idiot. You fit right in in COLA.
Rick
> "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> > spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>
>>> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> >>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts
>>> >>> cobbled together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>>> >>
>>> >> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no
>>> >> thought or reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>>>
>>> Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
>>
>> I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit
>> and add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the
>> idiots squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've
>> all learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
>>
>>> >> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
>>> >> criteria.
>>>
>>> > There is?
>>>
>>> Yes, there is.
>>>
>>> >> The reason is snit's here.
>>>
>>> > Where is "here"? The 'net?
>>>
>>> You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the
>>> moment
>
> No, that would be Rick. But then we cant all have, snigger, a CS Degree.
.. and where did you get the idea I have a CS Degree, which I don't I
have, and have never claimed to have.
>
>>> quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a
>>> metaphor for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
>
> It was a dig at your arrogant status about where Snit can and cant go. The
> fact it sailed over your head is no great surprise.
You need to work on your communicaton skills.
>
>
>> Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a
>> program. 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think there
>> are multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>>> >> The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll
>>> >> snit is. And the criteria is simply any article with a good snit
>>> >> putdown.
>>>
>>> > But I didnt see any good put downs. The only thing I saw was a bunch
>>> > of nyms talking rubbish.
>>>
>>> Oh, of course, everyone who attacks a troll is a nym. Unlike flatfish
>>> who has ADMITTED nymshifting and a good dozen or more of his nyms have
>>> been identified.
>
> Sad.
Yes.
>
>
>>> Naturally EVERYONE else posting to usenet MUST be a nym too. Apart from
>>> you of course, you're the only individual on the internet.
>>>
>>> >> If you couldn't see that, yuo didn't read it. Or can't read. Or
>>> >> can't
>>>
>>> > Yes. I cant read.
>>>
>>> You bring that into doubt when you ask stupid questions like the one
>>> here..
>>>
>>> > Good one. Hey, maybe I dont have a "degree" like you : "CS Degree"
>>> > Andrew? (Quote marks taken fromn Peter Köhlmann).
>>>
>>> I doubt mr kohlman ever accused me of having a fake degree, unlike you
>>> just then.
>
> I never accused you of having a fake degree. Lots of us have them : but we
> dont feel the need to tell the world in a .sig which breaks usenet
> netiquette,
You have a fake degree? Why am I not surprised?
>
>
>> I forgot Mr. Kohlman. Anytime I'm ready to hand "most stupid individual"
>> to chrisv, he comes back with something surprising. Did you know he's
>> the #1 troll feeder according to Roy Culley? Tsk. Tsk.
>>
--
Rick
Rick
>
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> > spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>
>> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> >>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts
>> >>> cobbled together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>> >>
>> >> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no
>> >> thought or reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
>>
>> Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
>
> I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit and
> add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the idiots
> squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've all
> learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
Yes, it is 2006 and many people have learned to disregard rules and
ettiquette.
>
>> >> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
>> >> criteria.
>>
>> > There is?
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>>
>> >> The reason is snit's here.
>>
>> > Where is "here"? The 'net?
>>
>> You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the moment
>> quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a
>> metaphor for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
>
> Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a program.
> 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think there are
> multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this newsgroup.
That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
program.(snip)
--
Rick
Snit
pan.2006.12.03....@trollfeed.com on 12/3/06 9:04 AM:
>> Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a program.
>> 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think there are
>> multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this newsgroup.
>
> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
> program.(snip)
Please note, Rick, how you have just shown the comments about you are
correct.
You are not able to understand how - from a user's perspective - a file is
in a program.
Even advanced users often think of their archived mail being "in" their
email program, even though they know the technical facts behind file
storage. OS X works with users who think in such terms - which is a good
number of new and non-techy users. In OS X, images are "in" iPhoto, songs
are "in" iTunes, etc. Apple also assists people in understanding the folder
structures tied to these programs... it is a very effective UI. And one
that you do not understand - even though *novice* users often get it very
quickly. So be it.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
cc
Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:16:47 -0800, cc wrote:
>
> >
> > spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >> > spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:
> >>
> >> >> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> did eloquently scribble:
> >> >>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts
> >> >>> cobbled together with little thought, reason or criteria.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why was the entire article quoted? Seems to be the result of no
> >> >> thought or reason... oh wait, it was posted by quark, silly me.
> >>
> >> Inability to justify entire article quoting noted.
> >
> > I won't speak for hadron, but I know I quote entire posts of bullshit and
> > add a line just to see these types of comments. Nothing makes the idiots
> > squirm like a violation of netiquette. It's 2006, I think we've all
> > learned how to skip to the bottom of a post by now.
>
> Yes, it is 2006 and many people have learned to disregard rules and
> ettiquette.
Because they're asinine.
> >
> >> >> As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought and
> >> >> criteria.
> >>
> >> > There is?
> >>
> >> Yes, there is.
> >>
> >> >> The reason is snit's here.
> >>
> >> > Where is "here"? The 'net?
> >>
> >> You have to be the most stupid individual on the newsgroup at the moment
> >> quark. You find yourself incapable of understanding "place" as a
> >> metaphor for a virtual location, i.e. this (or these) newsgroup(s).
> >
> > Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a program.
> > 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think there are
> > multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this newsgroup.
>
> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
> program.(snip)
Does the sun rise in the morning?
Kier
<snip>
> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
> program.(snip)
There's a serious point here, though. Files may not actually be 'in' the
program, but a lot of users probably *do* think of it in that way. They
don't understand the underlying structure, and in some ways have no need
to. They see only the interface they are using - the application. That's
how they manipulate the file, so to them the file *is* in the program.
Saying, 'no, it's not', is no use, because while we may know that, they
don't.
--
Kier
Snit
1165166174.5...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 12/3/06 10:16 AM:
>>> Rick is unable to understand the metaphor of a file being "in" a program.
>>> 7 uses the word windopz. chrisv is, well, chrisv. I think there are
>>> multiple candidates for "most stupid individual" on this newsgroup.
>>
>> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
>> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
>> program.(snip)
>
> Does the sun rise in the morning?
LOL! I bet that question goes right over Rick's head.
Hadron Quark
> It's a battle of the finest minds in COLA!
> I'm rooting for Rick.
>
Since you can consider a "program" as a logical collection of sw,meta
data and data, one might indeed consider the "file" to be "inside the
program".
.......
Kier
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
> It's a battle of the finest minds in COLA!
> I'm rooting for Rick.
You really are a tedious, lying, stinking little troll, flatty. You scream
and shriek about the Linux advocates here, and then behave like this. Grow
the fuck up!
--
Kier
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> If you think I am as you say, Peter, then you should be able to post
> examples of *my* behavior... behavior you find unacceptable.
Him and at least 53 persons more:
-hh, Alan Baker, Andrew J. Brehm, B.B., Bob B., bobinnv, buzz off,
Carlo Coggi, Chris Clement, Dave Fritzinger, Dawg Tail, Donald
McDaniel, ed, Elijah Baley, Elizabot, fibercut, George Graves,
GreyCloud, H, Henry Flam, Heywood Mogroot, Jason McNorton, Jeff B,
Jeff Hoppe, Jim Lee Jr., Jim Polaski, John C. Randolph, John Q.
Public, John Slade, Josh McKee, K E, Lars Träger, Lefty Bigfoot, Mayor
of R'lyeh, Mike, Mike Dee, Nasht0n, Nashton, Patrick Nihill, Pawe
Wojciak, RichardK, Rick, Rick G, Sandman, spi...@freenet.co.uk, Steve
Mackay, Stuart Krivis, Tim Adams, Timberwoof, TravelinMan, Wally,
Zaren Ankleweed, ZnU
They all have the same thing to say about you. And I'm quite sure that
you will claim that no one has posted examples, or substantiated these
claims.
53 liars, right Michael Glasser?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
pan.2006.12.03....@tiscali.co.uk on 12/3/06 10:17 AM:
Exactly... I have been very clear in this yet Rick continues to troll and
flame me over it.
Snit
l6Ech.70$k%5....@newsfe08.lga on 12/3/06 10:49 AM:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
> It's a battle of the finest minds in COLA!
> I'm rooting for Rick.
>
>
Kier is, however, correct. Rick is not.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Hadron Quark
> "flatfish+++" <flat...@linuxmail.org> stated in post
> l6Ech.70$k%5....@newsfe08.lga on 12/3/06 10:49 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:04:55 +0000, Rick wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
>>>> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
>>>> program.(snip)
>>>
>>> There's a serious point here, though. Files may not actually be 'in' the
>>> program, but a lot of users probably *do* think of it in that way. They
>>> don't understand the underlying structure, and in some ways have no need
>>> to. They see only the interface they are using - the application. That's
>>> how they manipulate the file, so to them the file *is* in the program.
>>>
>>> Saying, 'no, it's not', is no use, because while we may know that, they
>>> don't.
>>
>> It's a battle of the finest minds in COLA!
>> I'm rooting for Rick.
>>
>>
> Kier is, however, correct. Rick is not.
Kier isn't stupid. Rick, however, appears to have difficulty grasping
the most obvious issues. My money is on Kier in this argument. Maybe we
could shift it to whether aan application program is inside an OS framework?
Snit
mr-78EA90.19...@individual.net on 12/3/06 11:08 AM:
If you are right that each of them has made a similar accusation, then it
should be easy to find support for at least a few of their claims.
And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such support.
Support for the fact you lied, however, has been documented heavily with the
Google record, the WayBackMachine, your own words, and saved PDF "printouts"
of a CSS validation service.
Are you ready to take me up on my challenge and place your word and your
honor against mine?
You claim I am not a college instructor. I challenge you to provide your
support.
I claim you lied about your CSS validating. I challenge you to *face* the
overwhelming evidence of your dishonesty.
You will run. Remember, Sandman, from the facts that piss off trolls:
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
Even if a million people make a false claim, the claim does not become
true... this is a fact you cannot accept because your whole claim against me
rests on your denial of this.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
flatfish+++
Calm down kier.
Calm down.
You're coming undone!
1. I rarely scream.
2. I never shriek.
3. Seeing as I am surrounded by water, I bathe regularly.
4. I rarely use swear words as it is a characteristic of the lower
classes.
5. It's all moot because there are no Linux advocates in COLA except maybe
Matthew P, and Ghost on occasion when he isn't going way out there.
Donald L McDaniel
>Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
>
>Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus equals
>reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support), but you
>run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely powerful."
>
>Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
>posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have to
>say about him.
snit IS different: He is intellectually honest, unlike the Mac-loving
hypocrites who post here
>
>Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew what
>a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you. I
>guess I had too much confidence in you."
Please do not include me in your hate file...
snit is my friend (I hope). He and I have an on-going relationship
which allows for an open exchange. Sometimes, this leads to
name-calling on both our parts.
Mostly because I am more governed by my emotions, while he is mostly
governed by his rational mind.
But overall, I respect snit, as being an intelligent and
fairly-unbiased person, with whom I can always speak my mind and know
he will seriously consider my words carefully.
Unlike most MacSnots who post in CSMA.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
-----------------------------------------------------
Snit
n176n2dhlt9bbc3df...@4ax.com on 12/3/06 11:57 AM:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:55:56 -0700, "Anonymous" <n...@void.nul> wrote:
>
>> Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
>>
>> Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus equals
>> reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support), but you
>> run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely powerful."
>>
>> Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
>> posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have to
>> say about him.
>
> snit IS different: He is intellectually honest, unlike the Mac-loving
> hypocrites who post here
I will bet you Carroll and his "friends" forget to add that to the list of
quotes about me. :)
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew what
>> a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you. I
>> guess I had too much confidence in you."
>
> Please do not include me in your hate file...
> snit is my friend (I hope). He and I have an on-going relationship
> which allows for an open exchange. Sometimes, this leads to
> name-calling on both our parts.
We do not always agree... sometimes we each say things that are not fully
appropriate and we, like adults, move on. So be it.
> Mostly because I am more governed by my emotions, while he is mostly
> governed by his rational mind.
I would say that is a fair statement - though we both make errors on both
accounts.
> But overall, I respect snit, as being an intelligent and
> fairly-unbiased person, with whom I can always speak my mind and know
> he will seriously consider my words carefully.
>
> Unlike most MacSnots who post in CSMA.
Fair enough.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Kier
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:07:13 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:49:10 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:04:55 +0000, Rick wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
>>>>> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
>>>>> program.(snip)
>>>>
>>>> There's a serious point here, though. Files may not actually be 'in' the
>>>> program, but a lot of users probably *do* think of it in that way. They
>>>> don't understand the underlying structure, and in some ways have no need
>>>> to. They see only the interface they are using - the application. That's
>>>> how they manipulate the file, so to them the file *is* in the program.
>>>>
>>>> Saying, 'no, it's not', is no use, because while we may know that, they
>>>> don't.
>>>
>>> It's a battle of the finest minds in COLA!
>>> I'm rooting for Rick.
>>
>> You really are a tedious, lying, stinking little troll, flatty. You scream
>> and shriek about the Linux advocates here, and then behave like this. Grow
>> the fuck up!
>
> Calm down kier.
> Calm down.
> You're coming undone!
Nope. Just getting sick of your nonsense, and your lies. Even your pal
Hadron has more integrity than you, and that's saying something.
>
> 1. I rarely scream.
> 2. I never shriek.
> 3. Seeing as I am surrounded by water, I bathe regularly.
So do the rest of us.
> 4. I rarely use swear words as it is a characteristic of the lower
> classes.
Don't bet on it, pal.
> 5. It's all moot because there are no Linux advocates in COLA except maybe
> Matthew P, and Ghost on occasion when he isn't going way out there.
Bullshit.
--
Kier
Hadron Quark
Lets check a few things off:
1) rude? check.
2) loud? check.
3) Bad language? check.
4) net nanny characteristics? check.
Looks like I was right. Kier is losing it.
Kier : calm down. Take your meds and have an early night.
I dont think I have ever seen Flatfish use bad language or shout &
scream like a little girl who has been told she cant have a new pony for
christmas. You on the other hand have the all the habits of a highly
strung ballerina. Relax. Take yourself to your quiet corner. Sleep.
CSMA_Moderator
"Donald L McDaniel" <ortho...@comcast.invalid> wrote in message
news:n176n2dhlt9bbc3df...@4ax.com...
Rick
Then they should be educated.
--
Rick
George Graves
Cheese, you're a tool. MacDaniel!
--
George Graves
The easiest thing for one to be is "fashionable." It requires no thought,
no intelligence, and no creativity. Just watch, listen to, and do what
everybody else does and you're part of the "in crowd."
George Graves
Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Anonymous" <n...@void.nul> writes:
>
> > Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
> >
> > Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus
> > equals
> > reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support), but you
> > run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely powerful."
> >
> > Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
> > posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have to
> > say about him.
> >
> >
> > --------- (DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS ---------
> >
> > TheLetterK: "Just ignore him. It's obvious that being in my killfile
> > distresses him, else he would not resort to such childish and desperate
> > attempts to draw attention. "
> >
> > Edwin: "I don't know why I bothered with you. I knew before I started
> > that it's futile to attempt any kind of normal or reasonable conversation
> > with you."
> >
> > STravis: "Your stupid attempt at trying to take a pot shot at someone who
> > isn't even talking to you has been noted."
> >
> > Alan Baker: "Nope. It means I have Snit in my killfile and can't figure out
> > why everyone doesn't."
> >
> > Tim Adams: "Some day you'll learn when those two words you toss about mean.
> > In the mean time, those few of us still reading your lies and dishonest
> > posting laugh each and every time you claim to be 'honest and honorable'.
> > It
> > all goes back to your editing a pdf file that you claimed was never edited.
> > (That last sentence is thrown in, as I know you'll once again ask for proof
> > of your dishonesty, even thought it gets proved on an almost dayily
> > basis.)"
> >
> > Sandman: "You're like a slightly more honest version of Snit, which is
> > worse
> > than bad praise."
> >
> > Muahman: "I fuck with lots of you Mactards. But you are the only one who is
> > truly truly insane. This is the first serious post I've ever made in here.
> > You are not stable."
> >
> > OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled him?"
> >
> > Sandman: "No matter how hard you try, Edwin, you'll never be as big of a
> > troll that Snit is. You're like a blind amateur compared to him.
> >
> > But don't take it hard - you ARE one of the biggest trolls in the group.
> > You've accomplished a lot really. There are few that seem as stupid as you
> > or have as bad memory as you, so it's not like you're a complete loser.
> >
> > BUt you'll never win the grand title, not by a long short. Snit has had
> > that
> > welded to his forehead for a couple of years now. And the funny is that you
> > at least know and admit to being a troll, which may be your mistake. Snits
> > trick may just be to pretend that he isn't a troll at all! "
> >
> > Josh McKee: "No thanks...I have no interest in anything Snit says. That's
> > why he's in my killfile."
> >
> > Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew
> > what
> > a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you. I
> > guess I had too much confidence in you."
> >
> > Mark Kent: "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the same as it is
> > with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be impossible to
> > determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty ends. In my
> > primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs, and I recall
> > her going over the "cry wolf" story.
> >
> > Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help
> > him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining if he's
> > ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
> >
> > TheLetterK: "Worse still, Snit has to lie about my claims to justify his
> > personal attacks. This is why I have him in my killfile. It just shows how
> > sad and desperate he is, that he keeps responding to someone who is
> > ignoring
> > his drivel."
> >
> > Mark Kent: "He's also stuck in my killfile, and for very good reason. I'll
> > not waste my time with people who cannot grasp the concept of honesty."
> >
> >
> > ----------- CSMA_MODERATOR'S ALL TIME FAVORITES! -----------
> >
> > 1- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour and
> > not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd leave too.
> >
> > Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I have never
> > made the same wish of him."
> >
> > 2- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you
> > are
> > flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup."
> >
> > 3- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then
> > troll. Otherwise, maybe.
> >
> > Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but it's fixed now."
> >
> > 4- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if
> > you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the
> > same.."
> >
> > 5- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but since
> > Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent discussion
> > about anything.
> >
> > The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some people just
> > can't stop feeding him."
> >
> > 6- °b° unny: "snit makes me sad."
> >
> > 7- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
> >
> > 8- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so, for they way
> > he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot, and simply
> > refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
> >
> > It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."
> >
> > 9- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility.
> > Maybe it's time for you to learn how to use your kill-filter. I am
> > assuming,
> > of course, that your Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
> >
> > 10- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to "win" an
> > argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you keep this
> > up? What results are you expecting?"
> >
> > 11- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already misread what I
> > had previously written. What makes you think that you're correctly
> > understanding what I'm writting now. You've got a history of reading into
> > things what you wanted people to have said instead of what they really
> > said.
> > I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you look
> > foolish."
> >
> > Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of
> > them
> > are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
> > who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
> > Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
> > degree
> > to figure out."
> >
> > 12- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a woman, do
> > something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!! "
> >
> > 13- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew
> > what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you.
> > I guess I had too much confidence in you."
> >
> > 14- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser
> > you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop
> > responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding
> > as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of
> > your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop
> > responding to you. you almost always start responding back in a semi normal
> > way, but inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask
> > that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for having to
> > put
> > up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser
> > as well, just pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double
> > condolences to her). "
> >
> > 15- Edwin: "The worst troll this NG has ever seen is playing the part of
> > the
> > victim... you can almost hear the violins playing in the background as he
> > whines... hilarious..."
> >
> > 16- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see a
> > doctor."
> >
> > 17- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in my
> > post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
> > childishly
> > typical of you, Snit. "
> >
> > 18- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA
> > I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the
> > typical
> > Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in a room
> > of
> > really young children trying there best to best the other person. The one
> > common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate to be like this, but
> > facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great percentage of
> > arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more about "look
> > everybody,
> > I think he lied". Is there no end then all this picking at each other on
> > such a personal level. CSMA has always been al little adversarial but you
> > have personally crank it up to the point that this place is no longer fun.
> > Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this place your own personal
> > circus."
> >
> > 19- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit (AKA
> > Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you crazy with
> > his
> > twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will
> > move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his
> > endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
> > engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you and
> > feed
> > him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
> >
> > 20- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else notices
> > that you are not honest and you have no honor."
> >
> > 21- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in a while, I
> > make the mistake in thinking that that you are starting to make sense in
> > your posts; I tend to agree with your politics. Then you post stuff like
> > this and it destroys any respect that I have for you."
> >
> > 22- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
> >
> > 23- hh: "Dodging qustions, changing the subject ... is "honorable"
> > behavior?
> > Nope. It is little wonder that so few people have sufficient patience to
> > deal with Snit."
> >
> > 24- Jamie Hart (cola): "I was very deliberate in my choice of words, so far
> > in our exchange, you have claimed to say something you didn't, accused me
> > of
> > deliberately removing context and accused me of calling you names.
> >
> > You don't have a very good record so far, and I don't have the time to put
> > up with your posting style, so this is the last you will hear from me."
> >
> > 25- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on usenet
> > that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your screen
> > endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're a
> > super
> > troll, or you're a super mess."
> >
> > 26- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
> >
> > 27- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
> >
> > 28- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
> > recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me achieve a
> > greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and those
> > kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."
> >
> > 29- Jim Lee Jr.: "Troll."
> >
> > 30- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in
> > seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT things
> > and garbage?"
> >
> > 31- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
> > actually provide evidence for his claims.
> >
> > Par for the course I suppose."
> >
> > 32- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall - in
> > a
> > few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at passersby
> > 'sucky sucky, $2...'"
> >
> > 33- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are you
> > bitching about?"
> >
> > 34- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a
> > black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain an
> > unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??"
> >
> > 35- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings since
> > I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just
> > consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his name."
> >
> > 36- John Slade: "Snit is full of shit and knows little about computers.
> > However I don't think anyone should leave based on how stupid they are.
> > Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. If Snit wants to display
> > his
> > ignorance and lack of knowledge, he should have that right."
> >
> > 37- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this posting?
> > Because I certainly cannot find it."
> >
> > 38- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even though
> > the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot is mostly
> > being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that keep
> > replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this place could
> > be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his
> > trolling to more fertile ground."
> >
> > 39- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother reading the
> > posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid
> > excrescence.
> > Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position, instead of
> > sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping it'll all go away."
> >
> > 40- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad hominem
> > attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem attacks.You
> > make
> > silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're a liar
> > and a hypocrite and you always have been."
> >
> > 41- Lars Träger: "Yes, you are stupid."
> >
> > 42- Lefty Bigfoot: "I would hope that Snit decides to use this group for
> > something other than trolling, but that's not worth wasting time on."
> >
> > 43- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been an
> > annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense of trying
> > to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is trashtalk about
> > Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
> >
> > 44- Linønut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
> >
> > 45- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most cretinous, I
> > would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
> >
> > 46- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the same
> > as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be
> > impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty
> > ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs,
> > and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story.
> >
> > Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help
> > him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining if he's
> > ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
> >
> > 47- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to this
> > post
> > since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him today. A
> > friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and videotaped her
> > kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a DVD of it for her.
> > While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad because we quit
> > making him the center of attention and made that kid on the tv the center
> > of
> > attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to block our view of it.
> > That's how Snit lives his whole life."
> >
> > 48- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see
> > you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone.
> >
> > You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!"
> >
> > 49- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I can
> > only
> > say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to inhabit
> > CSMA
> > for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged you actually
> > behave
> > further reinforces this notion. Please seek professional help."
> >
> > 50- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all rubbernecking.
> > We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious. Treat him the same way,
> > look but just keep moving on."
> >
> > 51- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
> > off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly show
> > that you are crying out for attention."
> >
> > 52- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
> > kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two about
> > social behavior."
> >
> > 53- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them are trolls,
> > if anyone here has issues it's not me."
> >
> > 54- Nashton: "This issue was beaten to death. I cannot imagine why Snit is
> > bringing it up and why anybody would bother to engage in conversation with
> > him on this topic."
> >
> > 55- Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a
> > total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now. Why
> > bother
> > responding to his stupidities anyway?"
> >
> > 56- news/Andy: "Snit you obviously need to be more precise when you argue
> > with some people, or are you doing it deliberately?"
> >
> > 57- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled
> > him?"
> >
> > 58- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
> > Select offending Author, example Snit...
> > Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
> > Click "OK"
> > Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
> > Then to see your work...
> > Choose the Filter Menu again,
> > Then "Refilter Articles"...
> > Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
> > Enjoy!!!!!"
> >
> > 59- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
> > something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit, for
> > whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?"
> >
> > 60- Pawel Wójciak: "Jesus Christ, snit...
> > <plonk> "
> >
> > 61- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher but
> > I
> > thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten seconds later
> > and he's gone! Amazing."
> >
> > 62- Peter Bjørn Perlsø: "Don't let facts get in the way of you behaving
> > like
> > an ass."
> >
> > 63- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
> > different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told
> > me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."
> >
> > 64- Peter Köhlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as dishonest
> > as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma posters even more
> > stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There are certainly other csma
> > posters who lie nearly as much. But no others are so intent on trolling in
> > whatever way possible as Snot"
> >
> > 65- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get superficial
> > snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
> >
> > 66- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long standing
> > war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you single out
> > persons to target your attentions upon and then continuously berate them
> > with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses,
> > which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
> >
> > Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous
> > nature
> > aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting
> > this and other groups is to troll."
> >
> > 67- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
> >
> > 68- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
> > people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
> > situation.
> > And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going on."
> >
> > 69- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll. I
> > am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is ...
> > somewhat clumsy."
> >
> > 70- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you quote
> > Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell of a
> > tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of looking
> > ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's your goal,
> > you're on the right track, and more power to you."
> >
> > 71- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category. Starting
> > crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to generate a flame
> > war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and how it can help you
> > and
> > your supposed users why aren't you requesting help from a more
> > technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group?
> > As the old saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. Your posts
> > seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
> >
> > 72- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY- of
> > csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news group
> > before.
> >
> > He has the ability to turn just about any person against him in just a few
> > posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part with Michael is
> > that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll - damn
> > what -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong.
> >
> > Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
> >
> > 73- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice. Honestly, even
> > the
> > nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront made more sense than this.
> > You been doing drugs or something?"
> >
> > 74- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're probably
> > dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to remove smut from
> > your harddrive."
> >
> > 75- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger, i
> > guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's
> > making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart.
> > indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and
> > he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted."
> >
> > 76- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is that he has:
> > * a monumental reading comprehension problem.
> > * nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
> > * built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small cities.
> > * been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll (or worse) by the vast majority.
> > * used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
> > * stolen IDs and admitted to it.
> > * gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
> > * twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
> > * made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
> > * virtually no life outside of csma."
> >
> > 77- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant
> > dung,
> > and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit Circus", but then
> > the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like elephant
> > dung."
> >
> > 78- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me for
> > your rediculous argument regarding this."
> >
> > 79- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost all
> > self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses' when
> > referring to others.
> >
> > Oh, how could the morally superior snit have fallen so low.. Please take a
> > moment out of your busy schedule to feel embarassed for him. Or perhaps we
> > should set up a fund to get him more happy glue (and the appropriate
> > plastic
> > bags)."
> >
> > 80- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then. A
> > snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
> >
> > 81- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one
> > lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm
> > right,
> > nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to demonstrate
> > their claim, you blindly continue to insist that they provide no evidence,
> > or that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse still, you fall back on
> > straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to portray the argument in your
> > favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA, Shit. *Edwin* is
> > more prone to fits of reason than you are. "
> >
> > 82- Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see, you
> > never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just the
> > other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in this NG
> > anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
> >
> > 83- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more compassion.
> > Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the poor sick fool can
> > get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to hanging out with and
> > supporting
> > racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah. It is true that no-one likes him and
> > those that pretend they do are just using him or don't know him - but come
> > on- it's not his fault. He's sick. Have some compassion, eh? All these
> > idiot trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy, MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all so
> > alike. I pity each and every one of them"
> >
> > 84- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you could
> > actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
> >
> > 85- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
> >
> > 86- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of your
> > Circus acts?"
> >
> > 87- Tommy: "LIAR!!!"
> >
> > 88- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit. Most
> > people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
> > responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'.
> >
> > Just what would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity? Must
> > be some kind of severe mental illness."
> >
> > 89- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are nothing
> > more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define the
> > rules,
> > but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules when
> > inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt anyone
> > would be foolish enough to play your game."
> >
> > 90- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
> > apologies for this, PLONK!
> > Feel proud about that. You're the first person to be plonked from my new
> > computer! :-) "
> >
> > 91- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
> >
> > 92- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to prove
> > what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people without
> > lives,
> > like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping Snit to do a search -
> > you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry little life."
> >
> > 93- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to draw more
> > people into the debate I'm currently having with Steve/Elizabot/etc' tactic
> > is fairly trollish."
> >
> >
>
> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
It's to show how Snit continues to be universally reviled. Many of us
enjoy reading them.
Kier
Mayber so, but just crying that they are 'wrong' is pointless. We are not
talking here about techically-minded or educated users, but about very
average people. My own mother, for instance, has that kind of approach to
computer usage. Not because she is stupid, but she doesn't understand the
underlying concepts very well. And in most ways, she doesn't really need
to, in order to use the programs.
Some people can pick this stuff up right away, and other may never really
grasp it. It's not a matter of intelligence, more of ability to
conceptualise certain things.
Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be
able to. Some people will never 'get' computers in quite the way most of
us in COLA do. Not everyone's mind works the same way.
Educating people is fine, but it isn't always going to work.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Snit
gmgraves-4DC3DD...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/06 2:10
PM:
>> Why was this posted? It seems like a random collection of posts cobbled
>> together with little thought, reason or criteria.
>
> It's to show how Snit continues to be universally reviled. Many of us
> enjoy reading them.
It is for lack of evidence that Steve uses quotes from *others* instead of
quotes from me.
Face it - Steve would chew his own left arm off if that would allow him to
actually support one of his accusations. If people do, as you say George,
really "revile" honor and honesty, that does not speak well for them. Then
again, the fact that others have stated otherwise proves that the trolling
comments against me are not agreed with universally.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Him and at least 53 persons more:
> >
> > -hh, Alan Baker, Andrew J. Brehm, B.B., Bob B., bobinnv, buzz off,
> > Carlo Coggi, Chris Clement, Dave Fritzinger, Dawg Tail, Donald
> > McDaniel, ed, Elijah Baley, Elizabot, fibercut, George Graves,
> > GreyCloud, H, Henry Flam, Heywood Mogroot, Jason McNorton, Jeff B,
> > Jeff Hoppe, Jim Lee Jr., Jim Polaski, John C. Randolph, John Q.
> > Public, John Slade, Josh McKee, K E, Lars Träger, Lefty Bigfoot, Mayor
> > of R'lyeh, Mike, Mike Dee, Nasht0n, Nashton, Patrick Nihill, Pawe
> > Wojciak, RichardK, Rick, Rick G, Sandman, spi...@freenet.co.uk, Steve
> > Mackay, Stuart Krivis, Tim Adams, Timberwoof, TravelinMan, Wally,
> > Zaren Ankleweed, ZnU
> >
> > They all have the same thing to say about you. And I'm quite sure that
> > you will claim that no one has posted examples, or substantiated these
> > claims.
> >
> > 53 liars, right Michael Glasser?
>
> If you are right that each of them has made a similar accusation, then it
> should be easy to find support for at least a few of their claims.
>
> And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such support.
So, 53 liars - and they are all lying only about you. Curious, curious
indeed. Why aren't they lying about me for example? Why did they all
single you out? Odd.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
4tgnsiF...@mid.individual.net on 12/3/06 12:46 PM:
> but i am snit! i can post what ever i want about me.
Carroll, being plopped into my kill filter, becomes more and more desperate.
I wonder how low he will sink? Any guesses? Maybe he will start spewing
his lies about me emailing his unmarried "wife" again. That showed just how
damned low and desperate he can get. Maybe he will dig up ancient posts
from other news groups and try to embarrass me ... he has tried that route
before, too.
His co-trolls Wally and Adams will no doubt be jumping in to defend his
BS... that is easy to predict. Watch for it.
Snit
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:20:21 +0000, Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:04:55 +0000, Rick wrote: <snip>
>>>> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
>>>> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in" a
>>>> program.(snip)
>>>
>>> There's a serious point here, though. Files may not actually be 'in' the
>>> program, but a lot of users probably *do* think of it in that way. They
>>> don't understand the underlying structure, and in some ways have no need
>>> to. They see only the interface they are using - the application. That's
>>> how they manipulate the file, so to them the file *is* in the program.
>>>
>>> Saying, 'no, it's not', is no use, because while we may know that, they
>>> don't.
>>
>> Then they should be educated.
>
> Mayber so, but just crying that they are 'wrong' is pointless. We are not
> talking here about techically-minded or educated users, but about very
> average people. My own mother, for instance, has that kind of approach to
> computer usage. Not because she is stupid, but she doesn't understand the
> underlying concepts very well. And in most ways, she doesn't really need
> to, in order to use the programs.
To the contrary, the computer environment should, as much as it can,
accommodate the way people see things... make a metaphor they can
understand... and hopefully, as Apple has done, do so in a way that helps to
build confidence and helps to understand other concepts on the computer. OS
X and its programs do not do this perfectly, but as far as I know they do so
better than *any* other personal computer OS.
> Some people can pick this stuff up right away, and other may never really
> grasp it. It's not a matter of intelligence, more of ability to
> conceptualise certain things.
>
> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be
> able to. Some people will never 'get' computers in quite the way most of
> us in COLA do. Not everyone's mind works the same way.
>
> Educating people is fine, but it isn't always going to work.
Nor is is always necessary. I do not need to understand the differences
between a hemi and other systems to be able to drive just fine.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Kier
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:14:44 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
>> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be
>> able to.
>> --
>> Kier
>
> I can't either.
> Plane Geometry was a nightmare for me because it's difficult for me to
> visualize the z axis and what happens when you rotate objects in true 3D.
My friend is really good at manipulating all kinds of 3D stuff in his
head. I really envy his talent in that area. Makes him a great
graphics/design teacher, though.
--
Kier
Snit
>> If you are right that each of them has made a similar accusation, then it
>> should be easy to find support for at least a few of their claims.
>>
>> And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such support.
>
> So, 53 liars - and they are all lying only about you. Curious, curious
> indeed. Why aren't they lying about me for example? Why did they all
> single you out? Odd.
>
You snipped and ran, Sandman, as you do so often. Here is the uncut
version:
-----
If you are right that each of them has made a
similar accusation, then it should be easy to find
support for at least a few of their claims.
And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such
support.
Support for the fact you lied, however, has been
documented heavily with the Google record, the
WayBackMachine, your own words, and saved PDF
"printouts" of a CSS validation service.
Are you ready to take me up on my challenge and
place your word and your honor against mine?
You claim I am not a college instructor. I
challenge you to provide your support.
I claim you lied about your CSS validating. I
challenge you to *face* the overwhelming evidence
of your dishonesty.
You will run. Remember, Sandman, from the facts
that piss off trolls:
€ A person's actions speak more about him than
what others say
Even if a million people make a false claim, the
claim does not become true... this is a fact you
cannot accept because your whole claim against me
rests on your denial of this.
-----
Why are you such a coward, Sandman? You seem so sure of yourself, but when
I challenge you to put your word and your honor up against mine you run
every time. *Every* time, Sandman. Even you know you are a liar and a
troll...
Snit
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:14:44 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
>> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be
>> able to.
>> --
>> Kier
>
> I can't either.
> Plane Geometry was a nightmare for me because it's difficult for me to
> visualize the z axis and what happens when you rotate objects in true 3D.
>
The only game I can think of - of the shot'm up kind - that I was ever
really good with was the old "Assault" game... seems my brain worked that
way and few others did.
<http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/mudhouse/176/index.htm>
I really liked that game... maybe I shall look for a Mac version of it ...
or even Windows or Linux.
Anyone know of one? I suppose I could do Playstation emulation.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
I know I, more so than most, think in terms of data... I move files and data
from program to program to get the results I want... even more so than most
other techy folks. A tool should be flexible to work with different ways of
thinking *without* having to do tons of set up and configuration.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> If you are right that each of them has made a similar accusation, then it
> >> should be easy to find support for at least a few of their claims.
> >>
> >> And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such support.
> >
> > So, 53 liars - and they are all lying only about you. Curious, curious
> > indeed. Why aren't they lying about me for example? Why did they all
> > single you out? Odd.
Well? Why is that, Michael Glasser?
--
Sandman[.net]
Hadron Quark
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:14:44 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
>
>> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
>> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be
>> able to.
>> --
>> Kier
>
> I can't either.
> Plane Geometry was a nightmare for me because it's difficult for me to
> visualize the z axis and what happens when you rotate objects in true 3D.
>
I mastered it by simply replacing whatever shape with a well know "real
life equivalent" like a playing card, a pencil, toilet roll etc.
flatfish+++
That's what I did.....
I was playing with paper dolls for an entire year :(
Snit
You snipped and ran, Sandman, as you do so often. Here is the uncut
version:
-----
If you are right that each of them has made a
similar accusation, then it should be easy to find
support for at least a few of their claims.
And yet neither you nor anyone else can find such
support.
Support for the fact you lied, however, has been
documented heavily with the Google record, the
WayBackMachine, your own words, and saved PDF
"printouts" of a CSS validation service.
Are you ready to take me up on my challenge and
place your word and your honor against mine?
You claim I am not a college instructor. I
challenge you to provide your support.
I claim you lied about your CSS validating. I
challenge you to *face* the overwhelming evidence
of your dishonesty.
You will run. Remember, Sandman, from the facts
that piss off trolls:
€ A person's actions speak more about him than
what others say
Even if a million people make a false claim, the
claim does not become true... this is a fact you
cannot accept because your whole claim against me
rests on your denial of this.
-----
And, of course, you repeatedly try to obfuscate the above. You will always
run, Sandman, because you know when push comes to shove your word is
meaningless and mine is honest and honorable. Even you know that,
Sandman... as your actions clearly show.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Rick
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:20:21 +0000, Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:17:36 +0000, Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:04:55 +0000, Rick wrote: <snip>
>>>> That's because a file isn't "in" a program. It may be accessed by a
>>>> program, modified, created or deleted by a program, but it isn't "in"
>>>> a program.(snip)
>>>
>>> There's a serious point here, though. Files may not actually be 'in'
>>> the program, but a lot of users probably *do* think of it in that way.
>>> They don't understand the underlying structure, and in some ways have
>>> no need to. They see only the interface they are using - the
>>> application. That's how they manipulate the file, so to them the file
>>> *is* in the program.
>>>
>>> Saying, 'no, it's not', is no use, because while we may know that, they
>>> don't.
>>
>> Then they should be educated.
>
> Mayber so, but just crying that they are 'wrong' is pointless.
I am not just crying they are wrong, I am saying they should be educated,
and that they should not have their misconceptions reinforced.
> We are not
> talking here about techically-minded or educated users, but about very
> average people. My own mother, for instance, has that kind of approach to
> computer usage. Not because she is stupid, but she doesn't understand the
> underlying concepts very well. And in most ways, she doesn't really need
> to, in order to use the programs.
She might not, but that is no reason to reinforce misconceptions.
>
> Some people can pick this stuff up right away, and other may never really
> grasp it. It's not a matter of intelligence, more of ability to
> conceptualise certain things.
Those people should be helped as much as possible.
>
> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be able
> to. Some people will never 'get' computers in quite the way most of us in
> COLA do. Not everyone's mind works the same way.
>
> Educating people is fine, but it isn't always going to work.
>
No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
--
Rick
Steve Carroll
Donald L McDaniel <ortho...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:55:56 -0700, "Anonymous" <n...@void.nul> wrote:
>
> >Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
> >
> >Snit: "It is easy: you are claiming that your view of group consensus equals
> >reality when it comes to a view you believe (but cannot support), but you
> >run from group consensus when that consensus is extremely powerful."
> >
> >Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
> >posters have noticed too. Here is what over *90* different posters have to
> >say about him.
>
> snit IS different: He is intellectually honest
LOL!
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Snit
pan.2006.12.04....@trollfeed.com on 12/3/06 5:58 PM:
It is sad how little you understand of what is being talked about, Rick.
If you wanted to help someone get to their email, would you *not* have them
use their email program? In that sense, their email is *in* their email
program... there is *nothing* wrong with understanding that.
In the same way, Rick, there is nothing wrong with people sending an image
to another program... even if in the background it is being saved elsewhere.
Heck, this is what most scanner software does... why not have an image from
a web browser work the same way?
You have shown very, very little understanding of what is being described.
A pity.
cc
Does the sun rise in the morning?
Donald L McDaniel
wrote:
If I am a tool, George, it is of the truth, while YOU are a tool of
lies and hypocrisy.
If you disrespect Jesus, George, as you apparently seem to, WHY did
you act the hypocrite and use a cover when you wanted to use His name
in vain?
While I do respect Jesus, at least I am honest, and use His actual
Name when I do use His name in vain. Of course, neither of us will
receive any honor from Him when we stand before Him for our vanity.
By the way, George, my patronymic is "McDaniel", NOT "MacDaniel".
Jamie Hart
understand exactly what is being discussed.
> If you wanted to help someone get to their email, would you *not* have them
> use their email program? In that sense, their email is *in* their email
> program... there is *nothing* wrong with understanding that.
>
No, there's nothing wrong with it in that example, but how about for
image files?
My mother has this problem, she sees everything as being part of the
application that uses it. So she sees all images as "MGI Photosuite III
digital photos". Suggesting that she can edit the image in another
application just doesn't register. In fact if she wants to email a few
images, she'll open this "photosuite" software, load the images and use
it's menu's to email them even though she already has her her email
client open in front of her.
Unfortunately, this image software is not particularly good, so she
regularly emails images to me to edit in various ways that her software
won't cope with.
Personally I think she'd be far better off if she would think of each
image as separate to the application, so she could open it in whatever
software is better for the job. One day, when I go to see her, I'll
spend some time trying to get her to understand.
Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
the misconception remain. At best it does no harm, at worst, it means
that they cannot work with their computer effectively.
Snit
116522511...@proxy01.news.clara.net on 12/4/06 2:38 AM:
>>>> Some people can pick this stuff up right away, and other may never really
>>>> grasp it. It's not a matter of intelligence, more of ability to
>>>> conceptualise certain things.
>>> Those people should be helped as much as possible.
>>>
>>>> Like, I have a friend who can work in 3D in his head, visualise it all,
>>>> and build from what he see. I can't do that. I probably never will be able
>>>> to. Some people will never 'get' computers in quite the way most of us in
>>>> COLA do. Not everyone's mind works the same way.
>>>>
>>>> Educating people is fine, but it isn't always going to work.
>>>>
>>> No, it isn't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.
>>
>> It is sad how little you understand of what is being talked about, Rick.
>>
> Please less of the inflamatory language. I think that you both
> understand exactly what is being discussed.
If so, then, Rick is outright lying. From his recent posts:
"Well, he think's the files he is working with are 'in' the program."
This is a misrepresentation of the topic... either he is lying about it or
he misunderstands. While I can see where pointing out his ignorance could
be seen as inflammatory, it is kind to assume ignorance and not outright
dishonesty.
>> If you wanted to help someone get to their email, would you *not* have them
>> use their email program? In that sense, their email is *in* their email
>> program... there is *nothing* wrong with understanding that.
>>
> No, there's nothing wrong with it in that example, but how about for
> image files?
>
> My mother has this problem, she sees everything as being part of the
> application that uses it.
This is common.
> So she sees all images as "MGI Photosuite III digital photos". Suggesting
> that she can edit the image in another application just doesn't register. In
> fact if she wants to email a few images, she'll open this "photosuite"
> software, load the images and use it's menu's to email them even though she
> already has her her email client open in front of her.
If this were OS X, and I she had need to edit the images in some other
program than iPhoto - say Photoshop Elements - I could easily set up for
her, once, the ability to use PSE as an external editor. From then on she
could send images to PSE from iPhoto, edit them, and then when she closes
PSE they would "go back to" iPhoto. From iPhoto she could send them to
email.
OS X would work with her and allow he to do more and be more efficient,
though she might not know enough to be able to set a preferred editor of her
choice.
She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder where
the image resides. What I have seen, repeatedly, is that people are more
quickly able to accomplish tasks, gain greater confidence, and learn the
concept of folders *more quickly* than they would otherwise. I am sure this
is not 100% - nothing is - some may just stop at the ability to move images
from program to program... but in general OS X has better "training wheels"
that allow a user to understand the very thing Rick seems to want them to
know *and* allows them to get lots of amazing work done before they do have
that mental map / understanding.
> Unfortunately, this image software is not particularly good, so she
> regularly emails images to me to edit in various ways that her software
> won't cope with.
>
> Personally I think she'd be far better off if she would think of each
> image as separate to the application, so she could open it in whatever
> software is better for the job. One day, when I go to see her, I'll
> spend some time trying to get her to understand.
>
> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
> the misconception remain.
I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my experience,
does OS X usage lead to this. The contrary is true. But, for those that
never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well. As I have
noted, in the next major version upgrade, OS X will even allow such things
as backup and restore from within the program. That is pretty cool.
> At best it does no harm,
That is the best you can think of... I can think of more, and the more seems
typical:
* It allows a novice user to get more done *before* they get to the point
of understanding files and folders
* It helps them to gain confidence in their ability to use a computer
* It decreases time to learn the concepts of files and folders
> at worst, it means that they cannot work with their computer effectively.
--
Kier
I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
--
Kier
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> So she sees all images as "MGI Photosuite III digital photos". Suggesting
>> that she can edit the image in another application just doesn't register. In
>> fact if she wants to email a few images, she'll open this "photosuite"
>> software, load the images and use it's menu's to email them even though she
>> already has her her email client open in front of her.
> If this were OS X, and I she had need to edit the images in some other
> program than iPhoto - say Photoshop Elements - I could easily set up for
> her, once, the ability to use PSE as an external editor. From then on she
> could send images to PSE from iPhoto, edit them, and then when she closes
> PSE they would "go back to" iPhoto. From iPhoto she could send them to
> email.
You think that's HELP?
The whole point is to DESTROY these stupid preconceptions. Word documents
are NOT part of word. jpeg images are not part of Photoshop or whatever.
ANY program can edit ANY file of a filetype it was designed for.
That's what you should be pushing, not "Hey, I can set it up so this program
can SEND to that program so you could edit it there"
That's just reinforcing ignorance with stupidity.
You REALLY a teacher? Do you really reinforce these ideas with the people
you teach?
> OS X would work with her and allow he to do more and be more efficient,
> though she might not know enough to be able to set a preferred editor of her
> choice.
Then teach her. Computers aren't complicated with all this GUI stuff.
It's the underlying code that's complicated to make the front and (almost)
idiot proof.
> She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder where
>> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
>> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
>> the misconception remain.
> I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my experience,
> does OS X usage lead to this. The contrary is true. But, for those that
> never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well.
Better for it to not tag files visibly with "PhotoEditorPlus" in the file
description metadata in the first place. That "reinforces" that this file
only works in that program. It's an image, it doesn't matter what program
last edited it, so what's the point of that metadata's existence?
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Snit
And this is what OS X is better suited to doing - it allows the user to very
quickly find success in just using their computer. Some never move past
that - for these people, though, their needs are generally being met.
Once people have had that level of success they are *more* likely to go to
the next level, if you will, and work toward understanding the "deeper"
structure of files and folders. I know in my classes I spend a lot of time
working on having people create understand the folder structure for data in
their OS *and* have them add to that structure by creating folders and
sub-folders. Still, Kier is right, not all people are ready for this. The
exposure is good, especially in a formal classroom setting, but it is a show
stopper for those who do not get it on Windows (and, I presume, KDE and
Gnome). With OS X I can get to that material later in the semester when
people already have had successes and can connect files they have already
invested time with to the folder structure.
I have commented on being able to right click on images in iPhoto and being
able to jump to the file navigator (Finder). Another way Apple helps with
this is by allowing a user to get to the file in the Finder from almost
*any* program, though I will admit it is in a way that a novice would not
find on their own. Merely control-click the title bar of the window you are
using and it shows you the full path - *and* allows you to jump into it.
Very, very cool. Here are some examples:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/path.jpg>.
Or, from the image organizing program via right click on an image:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/iPhoto_menu.jpg> (if it is not clear, I
highlighted the two options I mentioned, above).
But OS X does more: Save and Open dialogs are consistent in *all* software
the general user is likely to run into... and in those dialogs you can drag
files from the Finder and have the dialog "target" that file (or folder). I
do not know off hand how KDE and Gnome handle this, but in XP the file is
*moved* to wherever you are targeting... something a user is far less likely
to actually want to do! You are not in a "move" dialog, but an Open or Save
dialog... XP is simply broken as far as I am concerned.
Ok... enough examples of OS X.
I would like to know if KDE or Gnome have things OS X is lacking in this
area... I have not played with KDE as much as Gnome, and I have not seen
things like this in Gnome. Maybe there are some "hidden" things, such as
the command+click "trick" on title bars on OS X.
Snit
po9d44-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com on 12/4/06 3:28 AM:
> Snit <SN...@cableone.net.lnvalid> did eloquently scribble:
>>> So she sees all images as "MGI Photosuite III digital photos". Suggesting
>>> that she can edit the image in another application just doesn't register.
>>> In
>>> fact if she wants to email a few images, she'll open this "photosuite"
>>> software, load the images and use it's menu's to email them even though she
>>> already has her her email client open in front of her.
>
>> If this were OS X, and I she had need to edit the images in some other
>> program than iPhoto - say Photoshop Elements - I could easily set up for
>> her, once, the ability to use PSE as an external editor. From then on she
>> could send images to PSE from iPhoto, edit them, and then when she closes
>> PSE they would "go back to" iPhoto. From iPhoto she could send them to
>> email.
>
> You think that's HELP?
> The whole point is to DESTROY these stupid preconceptions. Word documents
> are NOT part of word. jpeg images are not part of Photoshop or whatever.
> ANY program can edit ANY file of a filetype it was designed for.
>
> That's what you should be pushing, not "Hey, I can set it up so this program
> can SEND to that program so you could edit it there"
>
> That's just reinforcing ignorance with stupidity.
>
> You REALLY a teacher? Do you really reinforce these ideas with the people
> you teach?
You seem to fail to understand my comments about how doing this *decreases*
the time it takes to understand the file/folder structure that you want the
users to understand.
>> OS X would work with her and allow he to do more and be more efficient,
>> though she might not know enough to be able to set a preferred editor of her
>> choice.
>
> Then teach her. Computers aren't complicated with all this GUI stuff.
> It's the underlying code that's complicated to make the front and (almost)
> idiot proof.
The folder / file structure is something that takes many people quite some
time to "get". Some never do. OS X has a path toward that understanding
that XP and, as far as I know, both KDE and Gnome lack.
>> She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder where
>>> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
>>> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
>>> the misconception remain.
>
>> I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my experience,
>> does OS X usage lead to this. The contrary is true. But, for those that
>> never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well.
>
> Better for it to not tag files visibly with "PhotoEditorPlus" in the file
> description metadata in the first place. That "reinforces" that this file
> only works in that program. It's an image, it doesn't matter what program
> last edited it, so what's the point of that metadata's existence?
Default application associations are great time savers ... I cannot think of
a decent argument *against* them.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> If so, then, Rick is outright lying. From his recent posts:
> "Well, he think's the files he is working with are 'in' the program."
> This is a misrepresentation of the topic... either he is lying about it or
> he misunderstands. While I can see where pointing out his ignorance could
> be seen as inflammatory, it is kind to assume ignorance and not outright
> dishonesty.
Message-ID: <C1926020.67689%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
"What is different is that OS X allows the user to work the way new users
generally think - the file is "in" the program."
Oh, look. Snot is lying again. He claims he did not write this extremely
stupid claim about "files in the program"
Here is news for you, Snot: You did. And you are lying about it now
< snip extremely convoluted idea abotu working with files >
Snot, if you were really a "teacher", you deserve to be shot on the spot.
You actually reinforce misconceptions about copmputers instead
of "educating" people
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
Rick
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:38:33 +0000, Jamie Hart wrote:
>
(snip)
>>
>> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
>> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
>> the misconception remain. At best it does no harm, at worst, it means
>> that they cannot work with their computer effectively.
>
> I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
> removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
> the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
> who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
> overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
> being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
And you can say that about almost any tool...
... most new users aren't that interested in being educated, they just
want to start using the (insert name of tool). If we were to use that
reasoning for everything there be no education of any kind.
--
Rick
Snit
el0ug6$hhv$03$1...@news.t-online.com on 12/4/06 3:50 AM:
The amounts of information I have written to help trolls such as you and
Rick understand the concept of "user perspective" has become overwhelming.
If you are *still* unable to grasp the concept, as you claim, then there is
little more I can do to help you. Your anger, Peter, prevents you from
understanding even simple concepts.
Snit
pan.2006.12.04....@nomail.com on 12/4/06 3:53 AM:
It is a straw man to suggest I, or OS X, discourage education. To facts are
contrary to your implications.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Kier
Computers are somewhat different tool from hammers, though.
I'm not suggesting no one shoud be educated, merely than for some, it's
never going to get through entirely.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> el0ug6$hhv$03$1...@news.t-online.com on 12/4/06 3:50 AM:
>
>> Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> If so, then, Rick is outright lying. From his recent posts:
>>
>>> "Well, he think's the files he is working with are 'in' the program."
>>
>>> This is a misrepresentation of the topic... either he is lying about it
>>> or he misunderstands. While I can see where pointing out his ignorance
>>> could be seen as inflammatory, it is kind to assume ignorance and not
>>> outright dishonesty.
>>
>> Message-ID: <C1926020.67689%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>>
>> "What is different is that OS X allows the user to work the way new users
>> generally think - the file is "in" the program."
>>
>>
>> Oh, look. Snot is lying again. He claims he did not write this extremely
>> stupid claim about "files in the program"
>> Here is news for you, Snot: You did. And you are lying about it now
>>
Note: Snot avoids any comments on his outright lies
How come, Snot?
First you accuse Rick of lying because he pointed out that you hade written
the very words you *did* write
And then you don't even have the balls to admit that you are a liar. Apart
from failing to apologize to Rick
>> < snip extremely convoluted idea abotu working with files >
>>
>> Snot, if you were really a "teacher", you deserve to be shot on the spot.
>> You actually reinforce misconceptions about copmputers instead
>> of "educating" people
>
> The amounts of information I have written to help trolls such as you and
> Rick understand the concept of "user perspective" has become overwhelming.
The amount of "misinformation" you try to toss around is indeed
overwhelming. You try very hard to insert mountains of
bullshit "information" into your posts while at the same time avoiding
answering even simple questions
> If you are *still* unable to grasp the concept, as you claim, then there
> is little more I can do to help you.
You have never been able to "help" anyone, "teacher" Snot. If you really
were a teacher (you are not) you would easily be the worst one ever to be
called so
> Your anger, Peter, prevents you from understanding even simple concepts.
>
What "anger", Snot? You try to declare as "anger" when somone points out
your incredible stupidity and dishonesty to avoid dealing with the fact
that xou are indeed stupid and dishonest
I've got news for you, Snot: That is not "anger". It is simply and calmly
pointing out that you are full of it, that you are a liar and the most
hideous troll ever to haunt csma
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
> removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
> the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
> who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
> overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
> being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
Perhaps a visual aid of some kind would help...
Say, you got a folder, some cardfiles and a few photos.
"This, is a folder... On your computer it looks like that..."
"Open the folder and ... This is a text file, and this is an image file"
"These files remain in the folder. The program that uses them just opens the
folder and reads them. It may make a copy (put a copy of the photo in) and
then make alterations to the original (take original out and put new one in
with clown nose and green hair). But the files in the folder can be handled
by ANY program written to handle that type of file"
"The file is not actually IN the program."
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> did eloquently scribble:
>> I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
>> removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
>> the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
>> who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
>> overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
>> being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
>
> Perhaps a visual aid of some kind would help...
> Say, you got a folder, some cardfiles and a few photos.
> "This, is a folder... On your computer it looks like that..."
> "Open the folder and ... This is a text file, and this is an image file"
> "These files remain in the folder. The program that uses them just opens the
> folder and reads them. It may make a copy (put a copy of the photo in) and
> then make alterations to the original (take original out and put new one in
> with clown nose and green hair). But the files in the folder can be handled
> by ANY program written to handle that type of file"
> "The file is not actually IN the program."
That's a good clear explanation, and probably is the right way to make
this concept clearer. IMO, sometimes those of us who understand the
concepts sometimes find it hard to grasp why it is others can't see it. I
suppose some people's brains are just better at handling this kind of idea
than others.
--
Kier
Jamie Hart
> "Jamie Hart" <use...@jhart.ath.cx> stated in post
> 116522511...@proxy01.news.clara.net on 12/4/06 2:38 AM:
>
>>> use their email program? In that sense, their email is *in* their email
>>> program... there is *nothing* wrong with understanding that.
>>>
>> No, there's nothing wrong with it in that example, but how about for
>> image files?
>>
>> My mother has this problem, she sees everything as being part of the
>> application that uses it.
>
> This is common.
>
>> So she sees all images as "MGI Photosuite III digital photos". Suggesting
>> that she can edit the image in another application just doesn't register. In
>> fact if she wants to email a few images, she'll open this "photosuite"
>> software, load the images and use it's menu's to email them even though she
>> already has her her email client open in front of her.
>
> If this were OS X, and I she had need to edit the images in some other
> program than iPhoto - say Photoshop Elements - I could easily set up for
> her, once, the ability to use PSE as an external editor. From then on she
> could send images to PSE from iPhoto, edit them, and then when she closes
> PSE they would "go back to" iPhoto. From iPhoto she could send them to
> email.
>
particular image? swapping one editor for another (which is what you
seem to be suggesting) doesn't help, it just shifts the problem.
> OS X would work with her and allow he to do more and be more efficient,
> though she might not know enough to be able to set a preferred editor of her
> choice.
>
But only to a degree, if she learns the concept of an image file, she
can be even more efficient than by using OS X.
> She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder where
> the image resides.
But how would she decide to do that? She'd need some understanding of
what a file is before she'd even think to look for one in a folder.
> What I have seen, repeatedly, is that people are more
> quickly able to accomplish tasks, gain greater confidence, and learn the
> concept of folders *more quickly* than they would otherwise. I am sure this
> is not 100% - nothing is - some may just stop at the ability to move images
> from program to program... but in general OS X has better "training wheels"
> that allow a user to understand the very thing Rick seems to want them to
> know *and* allows them to get lots of amazing work done before they do have
> that mental map / understanding.
>
That is another matter, the fact that OS X encourages a user to do more
before they have to make the switch to thinking correctly. Users should
be encouraged to switch to correct methods as soon as possible, not led
down a blind alley that works for simple things but is inadequate in the
long run.
>> Unfortunately, this image software is not particularly good, so she
>> regularly emails images to me to edit in various ways that her software
>> won't cope with.
>>
>> Personally I think she'd be far better off if she would think of each
>> image as separate to the application, so she could open it in whatever
>> software is better for the job. One day, when I go to see her, I'll
>> spend some time trying to get her to understand.
>>
>> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
>> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
>> the misconception remain.
>
> I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my experience,
> does OS X usage lead to this.
You seem to be confused about this, you state that OS X allows people to
be more productive _without_ learning about files, and yet you ay this
encourages them to learn about files. Maybe you'd better explain this
seeming contradiction.
Allowing a user to get things done without learning about files
certainly seems to me to be allowing the misconception to remain.
> The contrary is true. But, for those that
> never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well. As I have
> noted, in the next major version upgrade, OS X will even allow such things
> as backup and restore from within the program. That is pretty cool.
>
It'd be cooler if it did such things automatically, but that's another
argument.
>> At best it does no harm,
>
> That is the best you can think of... I can think of more, and the more seems
> typical:
>
> * It allows a novice user to get more done *before* they get to the point
> of understanding files and folders
I see that as a disadvantage, learned behaviours are easier to change
before they become embedded.
> * It helps them to gain confidence in their ability to use a computer
So does learning the correct way to do things, there is no confidence
boost to compare with being in control of what's happening.
> * It decreases time to learn the concepts of files and folders
>
You have stated this numerous times in this post, but you have yet to
provide any evidence or even a rational to support it.
How does allowing the user to accomplish tasks without knowing about
files/folders help the user to learn about files/folders?
Jamie Hart
everyone can be taught everything, so we'll teach to the lowest common
denominator. Which results in a mediocre education for everyone.
Then they wonder why physics and chemistry classes are being closed
down. By the time students reach college level they are nearly
incapable of learning what they need to know for either physics or
chemistry.
Steve Carroll
Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
You obviously have the concept of teaching down far better than does
Snit. I agree with you, the idea of teaching someone things that are
inaccurate for the sake of their understanding is not the way to teach
anything. A simple visual diagram of a harddrive with apps on one side
and docs on another will go a long way in showing a newbie what's going
on, it's just not that difficult (I've explained it to many new users,
young and old). Snit's idea of dumbing things down is exactly what's
wrong with education IMO. Perhaps he is really is unable to effectively
communicate to his audience so he takes a shortcut that costs them time
and adds to their confusion. In any event, it's a shame there are people
out there calling themselves teachers that utilize these methods. They
pick up a paycheck while adding to the confusion level. Interestingly,
Snit also claims to do tech support... so there's obviously a method to
his madness. He once bragged about charging a customer emergency rates
to go over to the guy's house and remove a floppy from a drive.
Steve Carroll
wrote:
Of course you're right... but you guys have missed it... Snit also does
'tech support' for such people. When he is in 'teacher' mode' he is
growing a customer base for his tech support business.
>
> > She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder
> > where
> >> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
> >> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
> >> the misconception remain.
>
> > I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my
> > experience,
> > does OS X usage lead to this. The contrary is true. But, for those that
> > never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well.
>
> Better for it to not tag files visibly with "PhotoEditorPlus" in the file
> description metadata in the first place. That "reinforces" that this file
> only works in that program. It's an image, it doesn't matter what program
> last edited it, so what's the point of that metadata's existence?
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
With you as the 'teacher' it's a good bet this is true. If you really
wanted them to understand (and knew how to effectively communicate) you
could use the old file cabinet drawer metaphor... any person with a
working brain can easily understand it. Of course, this would assume
you have an actual interest in them understanding the topic. It's pretty
obvious you use your students (especially the older ones) to fuel your
tech support business... you dumb 'em down on the front end so you can
nail 'em later on.
Steve Carroll
Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
Or, in this case, an erroneous and inaccurate education.
>
> Then they wonder why physics and chemistry classes are being closed
> down. By the time students reach college level they are nearly
> incapable of learning what they need to know for either physics or
> chemistry.
--
Snit
In that rather rare example the new and non-techy user would be stuck
anyway. Such a problem, however, would be an excellent time to enforce
their knowledge about the "deeper" file structure - something in my classes
I would have already introduced. At home, well, they may or may not find
that on their own. If so, great - if not, then, they have been able to do a
*lot* even though this concept is - at least currently - beyond them. They
would have had many successes where with Windows, and I believe KDE and
Gnome as well, they would have had failure and frustration. On a Mac they
would likely have far more faith in their abilities and would be more likely
to succeed. I have seen this repeatedly.
Also keep in mind that OS X has an excellent search feature built in -
Spotlight. The user need not know where a file is to find it.
>> OS X would work with her and allow he to do more and be more efficient,
>> though she might not know enough to be able to set a preferred editor of her
>> choice.
>>
> But only to a degree, if she learns the concept of an image file, she
> can be even more efficient than by using OS X.
In what way?
>> She also could, from either iPhoto or PSE, jump to the *Finder* folder where
>> the image resides.
>
> But how would she decide to do that? She'd need some understanding of
> what a file is before she'd even think to look for one in a folder.
I have provided screen shots of where this is shown. Sure, as with any such
user it is beneficial to have someone help them learn these concepts.
>> What I have seen, repeatedly, is that people are more quickly able to
>> accomplish tasks, gain greater confidence, and learn the concept of folders
>> *more quickly* than they would otherwise. I am sure this is not 100% -
>> nothing is - some may just stop at the ability to move images from program to
>> program... but in general OS X has better "training wheels" that allow a user
>> to understand the very thing Rick seems to want them to know *and* allows
>> them to get lots of amazing work done before they do have that mental map /
>> understanding.
>>
> That is another matter, the fact that OS X encourages a user to do more
> before they have to make the switch to thinking correctly.
You are making the assumption there is something incorrect about seeing
things this way... there is not (it may not be *technically* correct, but it
is effectively correct for their needs). Heck, the idea of files and
folders is not "real" either... just an abstraction.
> Users should be encouraged to switch to correct methods as soon as possible,
> not led down a blind alley that works for simple things but is inadequate in
> the long run.
In what way do you think it is inadequate? For most it is very much
adequate.... do you show users where their email is saved? Discourage them
sending files from scanning software to other programs? Apple has extended
and improved on this idea... not *taken* a thing away from users at all.
And for those who need more, it makes a great path to learning and *helps*
get people there. You act as though it is an either/or or that maybe this
makes getting the concepts of files and folders harder - neither is the
case.
>>> Unfortunately, this image software is not particularly good, so she
>>> regularly emails images to me to edit in various ways that her software
>>> won't cope with.
>>>
>>> Personally I think she'd be far better off if she would think of each
>>> image as separate to the application, so she could open it in whatever
>>> software is better for the job. One day, when I go to see her, I'll
>>> spend some time trying to get her to understand.
>>>
>>> Basically, I agree with you that people see files as part of an
>>> application, I don't agree however, that it is always a good idea to let
>>> the misconception remain.
>>
>> I have not supported the idea of encouraging this - nor, from my experience,
>> does OS X usage lead to this.
>
> You seem to be confused about this, you state that OS X allows people to
> be more productive _without_ learning about files, and yet you ay this
> encourages them to learn about files. Maybe you'd better explain this
> seeming contradiction.
How do you see this as a contradiction? They can get a lot of work done and
this encourages them to trust the machine and their abilities.
> Allowing a user to get things done without learning about files
> certainly seems to me to be allowing the misconception to remain.
You again seem to think that there is something wrong with the metaphor of
files being in programs. There is not. Sure, the user ends up with
different metaphors, but that is common throughout the computer - where in
the real world can you have so many folders embedded in side each other?
Where in the real world do you open a folder to see a *window*?
In the real world you have files stored ... someplace. Maybe folders. When
you want that file you get it and put it in some tool, maybe a typewriter.
This does not confuse people into wondering if the paper is in the
typewriter or in the folder... the difference on a Mac is that it is both in
the folder *and* in the "typewriter" at the same time. Generally, though,
since you do not want to open a file with multiple tools at the same time,
even if the user thinks this through it does them no harm (and they
eventually get past the metaphors anyway).
>> The contrary is true. But, for those that
>> never do get "past" that point, OS X does accommodate them well. As I have
>> noted, in the next major version upgrade, OS X will even allow such things
>> as backup and restore from within the program. That is pretty cool.
>>
> It'd be cooler if it did such things automatically, but that's another
> argument.
The backup I believe will be automatic. The restore, of course, is not.
>>> At best it does no harm,
>>
>> That is the best you can think of... I can think of more, and the more seems
>> typical:
>>
>> * It allows a novice user to get more done *before* they get to the point
>> of understanding files and folders
>
> I see that as a disadvantage, learned behaviours are easier to change
> before they become embedded.
What behavior do you think will need to be changed? They will need to
*extend* their knowledge, but that is the nature of any complex tool. OS X
provides a smoother path to understanding.
>> * It helps them to gain confidence in their ability to use a computer
>
> So does learning the correct way to do things, there is no confidence
> boost to compare with being in control of what's happening.
You again assume it is incorrect to send a file from, say, a browser to your
image organization tool. On a Mac this is easy and perfectly correct. It
is not your only option, but it is not a bad option.
>> * It decreases time to learn the concepts of files and folders
>>
> You have stated this numerous times in this post, but you have yet to
> provide any evidence or even a rational to support it.
Sure I have talked about why... repeatedly. As far as supporting it, I have
no formal study, but I do have hundreds of students in many many classes and
many private customers. I have seen people who have struggled with Windows
for years who suddenly "get it" when they are able to use a Mac... I have
written about this many times in the past, if you like I can repeat the
stories or dig a bit and link to them.
> How does allowing the user to accomplish tasks without knowing about
> files/folders help the user to learn about files/folders?
This is talked about, above. To repeat:
When a user is able to work with files in a successful way they gain
confidence... many new and non-techy users approach the computer with great
fear. On OS X they find they can do all sorts of things that they would
find impossible elsewhere (or have found impossible elsewhere). They can
surf the web, "grab" images, make slide shows, rip and burn CDs, make
movies, etc. As they do this they learn the concept of a file, even if they
do not understand fully, yet, the metaphor of the folder structure. Getting
there, though is now much, much easier - both because they have made it part
way their *and* because they have gained confidence.
Still, some people on *any* OS will not get to the point of understanding
the very abstract "world" of the computer. On a Mac these people *still*
can do many, many things with great success. On Windows, and - I suspect -
KDE and Gnome, they are stuck... or at best learn things by rote and do what
is showed to them at a work site and never move forward. I have seen people
who stagnate like this for years. On a Mac this is much less common.
Snit
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:04:12 +0000, Kier wrote:
What amazingly faulty thinking you have, Rick.
I know I certainly encourage people to get educated... and am happy that OS
X allows that education to be easier. You, however, are arguing against the
most effective tool we have discussed to gain that education.
Snit
I would agree - though I will add that the methods being discussed *aid* in
the users education. Rick is dishonestly pretending it dampers or slows
their education. This is simply not the case... often it is the very thing
that sparks the confidence and helps to teach the concepts.
Snit
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> did eloquently scribble:
>> I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
>> removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
>> the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
>> who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
>> overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
>> being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
>
> Perhaps a visual aid of some kind would help...
> Say, you got a folder, some cardfiles and a few photos.
> "This, is a folder... On your computer it looks like that..."
> "Open the folder and ... This is a text file, and this is an image file"
> "These files remain in the folder. The program that uses them just opens the
> folder and reads them. It may make a copy (put a copy of the photo in) and
> then make alterations to the original (take original out and put new one in
> with clown nose and green hair). But the files in the folder can be handled
> by ANY program written to handle that type of file"
> "The file is not actually IN the program."
I do something similar to that in many of my classes - I have even arranged
to make sure the rooms I teach in have file cabinets. The metaphor,
however, breaks down quickly.
In the real world one *never* opens a folder to get to a window. One never
looks at a window to get to a file. The world of the computer is abstract -
those who are techy and have a lot of experience have no idea how much they
have internalized. I would love to have you and some of the others who talk
about how easy it is to get these ideas across get you own class of new and
non-techy users.
Snit
Exactly. For some people these "simple" concepts are very, very difficult.
People who "get it" do not realize how abstract the concepts really are.
I also bet they have never had to explain the concept to a class full of
students. :)
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
You are making a large number of false assumptions. These have been
explained and discussed elsewhere in this thread.
Seems there are some simple concepts *you* struggle with as well... do you
fault the teacher or the student? :)
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> el0vjn$63n$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 12/4/06 4:09 AM:
>
>> Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
>>> el0ug6$hhv$03$1...@news.t-online.com on 12/4/06 3:50 AM:
>>>
>>>> Michael Glasser (Snot) snotted:
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>>> If so, then, Rick is outright lying. From his recent posts:
>>>>
>>>>> "Well, he think's the files he is working with are 'in' the program."
>>>>
>>>>> This is a misrepresentation of the topic... either he is lying about
>>>>> it or he misunderstands. While I can see where pointing out his
>>>>> ignorance could be seen as inflammatory, it is kind to assume
>>>>> ignorance and not outright dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <C1926020.67689%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>>>>
>>>> "What is different is that OS X allows the user to work the way new
>>>> users generally think - the file is "in" the program."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, look. Snot is lying again. He claims he did not write this
>>>> extremely stupid claim about "files in the program"
>>>> Here is news for you, Snot: You did. And you are lying about it now
>>>>
>>
>> Note: Snot avoids any comments on his outright lies
>> How come, Snot?
>> First you accuse Rick of lying because he pointed out that you hade
>> written the very words you *did* write
>> And then you don't even have the balls to admit that you are a liar.
>> Apart from failing to apologize to Rick
>>
Note: Still no comment from Snot on his outright lying
And this by the very same Snot who repeatedly claimed to be "honest and
honorable"
Well, here he was again not only totally *dishonest* as he outright lied
about the sequence of events, he was also the least honorable anyone could
possibly be by being an exceptionally dishonest liar (and claiming that
someone, who truthfully posted, to be the liar)
You are doing well, "honest and honorable" Snot. Anyone can see what kind of
lying asshole you really are
>>>> < snip extremely convoluted idea abotu working with files >
>>>>
>>>> Snot, if you were really a "teacher", you deserve to be shot on the
>>>> spot. You actually reinforce misconceptions about copmputers instead
>>>> of "educating" people
>>>
>>> The amounts of information I have written to help trolls such as you and
>>> Rick understand the concept of "user perspective" has become
>>> overwhelming.
>>
>> The amount of "misinformation" you try to toss around is indeed
>> overwhelming. You try very hard to insert mountains of
>> bullshit "information" into your posts while at the same time avoiding
>> answering even simple questions
>>
>>> If you are *still* unable to grasp the concept, as you claim, then there
>>> is little more I can do to help you.
>>
>> You have never been able to "help" anyone, "teacher" Snot. If you really
>> were a teacher (you are not) you would easily be the worst one ever to be
>> called so
>>
>>> Your anger, Peter, prevents you from understanding even simple concepts.
>>>
>>
>> What "anger", Snot? You try to declare as "anger" when somone points out
>> your incredible stupidity and dishonesty to avoid dealing with the fact
>> that xou are indeed stupid and dishonest
>>
>> I've got news for you, Snot: That is not "anger". It is simply and calmly
>> pointing out that you are full of it, that you are a liar and the most
>> hideous troll ever to haunt csma
>
> Wow. Peter *still* does not understand how, from a user's perspective, a
> file can be "in" a program,
Nope, I can't understand how a *teacher* (and you claim to be one, liar)
could possibly let such a gross misconception stand as it will hinder
his "students" to grasp more advanced things
> nor does he understand the value of this,
What possible "value" would there be in such a stupid misconception, Snot?
That your "clients" would never be able to stand on their own with
computers, perpetually in need of you, the "bright teacher" Snot?
Who happens to do "emergency computer services" too? Can't have
knowledgeable people, now can we, Snot?
> *nor* does he understand how it is dishonest to claim that I have claimed
> the file is actually where the user perceives it...
As usual, you start blubbering when caught lying, Snot
"... dishonest to claim that I have claimed..."
Can you get some more exact, "teacher" Snot? You really have a way to
articulate yourself...
> You simply are not very bright, Peter. Oh well.
>
Well, that would still be enough to appear as genius compared to
you, "teacher" Snot. Oh, I forgot, "liar" Snot too
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
Snit
>> Wow. Peter *still* does not understand how, from a user's perspective, a
>> file can be "in" a program,
>
> Nope, I can't understand how a *teacher* (and you claim to be one, liar)
> could possibly let such a gross misconception stand as it will hinder
> his "students" to grasp more advanced things
>
>> nor does he understand the value of this,
>
> What possible "value" would there be in such a stupid misconception, Snot?
> That your "clients" would never be able to stand on their own with
> computers, perpetually in need of you, the "bright teacher" Snot?
> Who happens to do "emergency computer services" too? Can't have
> knowledgeable people, now can we, Snot?
>
>> *nor* does he understand how it is dishonest to claim that I have claimed
>> the file is actually where the user perceives it...
>
> As usual, you start blubbering when caught lying, Snot
> "... dishonest to claim that I have claimed..."
> Can you get some more exact, "teacher" Snot? You really have a way to
> articulate yourself...
>
>> You simply are not very bright, Peter. Oh well.
>>
>
> Well, that would still be enough to appear as genius compared to
> you, "teacher" Snot. Oh, I forgot, "liar" Snot too
Peter continues to show only confusion, frustration, and the deep need to
lie. He calls people names, spews accusations and ignorant claims, and has
no ability to listen (well, read and understand).
I find that sad. I bet he would do poorly in one of my classes.
Snit
More anger and misrepresentations from Peter.
Thank goodness *he* is not a teacher!
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
Peter, if you think you are hiding your deep anger then you are sadly
mistaken.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Peter Köhlmann
Here, Snot, let me help you answer some outstanding explanations
You snipped (you *never* "dishonestly" snip, right, Snot? Right?)
this here:
>>>>
>>>>> If so, then, Rick is outright lying. From his recent posts:
>>>>
>>>>> "Well, he think's the files he is working with are 'in' the program."
>>>>
>>>>> This is a misrepresentation of the topic... either he is lying about
>>>>> it or he misunderstands. While I can see where pointing out his
>>>>> ignorance could be seen as inflammatory, it is kind to assume
>>>>> ignorance and not outright dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <C1926020.67689%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
>>>>
>>>> "What is different is that OS X allows the user to work the way new
>>>> users generally think - the file is "in" the program."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, look. Snot is lying again. He claims he did not write this
>>>> extremely stupid claim about "files in the program"
>>>> Here is news for you, Snot: You did. And you are lying about it now
>>>>
>>
>> Note: Snot avoids any comments on his outright lies
>> How come, Snot?
>> First you accuse Rick of lying because he pointed out that you hade
>> written the very words you did write
>> And then you don't even have the balls to admit that you are a liar.
>> Apart from failing to apologize to Rick
>>
Note: Still no comment from Snot on his outright lying
And this by the very same Snot who repeatedly claimed to be "honest and
honorable"
Well, here he was again not only totally dishonest as he outright lied
about the sequence of events, he was also the least honorable anyone could
possibly be by being an exceptionally dishonest liar (and claiming that
someone, who truthfully posted, to be the liar)
You are doing well, "honest and honorable" Snot. Anyone can see what kind of
lying asshole you really are
So, come on, Snot, explain how this can possibly be.
After alll, you are "honest and honorable", Snot. So you claim
How come then that you are not at all, not the tiniest little bit, "honest
and honorable"?
>
>>> Wow. Peter *still* does not understand how, from a user's perspective,
>>> a file can be "in" a program,
>>
>> Nope, I can't understand how a *teacher* (and you claim to be one, liar)
>> could possibly let such a gross misconception stand as it will hinder
>> his "students" to grasp more advanced things
>>
>>> nor does he understand the value of this,
>>
>> What possible "value" would there be in such a stupid misconception,
>> Snot? That your "clients" would never be able to stand on their own with
>> computers, perpetually in need of you, the "bright teacher" Snot?
>> Who happens to do "emergency computer services" too? Can't have
>> knowledgeable people, now can we, Snot?
>>
Again, nothing from Snot to explain his outright idiocy.
>>> *nor* does he understand how it is dishonest to claim that I have
>>> claimed the file is actually where the user perceives it...
>>
>> As usual, you start blubbering when caught lying, Snot
>> "... dishonest to claim that I have claimed..."
>> Can you get some more exact, "teacher" Snot? You really have a way to
>> articulate yourself...
And still, nothing
>>> You simply are not very bright, Peter. Oh well.
>>>
>>
>> Well, that would still be enough to appear as genius compared to
>> you, "teacher" Snot. Oh, I forgot, "liar" Snot too
>
> Peter continues to show only confusion, frustration, and the deep need to
> lie.
Ah, now the true Snot reemerges. He says nothing to explain his lies, but
instead insists that other people lied about him
> He calls people names, spews accusations and ignorant claims, and
> has no ability to listen (well, read and understand).
It seems I can "listen, read and understand" a lot better than you are able
to, Snot. You are totally unable to even answer simple questions
> I find that sad. I bet he would do poorly in one of my classes.
>
I bet. You would be clobbered by the rest of your "students" (if you had any
at all) when they found out how much of a failure you are as a "teacher"
If you were really a "teacher", you would be without any doubts the most
incompetent of them all
--
Ninety percent of the time things will turn out worse than you expect.
The other 10 percent of the time you had no right to expect so much.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> looks at a window to get to a file. The world of the computer is abstract -
> those who are techy and have a lot of experience have no idea how much they
> have internalized. I would love to have you and some of the others who talk
> about how easy it is to get these ideas across get you own class of new and
> non-techy users.
Oh, I for one WILL be.
I start a PGCE in IT in september.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
And you claim to have a degree in psychology. You really should get your
money back on that.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
From the viewpoint of learning things that have to do with reality
everyone does poorly in your classes.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "spi...@freenet.co.uk" <spi...@freenet.co.uk> stated in post
> 0uad44-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com on 12/4/06 4:28 AM:
>
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> did eloquently scribble:
> >> I'd largely aggree with that, it's just not always easy to accomplish the
> >> removal of such a misconception. Of course, it does depend very much on
> >> the person you're trying to explain it to. There are some users, I think,
> >> who are afraid to try out any new ways to do things. Sometimes this can be
> >> overcome, by education, IMO, most new users aren't that interested in
> >> being educated, they just want to start using the computer.
> >
> > Perhaps a visual aid of some kind would help...
> > Say, you got a folder, some cardfiles and a few photos.
> > "This, is a folder... On your computer it looks like that..."
> > "Open the folder and ... This is a text file, and this is an image file"
> > "These files remain in the folder. The program that uses them just opens the
> > folder and reads them. It may make a copy (put a copy of the photo in) and
> > then make alterations to the original (take original out and put new one in
> > with clown nose and green hair). But the files in the folder can be handled
> > by ANY program written to handle that type of file"
> > "The file is not actually IN the program."
>
> I do something similar to that in many of my classes - I have even arranged
> to make sure the rooms I teach in have file cabinets. The metaphor,
> however, breaks down quickly.
It doesn't break down if you effectively make the simple connections
necessary for the people who have difficulty. Set a half dozen folders
in that person's lap. The folders should each contain at least one
document and there needs to be at least a couple of levels of
subfolders... each with at least a document or two in them (along with
the subfolder). Have the person rifle through the folders and get them
to see how things are organized. You'd be surprised how many people fall
on this alone, though, they don't often admit to it (these are the same
people that have trouble making the leap to the computer - what a
shock). Once they get the 'real world' layout... the computer end is
actually easier for them, they really appreciate the power of a computer
at that point.
> In the real world one *never* opens a folder to get to a window.
No, in the real world folders store documents/data. Opps... that happens
in the computer world, too. If a person understands how a file cabinet
works, he/she has to be almost brain dead not to comprehend that looking
at a folder and clicking on it to open it is tantamount to opening an
actual folder by hand and looking into it. I don't know anyone that
brain dead. Somehow, you manage to find classes full of them. If the
window of an open folder looked like an actual open folder it would
help. People that get confused over the appearance of an open folder in
a window because it doesn't look like a real world folder looks get an
explanation of the difference in the 'look'... it then takes all of two
seconds for the light bulb to go on for those that didn't get it the
first time.
> One never looks at a window to get to a file.
No, they 'look' into the folder to get the file, which means they have
to 'open' it first. You are obviously not making the simple connections
required for them
> The world of the computer is abstract -
> those who are techy and have a lot of experience have no idea how much they
> have internalized. I would love to have you and some of the others who talk
> about how easy it is to get these ideas across get you own class of new and
> non-techy users.
As poorly as everyone has seen you communicate on usenet, it's no
surprise to anyone that you can't do it well. Heaven forbid if you were
to take responsibility for your inability to effectively communicate.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
For those that haven't yet seen it... this is the part of the thread
where Snit pretends he is your 'teacher'.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > One never looks at a window to get to a file.
>
> No, they 'look' into the folder to get the file, which means they have
> to 'open' it first. You are obviously not making the simple connections
> required for them
Plus, Michael Glasser obviously wants the method of folders to "crack"
by saying that what opens is a "window" and not a "folder", trying to
make the case that this alleged tech-stupid person would connect the
graphics on-screen to a "window" instead of a "folder". What opens
when the folder icon is clicked has no resemblance to any real-world
"window", and for someone trying (fumblingly) to talk about computer
pedagogics, Michael seems to have the basics pretty much screwed up.
The Amiga called them "drawers" instead of folders, which is easier to
correlate to the shape and appearance of the graphics on-screen.
Plus, the problem with GUI pedagogics isn't really the names and their
real-life counterparts. The largest threshold is understanding the
hierarchy in todays filesystems. We don't have anything in our real
life that corresponds to hierarchies when storing items. Items aren't
stored "four levels down" in something. They are stored in a box in
the attic, or in a drawer in the kitchen. But "the kitchen" and "the
attic" isn't really a hierarchical container in our minds when we
refer to where they are stored, plus "kitchen" really isn't a good
metaphor for a top-level folder in the filesystem.
That's why I think technologies like Spotlight (or rather a full-blown
DB filesystem) will be more and more important. You see, or setup
"views". You tell the computer what you want to see. "vacation
photos", "email from yesterday", "images from steve" and such, which
in the system gets translated to SQL queries like
"all files where type = 'image' and date > '2006-06-01' and date <
'2006-88-01' and keyword = 'family'"
Or something like that. That, coupled with a save dialog that doesn't
let you browse your hard drive, but rather tag your data correctly
based on your projects, your address book, your interests and so on.
So, in your "home view", you see icons for "movies" and "pictures",
but they're not folders, they are smart searches that shows you all
pictures, intelligently selected. Let's say you click "PIctures" -
what do you expect?
Well, latest pictures of course. "I saved an image from the web
yesterday and now I want to email it.". Then categories, starting with
obvious ones such as "From the net", "Digital Camera", "From email",
"last week" and so on. And of course a big "search" field to accompany
this. Plus, of course, a "Customize" button that helps you set up
common views for your pictures, or create your own.
And in the "Work" view you have "Projects", "Presentations", "Word
files", "Current files".
The computer is your assistant, and should help accomodate your
requests, not let you figure out by yourself where and why something
is stored at X.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
wrote:
> Snit <SN...@cableone.net.lnvalid> did eloquently scribble:
> > In the real world one *never* opens a folder to get to a window. One never
> > looks at a window to get to a file. The world of the computer is abstract -
> > those who are techy and have a lot of experience have no idea how much they
> > have internalized. I would love to have you and some of the others who talk
> > about how easy it is to get these ideas across get you own class of new and
> > non-techy users.
>
> Oh, I for one WILL be.
> I start a PGCE in IT in september.
Great... but will you manage to put up over 22,400 posts to computer
advocacy newsgroups in a 12 month period while juggling that hectic
'teaching' schedule the way Snit has in the last 12 months (according to
google)? Somehow, I doubt you'll be able to pull it off. This does seem
to be a banner year for Snit... in the ~3 year period since Sep. 2003
google shows that Snit put up over 54,000 posts (yes, it's all by the
same character), mainly to two newsgroup (csma and cola). Seems like it
has to be some kind of a usenet record. And this is all just under the
name of Snit... he also uses sockpuppets, steals ID's and forges posts
and nymshifts when he feels it's necessary.
Snit
> Snit <SN...@cableone.net.lnvalid> did eloquently scribble:
>> In the real world one *never* opens a folder to get to a window. One never
>> looks at a window to get to a file. The world of the computer is abstract -
>> those who are techy and have a lot of experience have no idea how much they
>> have internalized. I would love to have you and some of the others who talk
>> about how easy it is to get these ideas across get you own class of new and
>> non-techy users.
>
> Oh, I for one WILL be.
> I start a PGCE in IT in september.
Congratulations. I am curious who the students will be and what you will be
charged with teaching them (if you are teaching IT folks, *hopefully* they
know what folders and files are!). If you are willing, I also would love to
hear how it goes, though posting problems, or even successes, from work into
these types of forums is not always a wise thing to do... there are trolls
who will twist what you say and spew lies about it for years to come.
Snit
mr-E6DA9D.19...@individual.net on 12/4/06 11:19 AM:
> In article <noone-5B8961....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>> One never looks at a window to get to a file.
>>
>> No, they 'look' into the folder to get the file, which means they have
>> to 'open' it first. You are obviously not making the simple connections
>> required for them
>
> Plus, Michael Glasser obviously wants the method of folders to "crack"
> by saying that what opens is a "window" and not a "folder", trying to
> make the case that this alleged tech-stupid person would connect the
> graphics on-screen to a "window" instead of a "folder". What opens
> when the folder icon is clicked has no resemblance to any real-world
> "window", and for someone trying (fumblingly) to talk about computer
> pedagogics, Michael seems to have the basics pretty much screwed up.
Amazing how you you insist on spewing straw men when you fail to have a real
critique of what I have said. Just amazing.
The point was that the computer world is abstract and does not match the
"real" world as well as one might like. You, and it seems, Carroll are
going to continue to pretend you have some insight into how I run my classes
or have any basis to rate my abilities. Both you and Steve do so for clear
reasons - you sick need to get revenge for my pointing out your own areas of
weakness - areas you have each made very, very public. With Steve it
started with an argument I made about Bush he could not find an honest
defense against. With you, Sandman, you have been a huge ass ever since I
not only made some suggestions for your web sites but also noted how your
CSS failed. Not only did you take my suggestions, something you find
shameful given all the trolling you have spewed my way, you went so far as
to out and out lie about taking my advice and have obsessed over your lie
about how your CSS validated - even though your own words, the Google
archive, and the WayBackMachine proved you were a liar.
I have repeatedly challenged you to put your cards on the table - show your
"evidence" of your claims, such as when you claim I am not a instructor, and
I will repost the evidence of your lies. You run. Even you, Sandman, know
your word and your honor is worthless where mine is something of great
value... while I have certainly stated things I have later wished I had
worded differently or what-have-you, I remain honest and honorable while you
spew your lies.
Is it any wonder you post to back up Carroll... someone who is quite
possibly the biggest liar in CSMA history; he repeats lies so often *nobody*
has been able to find an example of *anyone* repeating the same lie more
often than he has. Ever. In the history of Usenet... not even just CSMA or
COLA.
Funny how you start your post off trolling and flaming me but then jump in
to agree with my basic points. Odd. When self admitted morons such as
Carroll troll, there is little loss to the groups - he has little of value
to say (though I believe some of his comments about music may be reasonable
- not my field). You, Sandman, actually *do* have some things of value to
say... but you bury them in your trolling and flaming and lying. I find
that to be a shame. If you could learn to be honest and honorable you could
actually make a decent Mac advocate.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-5B8961....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > One never looks at a window to get to a file.
> >
> > No, they 'look' into the folder to get the file, which means they have
> > to 'open' it first. You are obviously not making the simple connections
> > required for them
>
> Plus, Michael Glasser obviously wants the method of folders to "crack"
> by saying that what opens is a "window" and not a "folder",
It appears that way.
> trying to
> make the case that this alleged tech-stupid person would connect the
> graphics on-screen to a "window" instead of a "folder". What opens
> when the folder icon is clicked has no resemblance to any real-world
> "window", and for someone trying (fumblingly) to talk about computer
> pedagogics, Michael seems to have the basics pretty much screwed up.
Well, you've watched him 'communicate' on usenet for years, I'm sure
you've seen his methods are lacking at times.The way Snit was 'teaching'
it I'd think would only tend to confuse, especially when it came time to
use your data elsewhere. You'd have to unlearn the error you were taught
by him... I can see it now:
'Wait a minute... so the picture* in* the mail app is not *really* in
the mail app'?
> The Amiga called them "drawers" instead of folders, which is easier to
> correlate to the shape and appearance of the graphics on-screen.
>
> Plus, the problem with GUI pedagogics isn't really the names and their
> real-life counterparts. The largest threshold is understanding the
> hierarchy in todays filesystems. We don't have anything in our real
> life that corresponds to hierarchies when storing items. Items aren't
> stored "four levels down" in something.
But we do... the filing cabinet is still around and contains
hierarchical organization, at least, it certainly can for demonstrative
purposes. You can easily make the connection with paper
folders/documents for those in need of a tangible object connection. Of
course, this assumes they understand how a filing cabinet works... I've
never seen anyone fail to entirely get the whole concept within a minute
or so.
> They are stored in a box in
> the attic, or in a drawer in the kitchen. But "the kitchen" and "the
> attic" isn't really a hierarchical container in our minds when we
> refer to where they are stored, plus "kitchen" really isn't a good
> metaphor for a top-level folder in the filesystem.
>
> That's why I think technologies like Spotlight (or rather a full-blown
> DB filesystem) will be more and more important. You see, or setup
> "views". You tell the computer what you want to see. "vacation
> photos", "email from yesterday", "images from steve" and such, which
> in the system gets translated to SQL queries like
>
> "all files where type = 'image' and date > '2006-06-01' and date <
> '2006-88-01' and keyword = 'family'"
>
> Or something like that. That, coupled with a save dialog that doesn't
> let you browse your hard drive, but rather tag your data correctly
> based on your projects, your address book, your interests and so on.
Sure, then the 'view' becomes the container for all similar docs/data. I
much prefer this idea, overall. The salient point here (made by someone
previously) is to separate the data from the app so the data can be
available for use in multiple apps. The way Apple does it with their Pro
apps is OK, I suppose... but Snit's method would confuse the shit out of
someone who saw the data appear this way. In any event, call me a
dinosaur but I'd still want to be able to browse my hd;)
> So, in your "home view", you see icons for "movies" and "pictures",
> but they're not folders, they are smart searches that shows you all
> pictures, intelligently selected. Let's say you click "PIctures" -
> what do you expect?
>
> Well, latest pictures of course. "I saved an image from the web
> yesterday and now I want to email it.". Then categories, starting with
> obvious ones such as "From the net", "Digital Camera", "From email",
> "last week" and so on. And of course a big "search" field to accompany
> this. Plus, of course, a "Customize" button that helps you set up
> common views for your pictures, or create your own.
>
> And in the "Work" view you have "Projects", "Presentations", "Word
> files", "Current files".
>
> The computer is your assistant, and should help accomodate your
> requests, not let you figure out by yourself where and why something
> is stored at X.
True, but I still think it's a good idea to have a basic understanding
of how this stuff gets organized, at least, for today's computing...
tomorrow is another story. How is Vista going to handle this stuff?
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Plus, Michael Glasser obviously wants the method of folders to "crack"
> > by saying that what opens is a "window" and not a "folder",
> > trying to
> > make the case that this alleged tech-stupid person would connect the
> > graphics on-screen to a "window" instead of a "folder". What opens
> > when the folder icon is clicked has no resemblance to any real-world
> > "window", and for someone trying (fumblingly) to talk about computer
> > pedagogics, Michael seems to have the basics pretty much screwed up.
>
> Well, you've watched him 'communicate' on usenet for years, I'm sure
> you've seen his methods are lacking at times.The way Snit was 'teaching'
> it I'd think would only tend to confuse
That's assuming that I trust him when he claims to be teaching any of
this. He has shown how ignorant he's been about subjects such as web
design (not to mention lacking talent in), which he also has claimed
to be teaching.
> > The Amiga called them "drawers" instead of folders, which is easier to
> > correlate to the shape and appearance of the graphics on-screen.
> >
> > Plus, the problem with GUI pedagogics isn't really the names and their
> > real-life counterparts. The largest threshold is understanding the
> > hierarchy in todays filesystems. We don't have anything in our real
> > life that corresponds to hierarchies when storing items. Items aren't
> > stored "four levels down" in something.
>
> But we do... the filing cabinet is still around and contains
> hierarchical organization, at least, it certainly can for demonstrative
> purposes. You can easily make the connection with paper
> folders/documents for those in need of a tangible object connection. Of
> course, this assumes they understand how a filing cabinet works... I've
> never seen anyone fail to entirely get the whole concept within a minute
> or so.
But a filing cabinet is one level, folders in it are level 2. That's
all. An uncluttered hierarchical filesystem demands some 6-8 levels at
various points.
I'm not claiming they *CAN'T* create connections to real-life storage
methods, but the sheer volumes of what you find on your hard drive
doesn't really correlate to anything in your everyday life...
> > Or something like that. That, coupled with a save dialog that doesn't
> > let you browse your hard drive, but rather tag your data correctly
> > based on your projects, your address book, your interests and so on.
>
> Sure, then the 'view' becomes the container for all similar docs/data. I
> much prefer this idea, overall. The salient point here (made by someone
> previously) is to separate the data from the app so the data can be
> available for use in multiple apps. The way Apple does it with their Pro
> apps is OK, I suppose... but Snit's method would confuse the shit out of
> someone who saw the data appear this way. In any event, call me a
> dinosaur but I'd still want to be able to browse my hd;)
Yeah, me too. But we need a paradigm shift here. Plus, I'd really like
to be different enough so that the term "container" doesn't apply.
These are views that are presented as the answer to the question
"where is X?" - "Here".
> > The computer is your assistant, and should help accomodate your
> > requests, not let you figure out by yourself where and why something
> > is stored at X.
>
> True, but I still think it's a good idea to have a basic understanding
> of how this stuff gets organized, at least, for today's computing...
> tomorrow is another story. How is Vista going to handle this stuff?
Vista *was* goind to have a database filesystem, but that was like
three years ago. Now it's doing it pretty much exactly like OSX -
hierarchical filesystem with a indexing routine on top to find stuff
easily.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Amazing how you you insist on spewing straw men when you fail to have a real
> critique of what I have said.
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]