Rosetta is freaking amazing.
Sandman
(www.panosfx.com)
Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
53 seconds
MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
18 seconds
That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
it again when the copy is done.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-379F91.12...@News.Individual.NET on 12/12/06 4:11 AM:
Will you post more of your famous contrived videos? Please!
Tee hee!
--
€ 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
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
> > (www.panosfx.com)
> >
> > Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
> >
> > 53 seconds
> >
> > MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
> >
> > 18 seconds
> >
> > That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
> > PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
> > this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
> > it again when the copy is done.
> >
> Will you post more of your famous contrived videos?
Please stop begging for my attention.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
The difference between my "begging" and yours, Sandman, is I am referencing
specific lies of yours. You are just adding to your pile of lies.
That difference, however, shall go way over your head.
By the way, do you still deny your contrived videos were, in deed,
contrived? Here is a post where I looked at one of then in some detail:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/39325a278fdac463>
Do you still think your contrived videos are able to "debunk" other people's
experiences?
LOL!
--
€ 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:
> >> Will you post more of your famous contrived videos?
> >
> > Please stop begging for my attention.
>
> The difference between my "begging" and yours, Sandman, is I am referencing
> specific lies of yours.
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]
Snit
> In article <C1A412A6.6B0CB%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
The difference between my "begging" and yours, Sandman, is I am referencing
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Prove his video was "contrived". Oh, that's right, you never offer
support for your claims, you just make them and go on your merry way,
(like David did). This all started from David's claim that the Mac in
question was too slow for web browsing . As I had essentially the same
iMac I knew David was full of... as he often is. Funny how you are
claiming Sandman's video was contrived (with no proof) while backing the
position of a known troll who, like you, also had no proof for his claim.
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" -
"I am a bigger liar than Steve" - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Peter Hayes
Subject to your retest, it does suggest the move to Intel was the right
decision.
--
Peter
Sandman
noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
Indeed. This MBP is amazingly fast.
--
Sandman[.net]
iMojo
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Most of the apps I use on my new core2 iMac aren't Universal, CS2, After
Effects 6.5, Flash 8. They all runs as fast (faster in some cases) as my
G5 at work.
Kudos to Apple for making another awesome transition so smooth and
hastle free.
John C. Randolph
Rosetta is able to recompile on the fly, like some of the newer Java
VMs do. Google for LLVM for an example of another implementation of
the technique.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
The speed-up here is coming from the run-time recompilation that
Rosetta does. The target processor architecture is kind of beside the
point.
-jcr
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take your argument with sandman into
the private room.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog
http://markedspartiet.dk, http://macplanet.dk
http://siad.dk
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Yeah, and I have the low end model... the thing truly flies. I have to
get some time to test it doing some 3D animation rendering against my
dual 2.5Ghz G5. I've done a bit on the MBP... I really think it's gonna
win handily.
Sandman
iMojo <iadv...@macs.net> wrote:
Exactly my point.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-33C328.21...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hq8wuq.1hfyei41xuzqbkN%noti...@btinternet.com>,
> > noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
> > > > (www.panosfx.com)
> > > >
> > > > Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
> > > >
> > > > 53 seconds
> > > >
> > > > MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
> > > >
> > > > 18 seconds
> > > >
> > > > That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
> > > > PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
> > > > this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
> > > > it again when the copy is done.
> > >
> > > Subject to your retest, it does suggest the move to Intel was the right
> > > decision.
> >
> > Indeed. This MBP is amazingly fast.
>
> Yeah, and I have the low end model... the thing truly flies. I have to
> get some time to test it doing some 3D animation rendering against my
> dual 2.5Ghz G5. I've done a bit on the MBP... I really think it's gonna
> win handily.
Well, With rendering, disk speed also becomes a factor. The above test
was all in RAM. I'm just assuming it may be a bit different.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Ok, with the PowerMac doing *nothing* but this action, it still takes
46 seconds! That's pretty amazing!
--
Sandman[.net]
William o'Donnel
Mine too.
--
Johny
PS. I do not read this email, please follow-up to newsgroups only.
Steve de Mena
Yes it is pretty impressive. The only area that
didn't convert over well was music applications.
Virtually every music plugin does not run on Intel
Macs.
Steve
Peter Hayes
The speed-up might be, but without the Intel processor there would be no
Rosetta. Sandman's operation would be stuck at 46 seconds (retest), so
the target processor architecture is pivotal in that sense.
It does seem weird though that a process that requires recompilation
actually runs faster than it does natively, and by such a massive 250%
margain.
--
Peter
Sandman
William o'Donnel <keyo...@zigi.itl.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:24:50 +0100, Sandman wrote:
>
> > In article <iadvocate-04DEE...@news.videotron.net>,
> > iMojo <iadv...@macs.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kudos to Apple for making another awesome transition so smooth and
> >> hastle free.
> >
> > Exactly my point.
>
> Mine too.
I particularly liked the Keynote when Steve Jobs thanked the
developers that turned *this* (shows screenshot of OSX desktop) into
*this* (wipes over to the exact same screenshot) :)
--
Sandman[.net]
John C. Randolph
>
> It does seem weird though that a process that requires recompilation
> actually runs faster than it does natively, and by such a massive 250%
> margain.
Rosetta can re-optimize on the fly where it notices opportunites to
speed up the code.
-jcr
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <1hqa2cq.fge1m29vmaz4N%noti...@btinternet.com>):
It just reaffirms how completely fucked the PowerPC architecture
has become.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
John C. Randolph
No, it doesn't. It shows the benefit of run-time code analysis. The
PPC architecture is fine. The reason for the switch is that IBM
couldn't or wouldn't deliver updates and low-power versions of it
suitable for use in portable machines.
-jcr
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <2006121320525427544-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>):
And you think that is so much better than an optimizing compiler
that it justifies that sort of massive speedup? please.
> The PPC architecture is fine.
No, she's dead Jim. I'm just a country doctor, not a miracle
worker.
> The reason for the switch is that IBM couldn't or wouldn't deliver updates
> and low-power versions of it suitable for use in portable machines.
That's just yet another aspect of how fucked it is.
Walter Bushell
And the chips they did provide were too hot to use in Pro type machines
either, took very expensive cooling which also took up space to run.
--
Divided we stand!
John C. Randolph
>>>
>>> It just reaffirms how completely fucked the PowerPC architecture has become.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It shows the benefit of run-time code analysis.
>
> And you think that is so much better than an optimizing compiler that
> it justifies that sort of massive speedup? please.
Lefty,
Read and learn:
The LLVM project papers describe the techniques of run-time analysis
and the performance benefits thereof. The speed improvements that
Rosetta obtains are similar to the more advanced Java and Smalltalk VMs
in use today. Compile-time optimization has to *guess*, where run-time
analysis can *measure*.
-jcr
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <2006122702455416807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>):
Instead of reading about it, why don't you actually try it for
yourself sometime?
John C. Randolph
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:45:54 -0600, John C. Randolph wrote
> (in article <2006122702455416807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>):
>
>> On 2006-12-14 05:12:19 -0800, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> said:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It just reaffirms how completely fucked the PowerPC architecture has become.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. It shows the benefit of run-time code analysis.
>>>
>>> And you think that is so much better than an optimizing compiler that
>>> it justifies that sort of massive speedup? please.
>>
>> Lefty,
>>
>> Read and learn:
>>
>> http://llvm.org/
>>
>> The LLVM project papers describe the techniques of run-time analysis
>> and the performance benefits thereof. The speed improvements that
>> Rosetta obtains are similar to the more advanced Java and Smalltalk VMs
>> in use today. Compile-time optimization has to *guess*, where run-time
>> analysis can *measure*.
>
> Instead of reading about it, why don't you actually try it for yourself
> sometime?
Your response makes no sense. You claimed that Rosetta's optimization
abilities point to a problem with the PPC architecture, and I have
shown that you are mistaken. What are you suggesting that I "try for
myself"?
-jcr
Lawson English
> Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
> (www.panosfx.com)
>
> Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
>
> 53 seconds
PhotoShop won't be native until CS3 is released, so this isn't TOO amazing.
>
> MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
>
> 18 seconds
>
> That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
> PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
> this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
> it again when the copy is done.
>
>
Not at all amazing, save to show that the Intel chip is plenty fast when
running native code. I would expect native PhotoShop to run 5-10%
faster than the Windows version under Rosetta. It would be interesting
to see the Windows version run IN Windows and compared to the same
benchnmark run natively under MacOS X.
This would give clues concerning the relative efficiency of the graphics
subsystems--DirectX vs OpenGL, basically.
Lawson English
More money from the embedded/console market.
Lawson English
I misunderstood your description originally. Yeah, that's QUITE cool.
One question: is it a dual-core G5 or just a dual-processor G5?
Sandman
Lawson English <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote:
> > Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
> > (www.panosfx.com)
> >
> > Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
> >
> > 53 seconds
>
> PhotoShop won't be native until CS3 is released, so this isn't TOO amazing.
Eh? Photoshop CS3 *is* native on that machine.
> > MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
> >
> > 18 seconds
> >
> > That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
> > PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
> > this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
> > it again when the copy is done.
>
> Not at all amazing
You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Lawson English <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote:
Just dual processor. But check this out:
http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
It gets even weirder.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <cdUlh.80565$V34....@newsfe17.lga>,
> Lawson English <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote:
>
>>> Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
>>> (www.panosfx.com)
>>>
>>> Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
>>>
>>> 53 seconds
>>
>> PhotoShop won't be native until CS3 is released, so this isn't TOO amazing.
>
> Eh? Photoshop CS3 *is* native on that machine.
Photoshop CS3 has not been released - though the beta has.
>>> MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
>>>
>>> 18 seconds
>>>
>>> That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
>>> PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
>>> this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
>>> it again when the copy is done.
>>
>> Not at all amazing
>
> You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
> Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
Photoshop CS3 is still in beta, and the tests you report are done by a
self-professed web pro who regularly fails to get his CSS to validate (and
his HTML).
-----
* Direct PDF "printout" from the CSS validation services:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
(I also point out his bad html:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>)
* I pointed out the Google archive and the WayBackMachine showing his
faulty CSS here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e758896e0b579f64>
* Reading Sandman's reply, he makes no claim that the code snippets or
the links I provided were in any way incorrect. In the same thread I
repeatedly point out how both the WayBackMachine and the Google record
prove my claim about his CSS, and he never is willing to even talk about
that, continually running.
I offer other support for more of Sandman's related lies in the same thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/f07f
21c76c0176c5/> (the thread is relatively short, less than 30 posts).
----
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-0E3D22.22...@News.Individual.NET on 12/31/06 2:09 PM:
>
> > In article <cdUlh.80565$V34....@newsfe17.lga>,
> > Lawson English <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote:
> >
> >>> Ok, benchmarking by running the Stamp action from Panos
> >>> (www.panosfx.com)
> >>>
> >>> Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM running PS natively
> >>>
> >>> 53 seconds
> >>
> >> PhotoShop won't be native until CS3 is released, so this isn't TOO amazing.
> >
> > Eh? Photoshop CS3 *is* native on that machine.
>
> Photoshop CS3 has not been released - though the beta has.
Just what does the fact that CS3 is a beta have to do with it being native on
the Power Mac Dual 2.5Ghz system Sandman was talking about?
>
> >>> MacBook Pro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz 3GB RAM running PS in Rosetta:
> >>>
> >>> 18 seconds
> >>>
> >>> That's pretty amazing to say the least. I was copying files from the
> >>> PowerMac to the Mac Book Pro (I keep wanting to type PowerBook) during
> >>> this test, so maybe that affected the Power Mac, but still. I'll run
> >>> it again when the copy is done.
> >>
> >> Not at all amazing
> >
> > You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
> > Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
>
> Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
Do you have an real evidence to show Sandman's numbers are NOT correct?
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> Not at all amazing
> >
> > You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
> > Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
>
> Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
Do we have any real evidence to the contrary? No?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> One question: is it a dual-core G5 or just a dual-processor G5?
> >
> > Just dual processor. But check this out:
> >
> > http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
> >
> > It gets even weirder.
> >
> Photoshop CS3 is still in beta
No one has ever claimed otherwise, troll boy. Why are you posting
irrelevant things to launch into your lies?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other... though even
you admit your claims are unexpected... so in other words it is likely to be
not true.
User error on your part is a likely explanation, though this has not been
proved one way or the other.
Snit
My mistake to think you were using CS3, above, but I was right on with the
rest of my post - hence the reason you snipped and ran from it:
----------
and the tests you report are done by a self-professed web pro who regularly
fails to get his CSS to validate (and his HTML).
-----
* Direct PDF "printout" from the CSS validation services:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
(I also point out his bad html:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>)
* I pointed out the Google archive and the WayBackMachine showing his
faulty CSS here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e758896e0b579f64>
* Reading Sandman's reply, he makes no claim that the code snippets or
the links I provided were in any way incorrect. In the same thread I
repeatedly point out how both the WayBackMachine and the Google record
prove my claim about his CSS, and he never is willing to even talk about
that, continually running.
I offer other support for more of Sandman's related lies in the same thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/f07f
21c76c0176c5/> (the thread is relatively short, less than 30 posts).
----
---------
Funny to watch you dance and run, Sandman. And you will keep doing so, my
clapping monkey boy. :)
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>> Not at all amazing
> >>>
> >>> You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
> >>> Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
> >>
> >> Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
> >
> > Do we have any real evidence to the contrary? No?
>
> OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other...
What you believe is irrelevant. You don't own either system. I have
run the benchmarks on three different machines and I don't have to
"believe" anything to see the results. You, on the other hand, has
conducted no benchmarks since you can't, yet you are here to make
claims about the benchmarks you are unable to perform yourself.
<snip rest of Snit wannabe trolling>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>> One question: is it a dual-core G5 or just a dual-processor G5?
> >>>
> >>> Just dual processor. But check this out:
> >>>
> >>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
> >>>
> >>> It gets even weirder.
> >>>
> >> Photoshop CS3 is still in beta
> >
> > No one has ever claimed otherwise, troll boy. Why are you posting
> > irrelevant things to launch into your lies?
>
> My mistake to think you were using CS3, above
Where above, Troll boy?
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
A fact that should in NO WAY impact a performance comparison test on multiple
systems. The Photoshop beta program is universal, so running it and comparing it
on two Intel based Mac's, or one Mac with a PPC processor and one with an Intel
processor shouldn't matter.
~more of michael glasser's trolling snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-F6C41E.10...@News.Individual.NET on 1/1/07 2:47 AM:
>
> > In article <C1BD7A68.6DDA6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>> One question: is it a dual-core G5 or just a dual-processor G5?
> >>>
> >>> Just dual processor. But check this out:
> >>>
> >>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
> >>>
> >>> It gets even weirder.
> >>>
> >> Photoshop CS3 is still in beta
> >
> > No one has ever claimed otherwise, troll boy. Why are you posting
> > irrelevant things to launch into your lies?
>
> My mistake to think you were using CS3,
once again michael glasser shows how poor his reading is. The link Sandman
posted DID show results using CS3, however, the fact that it is a beta doesn't
figure in anyway.
~snipped more of michael glasser's trolling
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-A8F8F2.10...@News.Individual.NET on 1/1/07 2:46 AM:
>
>> In article <C1BD797A.6DDA4%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not at all amazing
>>>>
>>>> You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
>>>> Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
>>>
>>> Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
>>
>> Do we have any real evidence to the contrary? No?
>>
> OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other... though even
> you admit your claims are unexpected... so in other words it is likely to be
> not true.
So the only accidents that likely happened are those that were ....expected?
Thank you for not making your new year resolution to start making sense
Snit. :)
> User error on your part is a likely explanation,
I believe that the vast majority in here would disagree about that Snit,
therefore if it were the case it would come as a surprise to most, and by
your own twisted logic something unexpected "is likely to be not true" is
this yet another example of you arguing for both sides? ;)
> though this has not been proved one way or the other.
"so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other"-Snit
--
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
Wally
teadams$2$0$0$3-378B82.07...@news.west.earthlink.net, "Tim Adams"
<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Tim, you are trying to reason with a person that believes that the
unexpected "is likely to be not true." therefore by Snit's own logic if he
were to respond to you in an honest way (unexpected factor) it by his own
definition would likely not be true!
Snit
> In article <C1BE293A.6DEDA%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Not at all amazing
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't think it's amazing that a Intel Mac, running non-native
>>>>> Photoshop beats a PPC Mac running native Photoshop?
>>>>
>>>> Do we have any real evidence that this is the case?
>>>
>>> Do we have any real evidence to the contrary? No?
>>
>> OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other... though even
>> you admit your claims are unexpected... so in other words it is likely to be
>> not true.
>>
>> User error on your part is a likely explanation, though this has not been
>> proved one way or the other.
>
> What you believe is irrelevant.
Sure it is - if it were not you would not have dishonestly snipped and ran
from the above.
In the end, Sandman, you know my comments, above, are correct so you run
from them - the most likely answer to your unexpected benchmarking is that
you, as the user, are making errors. You have shown that your technical
skills are weak, even in areas you brag about, such as your web skills -
after all, you have altered your sites in ways consistent with my
suggestions *even though you put me down*, and you have had great difficulty
getting your CSS and even your HTML to validate. With such a record from
you, Sandman, there is little reason to trust your benchmarking, even though
there is no direct contrary evidence.
You know all this... you just cannot stand the fact that I happily point it
out. You have no honest and honorable response so you sink to your
trolling, lying, bragging, and otherwise making an ass of yourself...
> You don't own either system. I have run the benchmarks on three different
> machines and I don't have to "believe" anything to see the results. You, on
> the other hand, has conducted no benchmarks since you can't, yet you are here
> to make claims about the benchmarks you are unable to perform yourself.
>
> <snip rest of Snit wannabe trolling>
Snit wannabe? You think I merely want to be me... um, Sandman, I *am* me...
an honest and honorable person... something you will likely never be.
--
€ 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
Your answer is in what you snipped and ran from:
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>> OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other...
>>> though even you admit your claims are unexpected... so in other
>>> words it is likely to be not true.
>>>
>>> User error on your part is a likely explanation, though this has
>>> not been proved one way or the other.
>>
>> What you believe is irrelevant.
>
> Sure it is - if it were not you would not have dishonestly snipped and ran
> from the above.
From what? I correctly noted that your belief is irrelevant - which
you agree it was, and then proceeded to snip out what was irrelevant.
>> You don't own either system. I have run the benchmarks on three
>> different machines and I don't have to "believe" anything to see
>> the results. You, on the other hand, has conducted no benchmarks
>> since you can't, yet you are here to make claims about the
>> benchmarks you are unable to perform yourself.
And you ignored the above since you know it contains facts, which you
have a medical condition that makes you incompatible with them.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1BE86B2.6DF73%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> OK, so we have no real reason to believe one way or the other...
>>>> though even you admit your claims are unexpected... so in other
>>>> words it is likely to be not true.
>>>>
>>>> User error on your part is a likely explanation, though this has
>>>> not been proved one way or the other.
>>>
>>> What you believe is irrelevant.
>>
>> Sure it is - if it were not you would not have dishonestly snipped and ran
>> from the above.
>
> From what?
Gee, Sandman - I described it well and you dishonestly snipped *again*. You
are a coward, Sandman. It is that simple. Here it is again, though you
shall merely snip and run and reply with your trolling - and then the thread
shall be done. I am not interested in being sucked into another of your
endless circuses:
-----
In the end, Sandman, you know my comments, above,
are correct so you run from them - the most likely
answer to your unexpected benchmarking is that
you, as the user, are making errors. You have
shown that your technical skills are weak, even in
areas you brag about, such as your web skills -
after all, you have altered your sites in ways
consistent with my suggestions *even though you
put me down*, and you have had great difficulty
getting your CSS and even your HTML to validate.
With such a record from you, Sandman, there is
little reason to trust your benchmarking, even
though there is no direct contrary evidence.
You know all this... you just cannot stand the
fact that I happily point it out. You have no
honest and honorable response so you sink to your
trolling, lying, bragging, and otherwise making an
ass of yourself...
-----
And all you can do is run, Sandman, because you know it is true and you have
no good response. So be it.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>> One question: is it a dual-core G5 or just a dual-processor G5?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just dual processor. But check this out:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://mac.sandman.net/pages/StrangeBenchmarks
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It gets even weirder.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Photoshop CS3 is still in beta
> >>>
> >>> No one has ever claimed otherwise, troll boy. Why are you posting
> >>> irrelevant things to launch into your lies?
> >>
> >> My mistake to think you were using CS3, above
> >
> > Where above, Troll boy?
>
> Your answer is in what you snipped and ran from:
Incorrect. Where above, Troll boy?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>> What you believe is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Sure it is - if it were not you would not have dishonestly snipped and ran
> >> from the above.
> >
> > From what?
>
> Gee, Sandman - I described it well and you dishonestly snipped *again*.
Do you mean like you just did? Keep running, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your snipping and running is noted, Sandman.
Keep in mind the reason you claim to oppose me...
-----
> Do you even remember what lead me to "oppose" you, Snit? It was this:
> <...URL..>
> This was when you were quote scavenging about ed, and you somehow had
> a quote about me in the post.
-----
That's right! Sandman, *you* explained your poor behavior in regards to me
based on my accidentally posting a misquote I quickly admitted was in error
and apologized for... all of this *years* ago.
Get over it, Sandman.
And, of course, what you keep running from:
----------
and the tests you report are done by a self-professed web pro who regularly
fails to get his CSS to validate (and his HTML).
-----
* Direct PDF "printout" from the CSS validation services:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_css.jpg>
(I also point out his bad html:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman_html.jpg>)
* I pointed out the Google archive and the WayBackMachine showing his
faulty CSS here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e758896e0b579f64>
* Reading Sandman's reply, he makes no claim that the code snippets or
the links I provided were in any way incorrect. In the same thread I
repeatedly point out how both the WayBackMachine and the Google record
prove my claim about his CSS, and he never is willing to even talk about
that, continually running.
I offer other support for more of Sandman's related lies in the same thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/f07f
21c76c0176c5/> (the thread is relatively short, less than 30 posts).
----
---------
My comments are *completely* true... hence the reason you snip and run from
them. And you will continue to.
As such, Sandman, you have killed the conversation. Again. Feel free to
get the last word in. If you want more of my attention, though, as you
clearly do, you will do better than your normal snip and run trolling. It
is pathetic and boring.
--
€ 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
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> Your answer is in what you snipped and ran from:
> >
> > Incorrect. Where above, Troll boy?
>
> Your snipping and running is noted, Sandman.
Your lack of answer is noted, Michael Glasser.
> Keep in mind the reason you claim to oppose me...
>
> -----
> > Do you even remember what lead me to "oppose" you, Snit? It was this:
> > <...URL..>
> > This was when you were quote scavenging about ed, and you somehow had
> > a quote about me in the post.
> -----
>
> That's right! Sandman, *you* explained your poor behavior in regards to me
> based on my accidentally posting a misquote
...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
example of actions that define you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> Keep in mind the reason you claim to oppose me...
>>
>> -----
>>> Do you even remember what lead me to "oppose" you, Snit? It was this:
>>> <...URL..>
>>> This was when you were quote scavenging about ed, and you somehow had
>>> a quote about me in the post.
>> -----
>>
>> That's right! Sandman, *you* explained your poor behavior in regards to me
>> based on my accidentally posting a misquote I quickly admitted was in error
>> and apologized for... all of this *years* ago.
>>
>> Get over it, Sandman.
And note, below, Sandman proves he cannot get over it. Sad... but also
funny.
> ...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
> me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
> with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
> query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
> example of actions that define you.
I accidentally misquoted someone... and then admitted to it when it was
pointed out and apologized. *Years* later you are still so worked up over
it you "oppose" me with your lying, your trolling, and your other games.
You need to seek help, Sandman. Really.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-ADF1B3.19...@News.Individual.NET on 1/1/07 11:45 AM:
>
> >> Keep in mind the reason you claim to oppose me...
> >>
> >> -----
> >>> Do you even remember what lead me to "oppose" you, Snit? It was this:
> >>> <...URL..>
> >>> This was when you were quote scavenging about ed, and you somehow had
> >>> a quote about me in the post.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> That's right! Sandman, *you* explained your poor behavior in regards to
> >> me
> >> based on my accidentally posting a misquote I quickly admitted was in
> >> error
> >> and apologized for... all of this *years* ago.
> >>
> >> Get over it, Sandman.
>
> And note, below, Sandman proves he cannot get over it. Sad... but also
> funny.
>
> > ...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
> > me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
> > with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
> > query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
> > example of actions that define you.
>
> I accidentally misquoted someone...
Somehow you "accidentally" misquoted several people in that post. By the
way, how did you manage to misquote from a person I have never spoken to
from a ng I have never posted to? You never were able to explain that...
gee, I wonder why;)
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" -
"I am a bigger liar than Steve" - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > ...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
> > me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
> > with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
> > query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
> > example of actions that define you.
>
> I accidentally misquoted someone... and then admitted to it when it was
> pointed out and apologized.
Which isn't the point. You failed to give an answer why you were
quote-scavenging me at the time.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Do you even know what the hell you are babbling about?
I misquoted someone *years* ago, and when it was pointed out I admitted to
it and apologized. No, I do not remember how or why the mistake was made,
not, frankly, do I care. I made a boo boo. Get the hell over it, Sandman,
and stop lying, trolling, flaming, and otherwise making an ass of yourself
over it.
Damn, you are really a sick puppy to not be able to let go of a simple
mistake from *years* ago. Really... what the hell is wrong with you?
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>> ...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
> >>> me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
> >>> with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
> >>> query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
> >>> example of actions that define you.
> >>
> >> I accidentally misquoted someone... and then admitted to it when it was
> >> pointed out and apologized.
> >
> > Which isn't the point. You failed to give an answer why you were
> > quote-scavenging me at the time.
>
> Do you even know what the hell you are babbling about?
Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
predictable "babbling" diversion.
<snip lack of response to the above issue>
You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
time.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1BFA60A.6E16E%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> ...which you failed to give a *reason* for. You had quote-scavanged
>>>>> me, and you didn't give an answer as to why. You couldn't even come up
>>>>> with a poor lie as to what kind of Steve Carroll quote-scavanging
>>>>> query you could write to end up at that quote. That was a prime
>>>>> example of actions that define you.
>>>>
>>>> I accidentally misquoted someone... and then admitted to it when it was
>>>> pointed out and apologized.
>>>
>>> Which isn't the point. You failed to give an answer why you were
>>> quote-scavenging me at the time.
>>
>> Do you even know what the hell you are babbling about?
>> I misquoted someone *years* ago, and when it was pointed out I admitted to
>> it and apologized. No, I do not remember how or why the mistake was made,
>> not, frankly, do I care. I made a boo boo. Get the hell over it, Sandman,
>> and stop lying, trolling, flaming, and otherwise making an ass of yourself
>> over it.
>>
>> Damn, you are really a sick puppy to not be able to let go of a simple
>> mistake from *years* ago. Really... what the hell is wrong with you?
Note, Sandman, that not only did you not answer the question you snipped and
ran from it. I really want to know - what the hell is so wrong with you to
make you obsess over an accidental misquote from *years* ago that was, at
that time, acknowledged and apologized for? Seems not even you know - you
simply focus on that error and try to use it to excuse your trolling,
flaming, lying, and other poor behavior. That is a sure sign of sickness in
you, Sandman. You are clearly not well.
> Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
> to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
> predictable "babbling" diversion.
>
> <snip lack of response to the above issue>
>
> You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
> time.
Your babbling is noted.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
> > to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
> > predictable "babbling" diversion.
> >
> > <snip lack of response to the above issue>
> >
> > You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
> > time.
>
> Your babbling is noted.
Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
Watch him run again. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
quote.
When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.
And apologized.
And that was *years* ago.
You, now, years later, are demanding I explain how the mistake was made and
are insisting that this mistake, one from years ago, is an excuse for your
lying, your trolling, your flaming, and your other despicable actions you
use in your "opposition" to me.
I have noted that this is a sure sign of something being wrong with you and
asked you what *you* think is wrong with you.
And all you can do is snip and run.
So, Sandman, what the hell do you think is wrong with you to make you obsess
over a mistake from *years* ago and use it as an excuse for your despicable
behavior? Can you do *anything* but run from that question?
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >> Your babbling is noted.
> >
> > Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> > thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >
> > Watch him run again. :)
> >
> As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
> quote.
Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant information? I've already
told you that no one claimed that you didn't. What you *haven't* done
is explain why you were quote-scavenging me at the time. You have
refused to give an answer to that question for *years*.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
What you snipped and ran from, Sandman:
-----
As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
quote.
When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.
And apologized.
And that was *years* ago.
You, now, years later, are demanding I explain how the mistake was made and
are insisting that this mistake, one from years ago, is an excuse for your
lying, your trolling, your flaming, and your other despicable actions you
use in your "opposition" to me.
I have noted that this is a sure sign of something being wrong with you and
asked you what *you* think is wrong with you.
And all you can do is snip and run.
So, Sandman, what the hell do you think is wrong with you to make you obsess
over a mistake from *years* ago and use it as an excuse for your despicable
behavior? Can you do *anything* but run from that question?
-----
As noted: all you can do is snip and run and lie. Either answer the
question, Sandman, or do not expect a reply. This thread is going nowhere -
as with so many threads where your lies and BS are pointed out all you do is
snip and run and obfuscate. There is no reasonable chance that you will
*ever* give an honest answer as to what the hell you think is wrong with
you. All you can do is obsess over a mistake that was done and over with
*years* ago and use it as a sad excuse for your bad and dishonest behavior.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant information? I've already
> > told you that no one claimed that you didn't. What you *haven't* done
> > is explain why you were quote-scavenging me at the time. You have
> > refused to give an answer to that question for *years*.
>
> What you snipped and ran from, Sandman:
What you can't stop running from:
Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant information? I've already
told you that no one claimed that you didn't. What you *haven't* done
is explain why you were quote-scavenging me at the time. You have
refused to give an answer to that question for *years*.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1BFB413.6E184%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
quote.
When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.
And apologized.
And that was *years* ago.
You, now, years later, are demanding I explain how the mistake was made and
are insisting that this mistake, one from years ago, is an excuse for your
lying, your trolling, your flaming, and your other despicable actions you
use in your "opposition" to me.
I have noted that this is a sure sign of something being wrong with you and
asked you what *you* think is wrong with you.
And all you can do is snip and run.
So, Sandman, what the hell do you think is wrong with you to make you obsess
over a mistake from *years* ago and use it as an excuse for your despicable
behavior? Can you do *anything* but run from that question?
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-947877.15...@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 7:18 AM:
>
> > In article <C1BFB413.6E184%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
> >>> to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
> >>> predictable "babbling" diversion.
> >>>
> >>> <snip lack of response to the above issue>
> >>>
> >>> You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> Your babbling is noted.
> >
> > Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> > thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >
> > Watch him run again. :)
> >
> As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
> quote.
You made more than one "mistake" in that post, gluehead.
>
> When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.
>
> And apologized.
Not to me you didn't... and I was the target of your 'accident' laden
post.
>
> And that was *years* ago.
Said the guy who is often seen toting around lists of things that
happened "years ago"... things that he can't let go of;)
>
> You, now, years later, are demanding I explain how the mistake was made
A perfectly legitimate question you've run from for "years". Given that
I had n ever interfaced with the person you misquoted and I had never
posted to that ng, there is only one answer that makes any sense... and
it's the answer you keep running from as fast as you can;)
> and
> are insisting that this mistake, one from years ago, is an excuse for your
> lying, your trolling, your flaming, and your other despicable actions you
> use in your "opposition" to me.
>
> I have noted that this is a sure sign of something being wrong with you and
> asked you what *you* think is wrong with you.
>
> And all you can do is snip and run.
>
> So, Sandman, what the hell do you think is wrong with you to make you obsess
> over a mistake from *years* ago and use it as an excuse for your despicable
> behavior? Can you do *anything* but run from that question?
Snit, seen here... *again*...in a feeble attempt to turn the tables. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-3CA0E0.16...@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 8:01 AM:
>
> > In article <C1BFB9C7.6E199%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Your babbling is noted.
> >>>
> >>> Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> >>> thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >>>
> >>> Watch him run again. :)
> >>>
> >> As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
> >> quote.
> >
> > Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant information? I've already
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > told you that no one claimed that you didn't. What you *haven't* done
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > is explain why you were quote-scavenging me at the time. You have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > refused to give an answer to that question for *years*.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What you snipped and ran from, Sandman:
You'd be right if it weren't for the fact that he posted what he did:
"Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant information? I've already
told you that no one claimed that you didn't."
Put the cap back on that glue tube, Snit;)
(snip Snit's ineffective method of hiding the fact that he never did
address a perfectly legitimate question based on something he did years
ago that he has never been able to explain. Of course, the answer to the
question is obvious... as Snit knows... hence his rapid pace of BS here;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-947877.15...@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/07 7:18 AM:
>
> > In article <C1BFB413.6E184%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
> >>> to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
> >>> predictable "babbling" diversion.
> >>>
> >>> <snip lack of response to the above issue>
> >>>
> >>> You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> Your babbling is noted.
> >
> > Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> > thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >
> > Watch him run again. :)
> >
> As I have noted *many* times...
...you are a gutless puke who cannot explain actions he undertook that
are obvious to all? I believe he's got that part of it;)
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> > thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >
> > Watch him run again. :)
> >
> As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
> quote.
Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
Watch him run again. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1BFB413.6E184%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
quote.
When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.
And apologized.
And that was *years* ago.
You, now, years later, are demanding I explain how the mistake was made and
are insisting that this mistake, one from years ago, is an excuse for your
lying, your trolling, your flaming, and your other despicable actions you
use in your "opposition" to me.
I have noted that this is a sure sign of something being wrong with you and
asked you what *you* think is wrong with you.
And all you can do is snip and run.
So, Sandman, what the hell do you think is wrong with you to make you obsess
over a mistake from *years* ago and use it as an excuse for your despicable
behavior? Can you do *anything* but run from that question?
--
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Since I'm not babbling, your question doesn't make sense, other than
> >>> to show that you are trying to dodge it once again with your
> >>> predictable "babbling" diversion.
> >>>
> >>> <snip lack of response to the above issue>
> >>>
> >>> You have yet to give a valid reason for quote-scavanging me at the
> >>> time.
> >>
> >> Your babbling is noted.
> >
> > Michael Glasser still runs from the question that started this entire
> > thing - Why did he quote-scavenge me?
> >
> > Watch him run again. :)
> >
> As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
> quote.
I see you're still busy dragging up old subjects. Sorry, I don't want
to participate in your Snit Circus.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I am noting the many, many times you run like a scared little bunny... all
the while lying and claiming I am like you.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > I see you're still busy dragging up old subjects. Sorry, I don't want
> > to participate in your Snit Circus.
>
> I am noting the many, many times you run like a scared little bunny
I'm not interested in what you are "noting" while dragging up old
subject in spite of claiming that you would not.
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C1BFB413.6E184%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
As I have noted *many* times, Sandman, I made a mistake and misattributed a
quote.
When it was pointed out I acknowledged it.