Reclaim the newsgroup
tom_...@earthlink.net
Sandman
tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Killfile Steve C. and Snit
Steve, just like me, reacts to the trolls, like you and Snit. It's
just that Snit is so much bigger troll than you could ever hope of
becoming.
Back in the day when you actually tried to troll, you couldn't muster
up the same circus in a month that Snit does in a day. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Yup, he's just jealous. And the best part is... Snit's a 'Maccie'! :)
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Steve Carroll
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-A4704F.16...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Tommie uses a rubber band and paper ball while snit uses a shotgun.
LOL! Good one! But it's really more like Tom's spit balls through a
paper straw to Snit's Gatling gun;)
Sandman
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-A4704F.16...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Tommie uses a rubber band and paper ball while snit uses a shotgun.
Haha! :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-A4704F.16...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <49lsa29of4n9v740d...@4ax.com>,
> > tom_...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > > Killfile Steve C. and Snit
> >
> > Steve, just like me, reacts to the trolls, like you and Snit. It's
> > just that Snit is so much bigger troll than you could ever hope of
> > becoming.
> >
> > Back in the day when you actually tried to troll, you couldn't muster
> > up the same circus in a month that Snit does in a day. :)
>
> Yup, he's just jealous. And the best part is... Snit's a 'Maccie'! :)
Yeah, that has got to hurt.
--
Sandman[.net]
John Slade
<tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49lsa29of4n9v740d...@4ax.com...
> Killfile Steve C. and Snit
Nobody can claim or reclaim an unmoderated USENET group. That's because
nobody owns it. Nobody can take it over. Now someone can spam and flood it
with junk but hell you can ignore that shit.
John
Belphegor
They are the funniest we got here... give 'em some space. Makes me
laugh when they even drive zara and Muah to despair. Just imagine, you
troll your best and then snit and Steve start hijacking your trolling
thread... might have happened to you a couple of times too, hasn't it?
Snit
sUFrg.167814$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net on 7/7/06 8:46 PM:
Steve and crew do make it hard to have a focused conversation with there
incessant trolling. The goal of many of these trolls at least seems to be
to side track any conversation - especially ones that go over their heads
such as why Dreamweaver is a professional web design tool, how to handle
security risks (such as the old OS X widget risk), etc.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Jim Lee Jr.
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Steve and crew do make it hard to have a focused conversation with there
> incessant trolling.
You misspelled their.
Snit
peejster01-FCDB1...@news.isp.giganews.com on 7/7/06 9:31 PM:
Yes, I did. Sorry if my error caused you any distress.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> stated in post
> sUFrg.167814$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net on 7/7/06 8:46 PM:
>
>>
>> <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:49lsa29of4n9v740d...@4ax.com...
>>> Killfile Steve C. and Snit
>>
>> Nobody can claim or reclaim an unmoderated USENET group. That's because
>> nobody owns it. Nobody can take it over. Now someone can spam and flood it
>> with junk but hell you can ignore that shit.
>
> Steve and crew do make it hard to have a focused conversation with there
> incessant trolling. The goal of many of these trolls at least seems to be
> to side track any conversation - especially ones that go over their heads
> such as why Dreamweaver is a professional web design tool, how to handle
> security risks (such as the old OS X widget risk), etc.
OK! I admit it, My prediction took longer than I anticipated it would take
to happen!.....But still a couple of days isn't bad going!
"Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking about
the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
far!"-Wally
ROTFLMAO!
--
"Would eating a banana or sniffing a flower make it all go away?" -Snit
Sandman
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Which is exactly what he's saying. Duh.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
C0D593CB.CC9E%wa...@wally.world.net on 7/8/06 1:54 AM:
Um, Wally, you are losing it.
Much of the debate has been about if people see Dreamweaver for what it is:
a tool for professionals. Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool and not suited for professional
work... and he is incorrect.
Your ability to predict nothing is amazing. :)
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > "Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking about
> > the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
> > design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
> > far!"-Wally
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!
>
> Um, Wally, you are losing it.
>
> Much of the debate has been about if people see Dreamweaver for what it is:
> a tool for professionals. Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
> theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool
True.
> and not suited for professional work... and he is incorrect.
You are lying. I have never said the above.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Lying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obfuscating is the act of twisting words and meanings around so they
mean something else than what they were intended for. Lying is making
false statements. Both are untrue, but they differ in execution.
A troll often has no option other than to lie in order to further his
agenda. Especially when he's lost all arguments.
A good example of this is when Edwin quoted Sandman saying something
[1], using quotation marks. Problem was, that this wasn't something
Sandman had ever said. Or when Michael listed five outright lies
about Sandman [2].
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcdac1dd28f
153bf>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c410d8e2a3d
60683>
14. Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll always have an agenda, a goal or a motive. Something that
drives the troll. This is very apparent when the troll hijacks
threads [1] or when he is creating antagonizing threads [2].
Without the agenda, the troll has no purpose. The Agenda is not
static, however, and evolves along the way when the troll finds new
objective, enemies or issues to incorporate into the Agenda.
1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91362>
2:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91358>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-FF9851.17...@individual.net on 7/8/06 8:51 AM:
> In article <C0D51B1D.547D4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> "Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking about
>>> the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
>>> design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
>>> far!"-Wally
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> Um, Wally, you are losing it.
>>
>> Much of the debate has been about if people see Dreamweaver for what it is:
>> a tool for professionals. Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
>> theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool
>
> True.
Do you think the two of us together can convince Wally of that or do you
think he is too far caught up in his delusions?
>
>> and not suited for professional work... and he is incorrect.
>
> You are lying. I have never said the above.
Ah, so you think it is one of those beginners tools that *is* suited for
professional work. Do you accept that it is designed with the professional
market in mind? Do you agree it is a part of a suite of tools for
professionals and other advanced users (and clearly not computer novices)?
Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> "Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking
> >>> about
> >>> the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
> >>> design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
> >>> far!"-Wally
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLMAO!
> >>
> >> Um, Wally, you are losing it.
> >>
> >> Much of the debate has been about if people see Dreamweaver for what it
> >> is:
> >> a tool for professionals. Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
> >> theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool
> >
> > True.
>
> Do you think the two of us together can convince Wally of that or do you
> think he is too far caught up in his delusions?
What do you think Wally need to be convinced about? Everything he says
is correct.
> >> and not suited for professional work... and he is incorrect.
> >
> > You are lying. I have never said the above.
>
> Ah, so you think it is one of those beginners tools that *is* suited for
> professional work
It can be used for professional work. It's neither suited nor unsuited
for it.
> Do you accept that it is designed with the professional
> market in mind?
I'm sure Adobe wants professionals to use it, yes.
> Do you agree it is a part of a suite of tools for
> professionals and other advanced users (and clearly not computer novices)?
> Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?
It's a wysiwyg tool.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D5278C.547F8%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking
>>>>> about
>>>>> the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
>>>>> design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
>>>>> far!"-Wally
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>
>>>> Um, Wally, you are losing it.
>>>>
>>>> Much of the debate has been about if people see Dreamweaver for what it is:
>>>> a tool for professionals. Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
>>>> theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> Do you think the two of us together can convince Wally of that or do you
>> think he is too far caught up in his delusions?
>
> What do you think Wally need to be convinced about? Everything he says
> is correct.
>
>>>> and not suited for professional work... and he is incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are lying. I have never said the above.
>>
>> Ah, so you think it is one of those beginners tools that *is* suited for
>> professional work
>
> It can be used for professional work. It's neither suited nor unsuited
> for it.
Such deep analysis from you! LOL! Wow, you must really be the pro you
claim to be [and, yes, that was sarcasm].
>> Do you accept that it is designed with the professional
>> market in mind?
>
> I'm sure Adobe wants professionals to use it, yes.
>
>> Do you agree it is a part of a suite of tools for
>> professionals and other advanced users (and clearly not computer novices)?
>> Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?
>
> It's a wysiwyg tool.
>
Do you think any tool with WYSIWYG components is a "beginners tool"? If
not, why target Dreamweaver?
Funny how you call it "true" that Dreamweaver is a tool for professionals.
You really should stop playing stupid games.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > It can be used for professional work. It's neither suited nor unsuited
> > for it.
>
> Such deep analysis from you! LOL! Wow, you must really be the pro you
> claim to be
Exactly.
> >> Do you agree it is a part of a suite of tools for
> >> professionals and other advanced users (and clearly not computer novices)?
> >> Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?
> >
> > It's a wysiwyg tool.
>
> Do you think any tool with WYSIWYG components is a "beginners tool"?
Nopes.
> If not, why target Dreamweaver?
I'm not targeting Dreamweaver.
> Funny how you call it "true" that Dreamweaver is a tool for professionals.
Obfuscation - I have never claimed any such thing.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Since you have now admitted that not all tools with WYSIWYG components are
not "beginner tools", what makes you think Dreamweaver is? Please note how
much you run from and try to obfuscate this question.
You have no honest answer... do you think you are fooling anyone?
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Much of the debate yes! but not the part where my prediction was made which
was clearly about the 'web design industry' (your term) as opposed to the
'Professional' web design industry!
----------------------
"His believe is a sure sign he is not knowledgeable about the web design
Industry"-Snit
"On the contrary he shows a knowledge about how diverse the web design
industry really is, whether you like it or not that industry includes
beginners!
Note* It will be around this time that Snit changes tack from talking about
the web design industry that he mentions above to the 'Professional' web
design industry that has not formed any part of this discussion thus
far!"-Wally
-----------------------
> Sandman claims all sorts of variations on the
> theme that Dreamweaver is a beginners tool
It now turns out that although you argued with him you had no idea what
Sandman meant by terms such as "beginners tool" something that is
fundamental to understanding his comments!
> and not suited for professional work... and he is incorrect.
Where did he claim that it wasn't suited for professional
work?
Didnšt he say......
"It's a matter of what you're doing. If you're an ad agency and a client
want a web page to show off a new product, creating a static, quick web site
in, for example, DreamWeaver is one way to do that easily."-Sandman
Do you interpret that as saying not suitable for professionals?
I notice in your recent reply to sandman you ask......
"Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?"-Snit
After all this effort and it only just occurred to you to ask that?
Personally I think it's obvious just look at some of his comments!
"I do both the layout and the coding"-Sandman
"I am a self-employed web developer. I do design
and coding."-Sandman
"In the end, professionals wouldn't be caught dead designing the layout
of a web page in dreamweaver. They use professional web design tools
such as Photoshop/Imageready and use a HTML editor to compose them, or
if you're not good at html - a wysiwyg tool."-Sandman
Any clues there Snit?
> Your ability to predict nothing is amazing. :)
I predict you will not show where Sandman claimed it was not suited for
professional work!
Snit
> Didn¹t he say......
>
> "It's a matter of what you're doing. If you're an ad agency and a client
> want a web page to show off a new product, creating a static, quick web site
> in, for example, DreamWeaver is one way to do that easily."-Sandman
>
> Do you interpret that as saying not suitable for professionals?
> I notice in your recent reply to sandman you ask......
>
> "Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?"-Snit
>
> After all this effort and it only just occurred to you to ask that?
> Personally I think it's obvious just look at some of his comments!
>
> "I do both the layout and the coding"-Sandman
>
> "I am a self-employed web developer. I do design
> and coding."-Sandman
>
> "In the end, professionals wouldn't be caught dead designing the layout
> of a web page in dreamweaver. They use professional web design tools
> such as Photoshop/Imageready and use a HTML editor to compose them, or
> if you're not good at html - a wysiwyg tool."-Sandman
>
> Any clues there Snit?
>
>> Your ability to predict nothing is amazing. :)
>
> I predict you will not show where Sandman claimed it was not suited for
> professional work!
Ah, so you think Sandman knows about the web design industry, just not the
professional web design industry and, furthermore, you are begging me to
join your circus.
You sure use a lot of words to make such simple points.
--
€ Professionals are not beginners in their field
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are web design applications
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> Didnšt he say......
>>
>> "It's a matter of what you're doing. If you're an ad agency and a client
>> want a web page to show off a new product, creating a static, quick web site
>> in, for example, DreamWeaver is one way to do that easily."-Sandman
>>
>> Do you interpret that as saying not suitable for professionals?
>> I notice in your recent reply to sandman you ask......
>>
>> "Just what do you mean by "beginners tool"?"-Snit
>>
>> After all this effort and it only just occurred to you to ask that?
>> Personally I think it's obvious just look at some of his comments!
>>
>> "I do both the layout and the coding"-Sandman
>>
>> "I am a self-employed web developer. I do design
>> and coding."-Sandman
>>
>> "In the end, professionals wouldn't be caught dead designing the layout
>> of a web page in dreamweaver. They use professional web design tools
>> such as Photoshop/Imageready and use a HTML editor to compose them, or
>> if you're not good at html - a wysiwyg tool."-Sandman
>>
>> Any clues there Snit?
>>
>>> Your ability to predict nothing is amazing. :)
>>
>> I predict you will not show where Sandman claimed it was not suited for
>> professional work!
>
> Ah, so you think Sandman knows about the web design industry, just not the
> professional web design industry and, furthermore, you are begging me to
> join your circus.
>
> You sure use a lot of words to make such simple points.
Again your comprehension comes crashing down, the point is that you
criticize Sandman's knowledge in this area and yet he demonstrates that he
is the only one of you two that is able to distinguish between the
'industry' and the 'professional industry' but then of course he has no need
to cloud the issue as you continually do!
I notice that another prediction was spot on wrt your ability to prove your
claims!
Snit
>> Ah, so you think Sandman knows about the web design industry, just not the
>> professional web design industry and, furthermore, you are begging me to
>> join your circus.
>>
>> You sure use a lot of words to make such simple points.
>
> Again your comprehension comes crashing down, the point is that you
> criticize Sandman's knowledge in this area and yet he demonstrates that he
> is the only one of you two that is able to distinguish between the
> 'industry' and the 'professional industry' but then of course he has no need
> to cloud the issue as you continually do!
See, Wally, I knew you could state your BS trolling claims more concisely!
But, sadly for you, I have no desire to play your silly semantic games -
even when you *do* as I wished and stated them with less babbling.
> I notice that another prediction was spot on wrt your ability to prove your
> claims!
If you wish to make such an accusation against me, feel free, but I would
ask that you support it... but please do so without babbling. Note, Wally,
this does not mean you might not need to use a lot of words, but use words
wisely... if you can.
If you can actually write a few coherent sentences in a row without
resorting to your typical jibber-jabber I will even consider playing your
silly semantic games as your reward. Never say I have not gone out of my
way to be kind to you.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Since you have now admitted that not all tools with WYSIWYG components are
> not "beginner tools", what makes you think Dreamweaver is?
Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
> Please note how much you run from and try to obfuscate this question.
Yes, I've noted that I haven't done any of that.
> You have no honest answer...
Meaning all my answers have been honest.
> do you think you are fooling anyone?
You're the only one who think someone has to be fooled in an argument.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D54099.5482E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Since you have now admitted that not all tools with WYSIWYG components are
>> not "beginner tools", what makes you think Dreamweaver is?
>
> Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any HTML editor that
has a WYSWYG component as a beginners tool. If that is not correct, please
clarify.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Since you have now admitted that not all tools with WYSIWYG components are
> >> not "beginner tools", what makes you think Dreamweaver is?
> >
> > Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
>
> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
Yes.
I edited your question to not leave your silly trolling loophole in it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D60AFA.548DA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Since you have now admitted that not all tools with WYSIWYG components are
>>>> not "beginner tools", what makes you think Dreamweaver is?
>>>
>>> Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
>>
>> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
>> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
>
> Yes.
My question:
Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any HTML editor
that has a WYSWYG component as a beginners tool. If that is not
correct, please clarify.
You seem to be mostly agreeing but clarifying by stating if it is primarily
used as a WYSIWYG editor than it is, to you, a beginners tool. This allows
you the loophole that if BBEdit were to get some WYSIWYG editing features
(as it has had in the past) or some WYSIWTG viewing features, as it has now,
you can deny it has become a beginners tool.
In reality both BBEdit and Dreamweaver are professional tools used to create
and edit web pages. The two products are even designed to work well with
each other and there are quite a few professionals that use both.
You do not use Dreamweaver, though, so you label it as a "beginners tool".
While such a term is generally used to mean any tool that is primarily for
beginners, you have created your own definition of the term that has nothing
of consequence to do with what audience a tool is used by or developed and
marketed for. Congratulations! You have fabricated an absurd and tailor
made definition for "beginners tool" where you can include Dreamweaver and
exclude BBEdit. What was your point in doing so?
For the record, before you fabricated this rather silly definition of yours
you were clearly trying to push your fully unsupported view that Dreamweaver
is used mainly by (and only good for) beginners that do not understand the
principles of making a web site. At that time you were using the more
common and, frankly, reasonable definition that I state, above.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
>
> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
Yes.
> You seem to be mostly agreeing but clarifying by stating if it is primarily
> used as a WYSIWYG editor than it is, to you, a beginners tool. This allows
> you the loophole that if BBEdit were to get some WYSIWYG editing features
> (as it has had in the past) or some WYSIWTG viewing features, as it has now,
> you can deny it has become a beginners tool.
Only someone ignorant about web development would say something like
the above.
> In reality both BBEdit and Dreamweaver are professional tools used to create
> and edit web pages. The two products are even designed to work well with
> each other and there are quite a few professionals that use both.
Whatever that has to do with anything.
> You do not use Dreamweaver, though, so you label it as a "beginners tool".
Obfuscation. I do not label dreamweaver a beginners tool because I
don't use it.
> While such a term is generally used to mean any tool that is primarily for
> beginners, you have created your own definition of the term that has nothing
> of consequence to do with what audience a tool is used by or developed and
> marketed for.
I.e. I have an opinion, based on my knowledge about the application,
HTML and web development.
> Congratulations! You have fabricated an absurd and tailor
> made definition for "beginners tool" where you can include Dreamweaver and
> exclude BBEdit. What was your point in doing so?
Obfuscation - I have fabricated nothing.
> For the record, before you fabricated this rather silly definition of yours
> you were clearly trying to push your fully unsupported view that Dreamweaver
> is used mainly by (and only good for) beginners
You're lying - I have never made any such claim, and have told you so
in the past.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D6171E.548F3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
>>
>> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
>> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
>
> Yes.
Thank you for making the definition you use clear...
>
>> You seem to be mostly agreeing but clarifying by stating if it is primarily
>> used as a WYSIWYG editor than it is, to you, a beginners tool. This allows
>> you the loophole that if BBEdit were to get some WYSIWYG editing features
>> (as it has had in the past) or some WYSIWTG viewing features, as it has now,
>> you can deny it has become a beginners tool.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman but he does spew silly accusations,
below:
> Only someone ignorant about web development would say something like
> the above.
>
>> In reality both BBEdit and Dreamweaver are professional tools used to create
>> and edit web pages. The two products are even designed to work well with
>> each other and there are quite a few professionals that use both.
>
> Whatever that has to do with anything.
Have someone in the web site creation industry explain it to you.
>> You do not use Dreamweaver, though, so you label it as a "beginners tool".
>
> Obfuscation.
Ok, you label as such as a form of obfuscation. Whatever.
> I do not label dreamweaver a beginners tool because I don't use it.
So you say, but your word is meaningless. As has been shown repeatedly, you
do not have the ability to understand not all people have the same
experiences as you do or see the world the same way. Here is a recent list
I wrote of examples, from another post:
-----
* Sandman claims to be a pro in web development but does not use
Dreamweaver, so he believes it is a beginners tool. He cannot
understand that many, many pros do use the tool.
* When Sandman was told of someone having problems on their computer
Sandman made a movie of *one* of his computers not having the
problem and insisted that since his one computer was not doing the
same thing this somehow "debunked" the other persons experience.
This become more absurd when Sandman admitted he could not get his
other computer would not do what he showed in his contrived video.
* Sandman does not teach, so he insists a "trained monkey" could do
the job. He did later back pedal and say that the monkey would be
a poor teacher. Gee, ya' think! :)
* Sandman whines about other people having web sites he believes are
designed to antagonize others, but cannot understand why his own
web site which spews personal attacks against others in CSMA would
be held to the same standard.
* Sandman does not use the term Packages to refer to what OS X calls
packages (right click on any package and the term is there) so he
insists that it is not a correct word for them.
* Sandman did not know how to check to see if his CSS validated so he
never found any evidence that it did not. Even though proof was
posted that it failed validation he still insisted that it validated
correctly. Since he did not do the test he simply would not accept
it, even though he was given a link to the results.
-----
As I said, your denial means nothing in light of your history.
>> While such a term is generally used to mean any tool that is primarily for
>> beginners, you have created your own definition of the term that has nothing
>> of consequence to do with what audience a tool is used by or developed and
>> marketed for.
>
> I.e. I have an opinion, based on my knowledge about the application,
> HTML and web development.
Yes, you have an *opinion*. We agree to with that... and, sure, your
opinion is likely based on what little experience you have with Dreamweaver
and other professional web development tools.
>> Congratulations! You have fabricated an absurd and tailor
>> made definition for "beginners tool" where you can include Dreamweaver and
>> exclude BBEdit. What was your point in doing so?
Note: no relevant response from Sandman, just his typical knee-jerk denials
and more use of a word he shows no sign of understanding:
> Obfuscation - I have fabricated nothing.
>
>> For the record, before you fabricated this rather silly definition of yours
>> you were clearly trying to push your fully unsupported view that Dreamweaver
>> is used mainly by (and only good for) beginners
>
> You're lying - I have never made any such claim, and have told you so
> in the past.
You can deny you used the more common and reasonable definition all you
like, but the following quotes of yours are still contained in Google pages:
Snit: Dreamweaver is the highest rated *professional* web design
tool.
SMan: And it's still a wysiwyg tool, used mainly by beginners
that doesn't understand the principles of making a web site.
Now you deny you claimed it was used mainly by beginners. Do you see where
your claims changed?
Snit: You have also stated that Dreamweaver is "pretty much" only good
for beginners, which is beyond absurd.
SMan: Facts and reality has a tendency to seem "absurd" to you, yes.
But you did not mean that it is "petty much" only for beginners... or are
you going to nit pick the "pretty much" phrase?
Don't worry, Tim Adams will jump in to claim I forged those quotes of yours,
Steve will jump in to claim that they do not mean what they clearly do, and
Wally will join the fray babbling on and on but never really making a point.
Have fun! :)
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
> >> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Thank you for making the definition you use clear...
It's been clear from the beginning.
>>> You seem to be mostly agreeing but clarifying by stating if it is
>>> primarily used as a WYSIWYG editor than it is, to you, a beginners
>>> tool. This allows you the loophole that if BBEdit were to get
>>> some WYSIWYG editing features (as it has had in the past) or some
>>> WYSIWTG viewing features, as it has now, you can deny it has
>>> become a beginners tool.
>>
>> Only someone ignorant about web development would say something like
>> the above.
Your lack of comment is interpreted as agreement.
>>> In reality both BBEdit and Dreamweaver are professional tools used
>>> to create and edit web pages. The two products are even designed
>>> to work well with each other and there are quite a few
>>> professionals that use both.
>>
>> Whatever that has to do with anything.
>
> Have someone in the web site creation industry explain it to you.
It hasn't worked for you.
> >> You do not use Dreamweaver, though, so you label it as a "beginners tool".
> >
>> Obfuscation. I do not label dreamweaver a beginners tool because I
>> don't use it.
>
> So you say, but your word is meaningless.
Thanks for the endorsement.
> As has been shown repeatedly, you do not have the ability to
> understand not all people have the same experiences as you do or see
> the world the same way.
No shit sherlock? I hav never claimed otherwise.
> * Sandman claims to be a pro in web development but does not use
> Dreamweaver, so he believes it is a beginners tool. He cannot
> understand that many, many pros do use the tool.
Lying, nothing you wrote above is true.
> * When Sandman was told of someone having problems on their computer
> Sandman made a movie of *one* of his computers not having the
> problem and insisted that since his one computer was not doing the
> same thing this somehow "debunked" the other persons experience.
> This become more absurd when Sandman admitted he could not get his
> other computer would not do what he showed in his contrived video.
Lying, nothing above is true.
> * Sandman does not teach, so he insists a "trained monkey" could do
> the job.
Obfuscation - the reason I think a trained monkey could train a
dreamweaver class is not due to the fact that I am not a teacher.
Misuse of the word "so".
> * Sandman whines about other people having web sites he believes are
> designed to antagonize others, but cannot understand why his own
> web site which spews personal attacks against others in CSMA would
> be held to the same standard.
Since the only person that applies to is you - and you specifically
requested the functionality of the web site, it is you who has
exempted it from the same criteria.
> * Sandman does not use the term Packages to refer to what OS X calls
> packages (right click on any package and the term is there) so he
> insists that it is not a correct word for them.
The above is your usual fabrication and lies and has never taken place.
> * Sandman did not know how to check to see if his CSS validated
Lying.
> so he never found any evidence that it did not.
Misuse of thew word "so".
> Even though proof was
> posted that it failed validation he still insisted that it validated
> correctly.
No insistance was necessary, at the time it validated perfectly, your
lies nonwithstanding.
> As I said, [my] denial means nothing in light of your history.
I edited your comment to be truthful.
>>> While such a term is generally used to mean any tool that is
>>> primarily for beginners, you have created your own definition of
>>> the term that has nothing of consequence to do with what audience
>>> a tool is used by or developed and marketed for.
>>
>> I.e. I have an opinion, based on my knowledge about the
>> application, HTML and web development.
>
> Yes, you have an *opinion*.
No shit, Sherlock.
> >> Congratulations! You have fabricated an absurd and tailor
> >> made definition for "beginners tool" where you can include Dreamweaver and
> >> exclude BBEdit. What was your point in doing so?
>
> > Obfuscation - I have fabricated nothing.
Your lack of comment is interpreted as agreement.
>>> For the record, before you fabricated this rather silly definition
>>> of yours you were clearly trying to push your fully unsupported
>>> view that Dreamweaver is used mainly by (and only good for)
>>> beginners
>>
>> You're lying - I have never made any such claim, and have told you
>> so in the past.
>
> You can deny you used the more common and reasonable definition all you
> like, but the following quotes of yours are still contained in Google pages:
>
> Snit: Dreamweaver is the highest rated *professional* web design
> tool.
> SMan: And it's still a wysiwyg tool, used mainly by beginners
> that doesn't understand the principles of making a web site.
>
> Snit: You have also stated that Dreamweaver is "pretty much" only good
> for beginners, which is beyond absurd.
> SMan: Facts and reality has a tendency to seem "absurd" to you, yes.
Neither of which prove you right and in fact prove me right. Thanks.
> Don't worry, Tim Adams will jump in to claim I forged those quotes of yours
Only obfuscated.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Your knee-jerk denials and lying are sad. Just sad. I was hoping you would
push yourself to be honest and honorable, as I am. Perhaps I trust too
much, but I do believe you could be honest and honorable if you really
tried. Once you do it for a while it may become a habit and cease being a
struggle for you.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip Lies from Snit>
You're in full-blown troll mode again. Ironically, you recently wanted
to cut a deal to stop the bickering, yet you haven't made a single
move towards that. You even neglected to respond to my reply, since
I'm pretty sure you realised there is no way you can stop your
trolling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D62BCE.5491E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Your knee-jerk denials and lying are sad. Just sad. I was hoping you would
>> push yourself to be honest and honorable, as I am. Perhaps I trust too much,
>> but I do believe you could be honest and honorable if you really tried. Once
>> you do it for a while it may become a habit and cease being a struggle for
>> you.
>
> You're in full-blown troll mode again. Ironically, you recently wanted
> to cut a deal to stop the bickering, yet you haven't made a single
> move towards that. You even neglected to respond to my reply, since
> I'm pretty sure you realised there is no way you can stop your
> trolling.
The response to your trolling is above... right where you snipped it away
and I re-added it. And, of course, you have admitted why you snip:
"I think it's the right move to snip out all the facts you can't face."
- Sandman
And it is clear you still believe that.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> If you wish to make such an accusation against me, feel free, but I would
> ask that you support it..
So far 'you' are doing an excellent job supporting my accusations Snit,
perhaps you have finally found your niche in life?
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Mike
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C0D62BCE.5491E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > <snip Lies from Snit>
>
> You're in full-blown troll mode again.
This implies that there was ever a time when he wasn't in full-blown
troll mode.
Why do you continue with him? You're only contributing to the Snit
Circus.
Mike
Snit
no-8FD8A2.04...@news.supernews.com on 7/9/06 1:25 AM:
The very poorly named "Snit Circus" is simply my responding to trolling. It
pissed the trolls off. Heck, Sandman has bragged about having coined the
term, when he did to obfuscate his lying and trolling.
Tim Adams
wrote:
Too bad I didn't claim that you forged those quotes. I merely pointed out that
they didn't, and still don't, support your claim as to what they said. Nono of
them support _your claim_ that Sandman had claimed (he didn't) that since
Dreamweaver was a wysiwyg tool it was only used by beginners.
Isn't it strange how you've finally backed away from that lie you yours snit.
>
> Only obfuscated.
--
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
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-8FD8A2.04...@news.supernews.com on 7/9/06 1:25 AM:
>
> > In article <mr-A5D012.12...@individual.net>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <C0D62BCE.5491E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> <snip Lies from Snit>
> >>
> >> You're in full-blown troll mode again.
> >
> > This implies that there was ever a time when he wasn't in full-blown
> > troll mode.
> >
> > Why do you continue with him? You're only contributing to the Snit
> > Circus.
>
> The very poorly named "Snit Circus" is simply my responding to trolling. It
> pissed the trolls off. Heck, Sandman has bragged about having coined the
> term, when he did to obfuscate his lying and trolling.
Geezus... didn't you get any sleep last night, Snit?
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
thor...@juno.com
Reclaim it? Snit is this group personified. Alan Baker, Dave
Fritzinger, Sandman, ET AL have been Snitful and so they attracted Snit
to this group, where he found his natural habitat.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip Snit Circus>
You're in full-blown troll mode again. Ironically, you recently wanted
to cut a deal to stop the bickering, yet you haven't made a single
move towards that. You even neglected to respond to my reply, since
I'm pretty sure you realised there is no way you can stop your
trolling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
I've been in csma, making fun of trolls, long before you sat your foot
in here, Mike.
Wake up and smell csma. It's entire purpose is to keep trolls like
MIchael out of the actual Mac newsgroups. I think we're doing a good
job.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
1152458621....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 7/9/06 8:23 AM:
I do enjoy watching the bizarre behavior of many of the trolls in CSMA,
though of those you list really on Sandman catches my attention more than
infrequently.
Snit
> In article <no-8FD8A2.04...@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
>
>> In article <mr-A5D012.12...@individual.net>,
>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <C0D62BCE.5491E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip Lies from Snit>
>>>
>>> You're in full-blown troll mode again.
>>
>> This implies that there was ever a time when he wasn't in full-blown
>> troll mode.
>>
>> Why do you continue with him? You're only contributing to the Snit
>> Circus.
>
> I've been in csma, making fun of trolls, long before you sat your foot
> in here, Mike.
You may have made fun of your fellow trolls, Sandman, but that has nothing
to do with the topic at hand.
>
> Wake up and smell csma. It's entire purpose is to keep trolls like
> MIchael out of the actual Mac newsgroups. I think we're doing a good
> job.
Funny how you say that and do not realize how you are here, too. Did you
know your fellow troll Carroll uses the same line?
Funny how the two of you each think that without you I would run off. LOL!
You should realize of what little importance you are to not only me, but to
the CSMA in general and likely even those people in your lives. If you
disappeared tomorrow who do you think would even think of you a week from
now? Anyone in CSMA? The world?
You simply are not as important as you think you are.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip Snit Circus>
Snit
Damn! I broke Sandman. Anyone have a replacement self-professed web design
expert who thinks Dreamweaver is a beginners too and confuses the terms "web
site" and "web page"? Drat! Seems he was one of a kind!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip Snit Circus>
You're in full-blown troll mode again. Ironically, you recently wanted
to cut a deal to stop the bickering, yet you haven't made a single
move towards that. You even neglected to respond to my reply, since
I'm pretty sure you realised there is no way you can stop your
trolling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0D6171E.548F3%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Because it's a wysiwyg HTML editor.
>>
>> Do I understand your definition correctly: you define any WYSIWYG
>> HTML editor as a beginners tool?
>
> Yes.
Thank you for making the definition you use clear...
>
>> You seem to be mostly agreeing but clarifying by stating if it is primarily
>> used as a WYSIWYG editor than it is, to you, a beginners tool. This allows
>> you the loophole that if BBEdit were to get some WYSIWYG editing features
>> (as it has had in the past) or some WYSIWTG viewing features, as it has now,
>> you can deny it has become a beginners tool.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman but he does spew silly accusations,
below:
> Only someone ignorant about web development would say something like
> the above.
>
>> In reality both BBEdit and Dreamweaver are professional tools used to create
>> and edit web pages. The two products are even designed to work well with
>> each other and there are quite a few professionals that use both.
>
> Whatever that has to do with anything.
Have someone in the web site creation industry explain it to you.
>> You do not use Dreamweaver, though, so you label it as a "beginners tool".
>
> Obfuscation.
Ok, you label as such as a form of obfuscation. Whatever.
> I do not label dreamweaver a beginners tool because I don't use it.
So you say, but your word is meaningless. As has been shown repeatedly, you
do not have the ability to understand not all people have the same
experiences as you do or see the world the same way. Here is a recent list
I wrote of examples, from another post:
-----
* Sandman claims to be a pro in web development but does not use
Dreamweaver, so he believes it is a beginners tool. He cannot
understand that many, many pros do use the tool.
* When Sandman was told of someone having problems on their computer
Sandman made a movie of *one* of his computers not having the
problem and insisted that since his one computer was not doing the
same thing this somehow "debunked" the other persons experience.
This become more absurd when Sandman admitted he could not get his
other computer would not do what he showed in his contrived video.
* Sandman does not teach, so he insists a "trained monkey" could do
the job. He did later back pedal and say that the monkey would be
a poor teacher. Gee, ya' think! :)
* Sandman whines about other people having web sites he believes are
designed to antagonize others, but cannot understand why his own
web site which spews personal attacks against others in CSMA would
be held to the same standard.
* Sandman does not use the term Packages to refer to what OS X calls
packages (right click on any package and the term is there) so he
insists that it is not a correct word for them.
* Sandman did not know how to check to see if his CSS validated so he
never found any evidence that it did not. Even though proof was
posted that it failed validation he still insisted that it validated
correctly. Since he did not do the test he simply would not accept
it, even though he was given a link to the results.
-----
As I said, your denial means nothing in light of your history.
>> While such a term is generally used to mean any tool that is primarily for
>> beginners, you have created your own definition of the term that has nothing
>> of consequence to do with what audience a tool is used by or developed and
>> marketed for.
>
> I.e. I have an opinion, based on my knowledge about the application,
> HTML and web development.
Yes, you have an *opinion*. We agree to with that... and, sure, your
opinion is likely based on what little experience you have with Dreamweaver
and other professional web development tools.
>> Congratulations! You have fabricated an absurd and tailor
>> made definition for "beginners tool" where you can include Dreamweaver and
>> exclude BBEdit. What was your point in doing so?
Note: no relevant response from Sandman, just his typical knee-jerk denials
and more use of a word he shows no sign of understanding:
> Obfuscation - I have fabricated nothing.
>
>> For the record, before you fabricated this rather silly definition of yours
>> you were clearly trying to push your fully unsupported view that Dreamweaver
>> is used mainly by (and only good for) beginners
>
> You're lying - I have never made any such claim, and have told you so
> in the past.
You can deny you used the more common and reasonable definition all you
like, but the following quotes of yours are still contained in Google pages:
Snit: Dreamweaver is the highest rated *professional* web design
tool.
SMan: And it's still a wysiwyg tool, used mainly by beginners
that doesn't understand the principles of making a web site.
Now you deny you claimed it was used mainly by beginners. Do you see where
your claims changed?
Snit: You have also stated that Dreamweaver is "pretty much" only good
for beginners, which is beyond absurd.
SMan: Facts and reality has a tendency to seem "absurd" to you, yes.
But you did not mean that it is "petty much" only for beginners... or are
you going to nit pick the "pretty much" phrase?
Don't worry, Tim Adams will jump in to claim I forged those quotes of yours,
Steve will jump in to claim that they do not mean what they clearly do, and
Wally will join the fray babbling on and on but never really making a point.
Have fun! :)
--