The future has all too large dark clouds...
J.O. Aho
We still have the great problem with the future, AmigaOS4 and MorphOS. It's
really sad that things has to be solved in court and I'm pretty sure we will
still see two OS for the "future Amiga".
The whole thing is as bad as PowerUP vs WarpUP/OS, just splitting the
community (the little whats left). IMHO it's last chance for our Amiga to
become more than what it is, it's time to make peace with eachother. Think of
what there could been if the both groups had cooperated and made one OS thats
backwards compatible with classic AmigaOS, but had new features.
I know it's damn late to whine, and Amiga Inc nor the MorphOS group will
change their minds, but one thing is sure, we have lost the Amiga Community
Spirit, you remeber in those "golden days" when 'everyone' helped eachother,
instead as it's today with the "Microsoft Spirit" where things are taken to
court for each little f**king thing. I guess most will be happy if linux runs
on AmigaOne and Pegasos... for there will prolly not be any other options :(
//Aho
Timothy Rue
> //Aho
The timeline of the Amiga is such that it has spent more time in troubled
waters than otherwise.
depending on what about amiga interested you, there may be other options.
I'm sure many have gone the GNU direction while some others have gone the
MS direction. As for the Mac direction, well that's becomming more along
the lines of the *nixes which brings up the fact that a great deal of
things are done not on MS products, if you want to sum up the unixs..
Of course if you are a name follower...........
For those who haven't noticed, cutting edge is not what it use to be and
the front lines aren't about having the latest and greatest graphics card
or sound card or processor, but rather on issues that are more human
oriented, such as laws regarding copy protection and free software...
There was a time where the name holders pretended to promote Kommunity
ownership of Amiga. My how things change!
I think people can pretty much preceive Amiga as a place of troubled
water.
If MS can improve their software with the mindset of anti-competitiveness,
then GNU and the likes can certainly improve theirs.
Brute force....????? One by contract and legal manipulations and the other
by the force of human drive to be free of costly overhead. Which would you
like? With or without master constraint control overhead?
MS doesn't have competition as they do things their own way and you cannot
compete with or on the ground of their proprietary stuff. But the *nixes,
there is plent of competition, even Apple is getting in on that.
Amiga has become more like a soap opera, you can watch, but can you really
participate? Oh I hear there is a new demo screenshot and video of.....
Amiga, as the troubled waters churn.
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Timothy Rue
>On 24-May-02 04:50:44 J.O. Aho <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>We still have the great problem with the future, AmigaOS4 and MorphOS. It's
>>really sad that things has to be solved in court and I'm pretty sure we will
>>still see two OS for the "future Amiga".
>>The whole thing is as bad as PowerUP vs WarpUP/OS, just splitting the
>>community (the little whats left). IMHO it's last chance for our Amiga to
>>become more than what it is, it's time to make peace with eachother. Think
>>of
>> what there could been if the both groups had cooperated and made one OS
>>thats backwards compatible with classic AmigaOS, but had new features.
>>I know it's damn late to whine, and Amiga Inc nor the MorphOS group will
>>change their minds, but one thing is sure, we have lost the Amiga Community
>>Spirit, you remeber in those "golden days" when 'everyone' helped eachother,
>>instead as it's today with the "Microsoft Spirit" where things are taken to
>>court for each little f**king thing. I guess most will be happy if linux
>>runs
>> on AmigaOne and Pegasos... for there will prolly not be any other options
>> :(
>> //Aho
>The timeline of the Amiga is such that it has spent more time in troubled
>waters than otherwise.
[snip]
In addition to what I wrote above (see thread):
Intellectual Property Law were designed with not the holder in primary
concern, but rather the public.
The reason Intellectual Property Rights were ever granted was so that the
rights holder would have incentive to move forward with the property,
creating and improving IP value that untimately contributes to the over
all values available to the public.
There have been enough people outside of the Amiga IP holders
(gateway/amino-amiga) that have shown they have the skill and drive to
move forward faster and better the Amiga IP values available to the
public, then the IP holders.
What Amigas continious troubled waters shows is that IP laws need to be
changed from "cannot" based laws to "CAN" based laws.
For holding the paperwork on ownership of some IP, does not in any way say
anything about whether or not the required skill and knowledge to move the
IP forward exist. Holding IP rights does not insure continued success of
bringing it's value to the public, not to mention improving that value.
The Amiga IP has a choke chain and a short leash around it's neck and in
consideration of the other options (The MS choke industry wide chain, the
GPL lack of a choke chain) the Amiga platform is being run into the ground.
What more does Amiga need, to be insured of it's demise?
The simple power of being allowed to say no.
"Amiga, the Computer for the Creative mind" NOT! You CANNOT do that!
John Burns
>>> //Aho
>[snip]
As with most laws this one is solely designed to protect property and the
value of such to the owner. It has nothing to do with the public interest.
BTW you haven't yet told us yet of your stance on all carpentry work being
free this would certainly benefit the public.
[SNIP]
Scott Wood
>>Intellectual Property Law were designed with not the holder in primary
>>concern, but rather the public.
>
> As with most laws this one is solely designed to protect property and the
> value of such to the owner. It has nothing to do with the public interest.
Bullshit. Before copyright came into existence a few hundred years
ago, that which it protects wasn't considered property (and still
isn't by many...). The justification for copyright law is that, by
granting a limited-time monopoly on a piece of information, it
encourages the creation thereof, which benefits society.
Hell, over on this side of the pond we've got the phrase "To Promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts" prepended to the clause in
our Constitution that grants the Federal Government the right to
enact laws such as copyright. Not that our current government has
paid much attention to that clause, but it's there nonetheless, and
is currently being used to challenge the retroactive copyright term
extension passed a few years ago.
I'm not sure what the wording of your current copyright law is, but
even the Statute of Anne had a fixed term, and the phrase "and for
the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books"
in its justification. If it were solely for the benefit of the
publisher's "property rights", why is the term limited? There's no
parallel to that in laws dealing with physical property, as far as
I'm aware...
> BTW you haven't yet told us yet of your stance on all carpentry work being
> free this would certainly benefit the public.
How would that benefit the public? You'd end up with either no
carpentry being done, or the government paying the bill through
higher taxes. With carpentry, the work being done is generally done
for one specific party, so collecting the cost of the carpentry from
that party is straightforward.
With books, music, software, etc., the work is often used/enjoyed by
many parties; copyright allows the payment for the work to be spread
out evenly, rather than being borne by one or more patrons paying
before anyone gets a copy. To this end, copyright benefits society,
since more works will be created.
However, the monopoly on derived works is a much greyer area. While
the copyright holder should certainly be reimbursed for the portion
of their work that remains in the derived work, there is little
benefit (and substantial harm) to society in allowing the copyright
holder of the original work to refuse to allow further development to
be done on a work by third parties. To go back to the carpentry
example, this would be like allowing the original developer of a
house, after it's been paid for, to demand that he be used if the
owner of the house should want to build an extra room a few years
later.
-Scott
John Burns
>>>Intellectual Property Law were designed with not the holder in primary
>>>concern, but rather the public.
>>
>> As with most laws this one is solely designed to protect property and the
>> value of such to the owner. It has nothing to do with the public interest.
>Bullshit.
Rather rude.
>Before copyright came into existence a few hundred years
>ago, that which it protects wasn't considered property (and still
>isn't by many...). The justification for copyright law is that, by
>granting a limited-time monopoly on a piece of information, it
>encourages the creation thereof, which benefits society.
And just how does it encourage creation, by protecting the owners right to
the value of the work and his ability therefore to make some compensation
from his labours over said work. I don't deny that this may have a benefit
to society (in actuality all laws really should have a benefit to society)
but this is not the primary intent. It's primary aim is to protect that
which is owned, namely property, whether physical or intellectual.
>Hell, over on this side of the pond we've got the phrase "To Promote
>the Progress of Science and useful Arts" prepended to the clause in
>our Constitution that grants the Federal Government the right to
>enact laws such as copyright. Not that our current government has
>paid much attention to that clause, but it's there nonetheless, and
>is currently being used to challenge the retroactive copyright term
>extension passed a few years ago.
Well there are lots of things written in constitutions, laws, etc. which
may well have been put there with best intentions but that doesn't mean
that people actually use them in the spirit in which they were intended or,
even abide by them. but that's a different debate ;)
>I'm not sure what the wording of your current copyright law is, but
>even the Statute of Anne had a fixed term, and the phrase "and for
>the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books"
>in its justification. If it were solely for the benefit of the
>publisher's "property rights", why is the term limited? There's no
>parallel to that in laws dealing with physical property, as far as
>I'm aware...
Actually there are some. but whether a law is limited in the time it applies
or not is immaterial to the fact that while in force it protects property.
>> BTW you haven't yet told us yet of your stance on all carpentry work being
>> free this would certainly benefit the public.
>How would that benefit the public? You'd end up with either no
Well getting something done for nothing IMHO is a benefit.
>carpentry being done, or the government paying the bill through
>higher taxes. With carpentry, the work being done is generally done
>for one specific party, so collecting the cost of the carpentry from
>that party is straightforward.
I'll reciprocate. Bullshit.
Do you actually know what I was referring to? No, so why butt in with a
frankly silly comment. I said carpentry work being free, not paid for by
some third party (Doh, it wouldn't be free then would it).
FYI I was referring to an earlier posting on this group in which Tim was
advocating that all programming should be free and not commercial. I had
pointed out to him that this was hardly fair to those who make their living
programming. Given his statements I asked what his stance would be on all
carpentry (his trade) work being done for free. Tim as usual when he knows
he's made an arse of himself didn't answer. After all he can hardly advocate
others being denied the right to make a living from their chosen profession
if he isn't prepared to do likewise.
>With books, music, software, etc., the work is often used/enjoyed by
>many parties; copyright allows the payment for the work to be spread
>out evenly, rather than being borne by one or more patrons paying
>before anyone gets a copy.
Eh, please explain I don't get the point you are trying to make.
>To this end, copyright benefits society, since more works will be created.
Sorry but this is assumption "will be created" you cannot predict what will
happen.
Scott Wood
> And just how does it encourage creation, by protecting the owners
> right to the value of the work and his ability therefore to make
> some compensation from his labours over said work. I don't deny
> that this may have a benefit to society (in actuality all laws
> really should have a benefit to society) but this is not the
> primary intent. It's primary aim is to protect that which is owned,
> namely property, whether physical or intellectual.
To say that the primary aim is to protect property ignores the
justification for why society recognizes that form of property in the
first place. Physical property is substantially different from
"intellectual property", both in history and in nature, and thus some
justification is required to grant similar recognition to the latter
as to the former.
>>If it were solely for the benefit of the publisher's "property
>>rights", why is the term limited? There's no parallel to that in
>>laws dealing with physical property, as far as I'm aware...
>
> Actually there are some. but whether a law is limited in the time
> it applies or not is immaterial to the fact that while in force it
> protects property.
I don't think it's immaterial at all. At the very least, it implies
that the ownership of said property does not rest solely with the
party that retains it for the limited term.
> Do you actually know what I was referring to? No, so why butt in with a
> frankly silly comment. I said carpentry work being free, not paid for by
> some third party (Doh, it wouldn't be free then would it).
The word "free" is misused often enough that it's become ambiguous...
However, you did say *all* carpentry, which, given that there aren't
enough people willing to voluntarily do carpentry for free (or else
nobody would be paying for it now), implies that someone would be
forcing this work to be free. Whether this occurs by having the
government wave their guns around at the carpenters, or at the
taxpayers, is of little importance here.
> FYI I was referring to an earlier posting on this group in which
> Tim was advocating that all programming should be free and not
> commercial.
I missed that one, but the posts by him in this thread seemed to be
complaining about the inability of others to continue work on AmigaOS
without Amiga's approval. I didn't see any mention of payment (or
lack thereof).
>>With books, music, software, etc., the work is often used/enjoyed
>>by many parties; copyright allows the payment for the work to be
>>spread out evenly, rather than being borne by one or more patrons
>>paying before anyone gets a copy.
>
> Eh, please explain I don't get the point you are trying to make.
I was simply contrasting basic copyright protection with the monopoly
on derived works that we have now, and pointing out how things like
software are different from things like carpentry due to the lack of
a distict buyer (who can either pay or sign a contract to pay before
the work begins) in the former case.
>>To this end, copyright benefits society, since more works will be
>>created.
>
> Sorry but this is assumption "will be created" you cannot predict
> what will happen.
Sure, it's an assumption, but a reasonable one in many cases,
especially for things like software which can have a large production
cost which must be repaid. If there's no reasonable and efficient
mechanism for that to happen, the software is less likely to get
created.
-Scott
John Burns
>> And just how does it encourage creation, by protecting the owners
>> right to the value of the work and his ability therefore to make
>> some compensation from his labours over said work. I don't deny
>> that this may have a benefit to society (in actuality all laws
>> really should have a benefit to society) but this is not the
>> primary intent. It's primary aim is to protect that which is owned,
>> namely property, whether physical or intellectual.
>To say that the primary aim is to protect property ignores the
>justification for why society recognizes that form of property in the
>first place. Physical property is substantially different from
>"intellectual property", both in history and in nature, and thus some
>justification is required to grant similar recognition to the latter
>as to the former.
I don't disagree in principle however society recognises that there is
a value to intellectual property and as such there is no real difference
when it comes down to basics - money.
>>>If it were solely for the benefit of the publisher's "property
>>>rights", why is the term limited? There's no parallel to that in
>>>laws dealing with physical property, as far as I'm aware...
>>
>> Actually there are some. but whether a law is limited in the time
>> it applies or not is immaterial to the fact that while in force it
>> protects property.
>I don't think it's immaterial at all. At the very least, it implies
>that the ownership of said property does not rest solely with the
>party that retains it for the limited term.
But it still protects that property and your right to do with it what you
will irrespective of the public good.
>> Do you actually know what I was referring to? No, so why butt in with a
>> frankly silly comment. I said carpentry work being free, not paid for by
>> some third party (Doh, it wouldn't be free then would it).
>The word "free" is misused often enough that it's become ambiguous...
>However, you did say *all* carpentry, which, given that there aren't
>enough people willing to voluntarily do carpentry for free (or else
>nobody would be paying for it now), implies that someone would be
>forcing this work to be free. Whether this occurs by having the
>government wave their guns around at the carpenters, or at the
>taxpayers, is of little importance here.
I totally agree but the same can be said regarding programming to some extent.
>> FYI I was referring to an earlier posting on this group in which
>> Tim was advocating that all programming should be free and not
>> commercial.
>I missed that one, but the posts by him in this thread seemed to be
>complaining about the inability of others to continue work on AmigaOS
>without Amiga's approval. I didn't see any mention of payment (or
>lack thereof).
It wasn't actually in this thread but as usual when you tackle Tim on
his poorly thought out ideas he refuses to answer and drops the thread,
waits a week or so, then joins another hoping you've forgotten. I was
just reminding him that I hadn't. You'll have noticed that he never
answered.
Actually though this is one of Tim's pet hates, NDAs etc. but he fails
to realise that AInc use these to protect their property as is their right
under copyright and patent law. One could argue that such practices don't
benefit society since they are to some extent restricting development to
a chosen few. However, there are also arguments one can develop for their
legitimate use which are actually aiding development. This is the point Tim
fails to grasp. In his little mind NDA/Commercial=Bad Free/GPL=Good. I don't
have a problem with GPL etc. but unlike Tim I don't see it as the "Shangri
La" to all programming woes. If you want a laugh read his comments about
HTML and H3C (in the archives about a month or so back). He doesn't have a
clue about this let alone programming but as with most things he likes to
appear as if he does.
>>>With books, music, software, etc., the work is often used/enjoyed
>>>by many parties; copyright allows the payment for the work to be
>>>spread out evenly, rather than being borne by one or more patrons
>>>paying before anyone gets a copy.
>>
>> Eh, please explain I don't get the point you are trying to make.
>I was simply contrasting basic copyright protection with the monopoly
>on derived works that we have now, and pointing out how things like
>software are different from things like carpentry due to the lack of
>a distict buyer (who can either pay or sign a contract to pay before
>the work begins) in the former case.
OK see what you were getting at. Please though let's drop the carpentry
references (as I said it wasn't relevant really to this thread, just a
reminder to the Ruebot).
>>>To this end, copyright benefits society, since more works will be
>>>created.
>>
>> Sorry but this is assumption "will be created" you cannot predict
>> what will happen.
>Sure, it's an assumption, but a reasonable one in many cases,
OK fair do's I was just feeling bitchy :)
>especially for things like software which can have a large production
>cost which must be repaid. If there's no reasonable and efficient
>mechanism for that to happen, the software is less likely to get
>created.
But at the end of the day whether it be computer software, music, etc the
initial intellectual (or creative) part of the exercise is reduced to the
physical. It is this physical item which is then sold. Technically you
cannot copyright an idea as such but only the physical which accrues from
it. Of course one can also argue that copyright may be used to stop further
creation, many example of this have happened and probably will continue to
do so. There are also many examples of where copyright is used solely for
profit with no chance of any further work being produced by the initiator,
Music is a perfect industry example of this. Events such as these show
that whilst the instigators of copyright may have had laudable ideals in
reality copyright actually is just another property law, if it benefits
society then good but it is by no means set or certain to do so.
Timothy Rue
[snip - see thread]
>Sure, it's an assumption, but a reasonable one in many cases,
>especially for things like software which can have a large production
>cost which must be repaid. If there's no reasonable and efficient
>mechanism for that to happen, the software is less likely to get
>created.
You were replying to John. John at best has comprehension problems, at
worse he is an admitted troll.
As a carpenter I can buy and use my own tools, just as a programmer can
buy and own their own tools.
As a carpenter, to make or build anything requires physical supplies such
as wood, nails, etc.
As a programmer, to create a piece of software requires only thought and
the ability to convert that thought into computer data/instruction. There
is no physical supplies, least not of high cost (disks, CDs, etc.)
Former president Jimmy Carter has Habitat for Humanity which seeks
supplies and skills as donations for building homes. There is not only
carpentry work being done for free but electrical work, plumbing, etc.,
and it's all for a good humanitarian cause. There are many different types
of projects around the world that exist on donations of resources and
skills.
The work of the FSF with GNU and GPL along with the debian group of
developers does such programming work for any number of reasons, but in
any case the work they create is also something that they continue to
benefit from, unlike doing work for habitat for humanity which only
directly benefits the home buyer. The production of GNU work, which is
used in with the Linux kernel is no small production, but debian doesn't
work only with GNU but also Linux and some form of BSD (FreeBSD I think).
So that's large production times 3 or 3.something if you consider the
Hurd (the official GNU OS core).
John Burns
>[snip - see thread]
>>Sure, it's an assumption, but a reasonable one in many cases,
>>especially for things like software which can have a large production
>>cost which must be repaid. If there's no reasonable and efficient
>>mechanism for that to happen, the software is less likely to get
>>created.
>You were replying to John. John at best has comprehension problems, at
>worse he is an admitted troll.
Tim, we've been through this before and you could not show where I admitted
this so please refrain from making accusations which you cannot substantiate
lest you find yourself on the wrong end of a legal case. You have been caught
lying before and despite your claims that I have done so, you have yet to show
proof of such. Remember these matters are now there in the public record and
should I wish I could use them to back any claim for libel which I care to
bring. Be warned.
>As a carpenter I can buy and use my own tools, just as a programmer can
>buy and own their own tools.
>As a carpenter, to make or build anything requires physical supplies such
>as wood, nails, etc.
>As a programmer, to create a piece of software requires only thought and
>the ability to convert that thought into computer data/instruction. There
>is no physical supplies, least not of high cost (disks, CDs, etc.)
Apart from the actual time spent which arguably is a cost item (labour)
there are such things as electricity etc. Sorry Tim but you cannot state
that your cost items should be categorized differently. BTW, Nails ain't
no high cost item especially when bought trade in bulk. Anyway since we
were only talking about the actual work we can preclude materials which
despite your implication are always borne by the customer not the tradesman.
I note you still do not answer the question though.
jmdrake
if MorphOS can run Amiga programs? That in an of itself doesn't make it
an IP violation. Anyway I don't think that MorphOS or AROS would exist
if it didn't look for a while that the AmigaOS was going to become
"abandonware". Wasn't there something about "if enough copies of 3.9
don't sell we won't make 4.0"? I'm glad they decided to go ahead and
come out with 4.0. But isn't there longterm strategy to get the DE
running on as many platforms as possible? If the DE becomes successful
then it should matter that the AmigaOS pie is divided.
Regards,
John M. Drake
"J.O. Aho" <us...@example.net> wrote in message news:<3CEE0CF4...@example.net>...
Kelli Halliburton
news:1880.915T2210...@free-online.co.uk...
> >As a carpenter, to make or build anything requires physical supplies such
> >as wood, nails, etc.
>
> >As a programmer, to create a piece of software requires only thought and
> >the ability to convert that thought into computer data/instruction. There
> >is no physical supplies, least not of high cost (disks, CDs, etc.)
>
> Apart from the actual time spent which arguably is a cost item (labour)
> there are such things as electricity etc. Sorry Tim but you cannot state
> that your cost items should be categorized differently. BTW, Nails ain't
> no high cost item especially when bought trade in bulk. Anyway since we
> were only talking about the actual work we can preclude materials which
> despite your implication are always borne by the customer not the
tradesman.
>
> I note you still do not answer the question though.
I should note that the lumber and nails exist whether or not the carpenter's
skill is applied to them. In the same way, bits exist regardless of whether
the programmer's skill has been applied to them.
In the same way a carpenter applies his skill to items that already exist,
by taking lumber and nails and using his own tools to build something, so
does a programmer take an arrangement of blank bits (that exist as the
unused area of a computer's hard drive or memory) and apply his skills using
own tools to build an application.
So, again, since either job is apparently simply an application of special
skills and one's own tools to items that already exist, why should one be a
paid endeavor and one not?
Oh well. At least it's better than saying that Microsoft should pay users
for suggesting features to add to their programs. Or does Tim still stick to
that idea? I mean, the two ideas can't be reconciled. Either a programmer
gets paid for his ideas or he doesn't.
Troy Parker
Halliburton wrote:
> I should note that the lumber and nails exist whether or not the carpenter's
> skill is applied to them. In the same way, bits exist regardless of whether
> the programmer's skill has been applied to them.
>
> In the same way a carpenter applies his skill to items that already exist,
> by taking lumber and nails and using his own tools to build something, so
> does a programmer take an arrangement of blank bits (that exist as the
> unused area of a computer's hard drive or memory) and apply his skills using
> own tools to build an application.
>
> So, again, since either job is apparently simply an application of special
> skills and one's own tools to items that already exist, why should one be a
> paid endeavor and one not?
>
> Oh well. At least it's better than saying that Microsoft should pay users
> for suggesting features to add to their programs. Or does Tim still stick to
> that idea? I mean, the two ideas can't be reconciled. Either a programmer
> gets paid for his ideas or he doesn't.
However, when the skill is applied in carpentry, it must be
re-"worked" for each individual customer... With the work a programmer
does, the work is done once, and for each customer in addition that
decides they want to benefit from that work, the work doesn't need to
be repeated.
If a carpenter decides to build a free house for the planet, that's
somewhat impossible. If a programmer wants to program an email client
for the planet, it's a piece of cake, to many orders of magnatude :)
Not saying that programmers shouldn't be paid, but comparing software
to a commodity item doesn't work, unless duplicating the commodity item
is free.
I think Tim's point (who knows?;) is that treating software as a
commodity item eliminates a great potential good that software can do,
because to treat software as a commodity item, reduces it to one, and
reduces the good that software could have done at no additional cost to
anyone. This is true, regardless of which side you're on.
However, if the software is licensed as to allow it to be distributed
freely, who pay's the programmer? If we could work out a model that
pay's the programmer AND lets the software be freely distributed,
everyone would benefit. This is also true, regardless of which side
you're on.
The problem is, as of yet, nobody's figured out how to make it work. :(
Brian Doe
news:MPG.17631a143...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> freely, who pay's the programmer? If we could work out a model that
> pay's the programmer AND lets the software be freely distributed,
> everyone would benefit. This is also true, regardless of which side
> you're on.
We HAD such a model. It's called "shareware."
Great concept, but had one major flaw: It relied on the honesty and
integrity of human beings.
Brian Team *AMIGA*
John Burns
Who knows as usual Tim hasn't replied since he has no legitimate answer
Troy Parker
> > However, if the software is licensed as to allow it to be distributed
> > freely, who pay's the programmer? If we could work out a model that
> > pay's the programmer AND lets the software be freely distributed,
> > everyone would benefit. This is also true, regardless of which side
> > you're on.
>
> We HAD such a model. It's called "shareware."
>
> Great concept, but had one major flaw: It relied on the honesty and
> integrity of human beings.
Hence the last line that you missed ;) ...
"The problem is, as of yet, nobody's figured out how to make it work."
The main flaw is that if you rely on income from distrobution of free
software, you're relying on people willingly paying for something they
arn't forced too.
A better model would be to allow a one time "subscription" to a group
of products, and during your subscription, you have unlimited license
to use everything you could ever dream of.
This works quite well for Stardock. You pay one fee, and after said fee
is paid, you may use any of Stardocks products for free.
Stardock collects far more money this way than they did from shareware,
and the user benefits too, as for the same price as one or two of their
products, they get to use an unlimited amount of Stardocks software.
This isn't quite what I meant by "free software" though, as this still
puts the software into the light as being a commodity item. I was
thinking more of like, say, a publicly sponsored group of individuals
that are supported by the community that uses their software, which
they release for free.
Sure, there's the FSF, but Stallman is too militant to make something
like this appeal to anyone other than, well, the same sorts of groups
that follow him now. :|
If the FSF didn't have such a political agenda, they'd recieve more
funding.
Timothy Rue
>>"John Burns" <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1880.915T2210...@free-online.co.uk...
[snip]
>Who knows as usual Tim hasn't replied since he has no legitimate answer
you really should stop talking to yourself John.
Timothy Rue
[snip]
>However, if the software is licensed as to allow it to be distributed
>freely, who pay's the programmer? If we could work out a model that
>pay's the programmer AND lets the software be freely distributed,
>everyone would benefit. This is also true, regardless of which side
>you're on.
>The problem is, as of yet, nobody's figured out how to make it work. :(
Hmmm, Richard Stallman gets paid, the Guy who created and continues on
with Python development does too and there has even been things figured
out in the event of his passing.... There are others as well, who get paid
in their Freely available OSS and GPL software, etc..
It's no that nobody has figured it out, it's that some things have to
happen before it's done for more people.
For example, to follow the way things are being done in the software
industry, you'd think I'd collect royalities on all the stuff I ever
built, or at least the company I works for would. but carpentry is much
more mature than the computer industry. And Alchemy (sp?) is too, but
there was a time when it wasn't and it was only a select few who were
skilled at making potents and spells.
In another message you wrote something about RMS being the reason more
funding wasn't given to the FSF.
Just wondering, what would the FSF do with it? Is the lack of more FSF
funding causing a hinderance to the development of the GNU OS? And how
would the FSF distribute such funding to those contributing to GNU?
there is what you might call stages of evolution/creation where one stage
sets up the needed conditions for the next stage.
the evolution/creation steps needed in order to bring a far more civil and
ethical work and earning practice to the software industry is happening
and it more certainly included and requires the GPL step.
MS is of course trying to fight that, just as any sand box bully would try
and keep control over a growing sand box. But at some point the Bully's
methodology just simply no longer works for the growing population.
One of the evolution/creation steps will be autocoding, but it has become
clear that for this to happen there must first become a standard freely
available OS and practice of it's developement. That's GNU <-simple
observation.
Next step is to remove core constraints of the OS. That's what the Hurd
gonna do and it's gonna be able to use already established GNU software as
is found running on the Linux kernel. And this will set the foundation for the next step, the
development of an unbiased (honest) autocoding environment. (research has
shown that commercial interest - getting money and insuring the
continuation of getting money, wrongly biases the tool set in creating
false constraints and incompatability. Meaning that a GPL base is a
foundation requirement in order to reach highly productive autocoding
technology.)
So you work for a company that pays you to advance GPL based software, of
which you have the benefit of using all available GPL software and it's
improvements to help you in your task. The company benefits from the use
of your work, which will typically be focused in a manner to help the
company with computer resources. Company specific code.... well the GPL
only requires that the source be freely available to who ever receives the
binary. It doesn't say it has to be publicly available, unless the binary
is publicly available. Besides, often even the competition has no use for
your way of skinning a cat, but have their own way to fit their way of
doing things.
Having an autocoding environment will improve upon the quality of what you
produce.
you still get paid an hourly rate or salary, just like others doing other
things.
At this point software will produce the economic ripple effect thru all
industries.
As things are now, there are only claims of doing it or gonna do it (the
ripple effect), by the current software business methology. But it never
delivers and some convinced that it has been delivered don't have anything
to compare the current software industry constrainst and severe
proprogation control of software development, to. In other words, besides
GPL and similiar, the software industry has honed it skill at milking it
for all they can and that creates the problem of excessive pay scales that
lead to reasons why cheaper foriegn IT workers........ and major shifts
to GPL and the likes by more and more organizations.
The party is over with and the dot com bust was the end of the party,
regardless of who wants to believe it or not.
I suppose if RMS didn't have to keep a string defence up (as will be the
case once the GPL foundation is a widely accepted standard) Then I suppose
he would be earning more in actually programming as a main focus of his
work.
The people mentality factor is simply top priority. And those who have
enjoyed the party are having a hard time adjusting to the need to clean up
after the party, as they apparenty as walking around in more and more
after party trash. IE, MS is having a hard time not looking bad.
John Burns
>>>"John Burns" <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1880.915T2210...@free-online.co.uk...
>[snip]
>>Who knows as usual Tim hasn't replied since he has no legitimate answer
>you really should stop talking to yourself John.
Only you do this but I note you snipped the actual question which you still
don't have an answer to, do you.
Troy Parker
wrote:
> Hmmm, Richard Stallman gets paid [and others]
He's getting paid to scratch his own itch, however. there's no
accountability or any guarantee however that his hairy ass will itch in
the same places yours and mine do from one year to the next. "You
scratch my back-I scratch yours" works differently than his current
model "I'll scratch my ass for the both of us and call it GNU"
I'm not saying we're not benefitting from his scratching, but he's
driven by a grudge, not a dream. He's always been like that, he's
devoted years on certain projects 16 hours a day, sleeping on the Lab
floor just to feed grudges he's had against software companies that
have done nothing but give some of his friends jobs that left him
lonely at the lab, so he sets out to destroy them by cloning the
projects they were working on just to make them "pay" for hiring away
the peers that used to keep him company. (He did a helluva job too, for
years he was just one step behind their whole team of developers)
He has the drive, but not the steering, and his destination is chosen
differently than ours. I'm going to stop this train of thought here
lest I become labeled as some antiGNU freak :|
> It's no that nobody has figured it out, it's that some things have to
> happen before it's done for more people.
The way it's done right now, it only works if you are lucky enough to
have the same itch someone else is scratching. How do you persuade
people to scratch your itch rather than theirs? For example, who's
scratching your back right now with the VIC? How long and how loud have
you been asking someone to scratch? :)
> For example, to follow the way things are being done in the software
> industry, you'd think I'd collect royalities [on carpentry]
In carpentry you're not scratching your itch, you're scratching someone
elses itch, and being told where to scratch. At some point, like with
carpentry, in order for the model to mature (without royalties) there
must be some unselfish scratching going on. "You over there, scratch
this and I'll pay you a salary." Let's face it, anytime something
depends on someone being unselfish, it won't work. After you've
scratched his itch for pay, he's going to want to package it and sell
it himself.
> In another message you wrote something about RMS being the reason more
> funding wasn't given to the FSF [show me the money, stages of evolution]
Any money that goes to the FSF pays a small group of people to help him
scratch his ass. If you itch there, no problem, but if you don't you
keep itching. Is AROS getting scratched with FSF funds? The problem I
have with the current model is that GNU could work, but the FSF can't
make it work untill they can "feel our itch." If they felt the public's
itch, they'd recieve more funding.
> [ethical work and earningin in the] software industry is happening
> and it more certainly included and requires the GPL step.
The GNU step is already available to everyone. What's not available to
everyone is input as to what gets scratched. Stallman has a vision, his
vision, and he'll not deviate from that path, ever, no matter what the
public wants, needs, begs for, or is willing to pay for.
Linux is the furthest the FSF has ever been distracted from RMS's
course, and the closest to the public's itch he'll ever get. As it is
right now, everything's not well in Linuxland between Stallman and
Linus. I'm still developing my theory/opinion as to what should happen
here, so I'll not bore you with it :)
> MS is of course trying to fight that, just as any sand box bully would try
> and keep control over a growing sand box. But at some point the Bully's
> methodology just simply no longer works for the growing population.
All MS can do is offer to scratch the public where they itch. As long
as Stallman fails to do this, MS will be popular. Stallman can't win a
marketing war where he's literally telling the public where they itch.
> One of the evolution/creation steps will be autocoding, [using GNU]
> [autocoding] [money=root@allevil] therefore [GPL base required for] highly
> productive autocoding technology.
This assumes that you can piece together parts of Stallmans vision for
your own needs, which is great if you can, but the glue process still
itches doesn't it? You've probably already realised that just anouncing
that itch doesn't get it scratched. Everyone just expects you to
scratch it yourself, right?
> [autocoding]
> The people mentality factor is simply top priority. And those who have
> enjoyed the party are having a hard time adjusting to the need to clean up
> after the party, as they apparenty as walking around in more and more
> after party trash. IE, MS is having a hard time not looking bad.
regardless of who looks bad and who's percieved to be "winning" my back
still f$^%king itches, and yours hasn't been scratched yet either.
Who's winning? Microsoft, who's scrathing itches for money. Stallman,
who's scratching his own ass for the public good. Both their needs are
being met.
Who's losing? everyone else that unfortunately can't benefit from these
two due to itch locations.
Aw hell, don't take this too seriously, I really don't know what's up
my ass today. One of those day's I guess.
Timothy Rue
[snip a bunch of itching stuff]
>regardless of who looks bad and who's percieved to be "winning" my back
>still f$^%king itches, and yours hasn't been scratched yet either.
try cortizine
>Aw hell, don't take this too seriously, I really don't know what's up
>my ass today. One of those day's I guess.
or preparation-h
Troy Parker
Keith Blakemore-Noble
you wrote something about "Re: The future has all too large dark
clouds..."...
> So, again, since either job is apparently simply an application of
> special skills and one's own tools to items that already exist, why
> should one be a paid endeavor and one not?
Have you ever noticed how the ones who demand that all programmers
shoudl work for free are those who make a (usually very comfortable!)
living doing something else.
RueBot doesn't code, he is a carpenter. He demands programmers work
for free.
Stallman demands programmers work for free, but that consultants shoudl
charge for their work. Guess what? Stallman is a "professional"
consultant these days! Strange how he dismisses the idea that
consultancy shoudl be free...
--
In the begining, there was nothing.
And God said "Let there be light" and there was light.
There was still nothing, but you could see it better.
John Burns
>> On 02-Jun-02 23:02:31 John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>"John Burns" <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:1880.915T2210...@free-online.co.uk...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Who knows as usual Tim hasn't replied since he has no legitimate answer
>>
>> you really should stop talking to yourself John.
>>
>Tim !!..there you are!!!!...ffs start rabbiting on about conspiracy
>theories or alien amiga abductions or how the Russian Sputnik Mind Control
>lasers are after you again..anything at all to stop this f8cking irritating
>"lets run mac software natively on an Amiga" noise.
>SG is stealing your thunder dude...get back in the saddle as our resident
>nutcase, we need you man !
LOL
He can't he's too busy learning to play the fiddle.
BTW Don't forget we have a new and promising title contender, Fabio.
Joona I Palaste
> LOL
Not really. Fabio has his own opinion about one thing, which no one
else agrees with. SG views himself as God's Gift to Amiga Users and
always seeks to pick fights with others. Timothy Rue is just plain
wacko.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"There's no business like slow business."
- Tailgunner
Fabio Alemagna
> Not really. Fabio has his own opinion about one thing, which no one
> else agrees with.
I wouldn't say "no one else", because, just considering this NG and
csaa, there are at least 4 people that agree with me.
Then, if we want to get into the "fuzzy" topic, everyone else who has
knowledge about the matter obviously agrees with the basic things abotu
fuzzy logicve I've explained here. But that's another story, and John
thinks he's right about everything, so...
--
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried
to make it precise"
Bertrand Russell
The Philosophy of Logical Atomism
Keith Blakemore-Noble
wrote something about "Re: The future has all too large dark
clouds..."...
>
> > Fabio.
>
> Not really. Fabio has his own opinion about one thing, which no one
> else agrees with.
Which one thing is that?
His belief that Mac apps run nativly on Amigas?
His belief that there is a defined state which exists between
non-pregnancy and pregnancy and that a woman can be "partly pregnant"?
His belief that there exists a "substance" inbetween H and He in the
process of creating He from H by fusion?
His belief that a broken glass is unbroken?
Just wanted to make sure I understand which is the one thing that he
believes which no-one else does, since you raise it :)
John Burns
>> Not really. Fabio has his own opinion about one thing, which no one
>> else agrees with.
>I wouldn't say "no one else", because, just considering this NG and
>csaa, there are at least 4 people that agree with me.
>Then, if we want to get into the "fuzzy" topic, everyone else who has
>knowledge about the matter obviously agrees with the basic things abotu
>fuzzy logicve I've explained here. But that's another story, and John
>thinks he's right about everything, so...
I don't actually Fabio but then again I don't talk utter shite which I am
unable to substantiate either.
Joona I Palaste
More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
less the thing I was talking about.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Remember: There are only three kinds of people - those who can count and those
who can't."
- Vampyra
Soro
> Keith Blakemore-Noble <Ke...@blakemore-noble.net> scribbled the following:
>> Hi there Joona I Palaste, on or around 6 Jun 2002 08:14:29 GMT you
>> wrote something about "Re: The future has all too large dark
>> clouds..."...
>>>
>>> John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> scribbled the following:
>>>
>>> > BTW Don't forget we have a new and promising title contender,
>>> > Fabio.
>>>
>>> Not really. Fabio has his own opinion about one thing, which no one
>>> else agrees with.
>
>> Which one thing is that?
>
>> His belief that Mac apps run nativly on Amigas?
>
>> His belief that there is a defined state which exists between
>> non-pregnancy and pregnancy and that a woman can be "partly pregnant"?
>
>> His belief that there exists a "substance" inbetween H and He in the
>> process of creating He from H by fusion?
>
>> His belief that a broken glass is unbroken?
>
>> Just wanted to make sure I understand which is the one thing that he
>> believes which no-one else does, since you raise it :)
>
> More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
> true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
> less the thing I was talking about.
>
That's the whole problem with the kids of today, far too much Cartesian
Dualism.
Fabio Alemagna
> More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
> true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
> less the thing I was talking about.
Right, and that's what fuzzy logic teaches, and that's what all the
people who understand fuzzy logic and use it and study it believe too.
You may disagree on that, but then you've never ready one single thing
about fuzzy logic, have you?
Fabio Alemagna
>>More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
>>true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
>>less the thing I was talking about.
>>
>
>
> That's the whole problem with the kids of today, far too much Cartesian
> Dualism.
I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
Joona I Palaste
> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>> More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
>> true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
>> less the thing I was talking about.
> Right, and that's what fuzzy logic teaches, and that's what all the
> people who understand fuzzy logic and use it and study it believe too.
> You may disagree on that, but then you've never ready one single thing
> about fuzzy logic, have you?
If your claim "that's what fuzzy logic teaches" is true, then it is true
that nothing in the universe can be true, so the claim "that's what
fuzzy logic teaches" can't be true either. So your claim has to be
false. QED.
(Or then again, common sense might be useless against Fabio Alemagna...)
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"We're women. We've got double standards to live up to."
- Ally McBeal
Fabio Alemagna
>>>More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
>>>true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
>>>less the thing I was talking about.
>>
>
>>Right, and that's what fuzzy logic teaches, and that's what all the
>>people who understand fuzzy logic and use it and study it believe too.
>>You may disagree on that, but then you've never ready one single thing
>>about fuzzy logic, have you?
>
>
> If your claim "that's what fuzzy logic teaches" is true, then it is true
> that nothing in the universe can be true, so the claim "that's what
> fuzzy logic teaches" can't be true either. So your claim has to be
> false. QED.
But if the claim is false, then it's false that nothing can be true,
therefore my claim is true, but if it's true...
The claim is both true and false.
And, anyway I missed to correct you before: I don't claim that nothing
can be true not false, I claimed that generally everything is true to a
certain extent and false to another extent.
Will Dwinnell
"More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
less the thing I was talking about."
Fabio Alemagna <fale...@aros.org> responded:
"Right, and that's what fuzzy logic teaches, and that's what all the
people who understand fuzzy logic and use it and study it believe too.
You may disagree on that, but then you've never ready one single
thing about fuzzy logic, have you?"
Let's be perfectly clear about this: fuzzy logic does not teach that
"nothing in the universe can ever be true, and nothing in the universe
can ever be false". While does provide for truth values between
utterly false (fuzzy class membership = 0.0) and absolutely true
(fuzzy class membership = 1.0), it does not prohibit fuzzy truth
values from taking those extreme values.
-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com
John Burns
>>>More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
>>>true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
>>>less the thing I was talking about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's the whole problem with the kids of today, far too much Cartesian
>> Dualism.
>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
Sorry Fabio, this is just such bad grammar that it defies interpretation.
Fabio Alemagna
> Let's be perfectly clear about this: fuzzy logic does not teach that
> "nothing in the universe can ever be true, and nothing in the universe
> can ever be false". While does provide for truth values between
> utterly false (fuzzy class membership = 0.0) and absolutely true
> (fuzzy class membership = 1.0), it does not prohibit fuzzy truth
> values from taking those extreme values.
Yes, in fact that's been a clearification I've made in the successive
post.
Fabio Alemagna
Fabio Alemagna
> >I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
> >party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
> >exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>
> Sorry Fabio, this is just such bad grammar that it defies interpretation.
Correct my mistakes, Sir, please.
Fabio Alemagna
Keith Blakemore-Noble
Ah, right, now I understand you.
His flawed trolling on that approach does rather explain his ludicrous
other claims, I guess.
Doesn't make his claims any less ludicrous, mind you. "Partially
pregnant" indeed!!!
Joona I Palaste
> Hi there Joona I Palaste, on or around 7 Jun 2002 06:44:31 GMT you
> wrote something about "Re: The future has all too large dark
> clouds..."...
[About Fabio Alemagna]
>> More generally, his belief that nothing in the universe can ever be
>> true, and nothing in the universe can ever be false. That's more or
>> less the thing I was talking about.
> Ah, right, now I understand you.
> His flawed trolling on that approach does rather explain his ludicrous
> other claims, I guess.
> Doesn't make his claims any less ludicrous, mind you. "Partially
> pregnant" indeed!!!
Perhaps "partially pregnant" is carrying the foetus of a partial human
in your womb? =)
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"I am lying."
- Anon
SG
> His flawed trolling on that approach does rather explain his ludicrous
> other claims, I guess.
And this certainly proves you are terrified that I'll make
you my intellectual bitch again, or you'd post your petty
immaturity to csaa instead of hiding.
--
-Steve
Keith Blakemore-Noble
something about "Re: The future has all too large dark clouds..."...
>
Good grief, you vain conceited troll.
Do you seriously believe for one second that everything anyone ever
says is about YOU?
ROTFL!!!!
Here's a clue, Stevie Troll Boy - this entire subthread was absolutely
nothing to do with you, you braindead, self-obsessed liar. It was
about a completely different csam troll (Fabio). Unless, of course,
you are admitting that you ARE Fabio, eh SG?
*shakes head*
I knew you were messed up in the head, Stevie Troll Boy, but I didn't
realise you were THAT screwed up.
And to think - you seriously expect people to believe the US millitary
would ever dream of letting you within a thousand yards of one of their
aircraft, let alone fly one!!!!
Dream on, stevie Troll Boy, dream on!
Fabio Alemagna
> Here's a clue, Stevie Troll Boy - this entire subthread was absolutely
> nothing to do with you, you braindead, self-obsessed liar. It was
> about a completely different csam troll (Fabio).
I will always wonder why does one put someone else in a killfile and
then keeps talking about him. Surely there must be a reason that ivolves
brain's malfunctioning...
John Burns
"clearification"? Another of your made up words, Fabio.
John Burns
Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you. Of course if
you can't see and admit to them then I will point them out. However, if I am
forced to do so then it will only prove your lack of knowledge of yet another
subject.
Fabio Alemagna
> "clearification"? Another of your made up words, Fabio.
you know what, John? You are just showing everyone here how childish you
are. You've got no arguments therefore you resort to these stupid
attacks.... I really feel pity for you.
Everyone wouldn't understand that was a typo, but you seem unable to.
Fabio Alemagna
> Everyone wouldn't understand that was a typo, but you seem unable to.
Of course I meant "would understand".
Fabio Alemagna
LOL :) Sir, please, enlighten me :) And when you'll know how to speak
and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
Kelli Halliburton
> and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
Says the man whose last name means "German."
(I had to say that, even though I was making no point.) :)
John Burns
>> "clearification"? Another of your made up words, Fabio.
>you know what, John? You are just showing everyone here how childish you
>are. You've got no arguments therefore you resort to these stupid
>attacks.... I really feel pity for you.
>Everyone wouldn't understand that was a typo, but you seem unable to.
I'll ignore the obvious error, (wouldn't for would), which means the opposite
of what I believe you intend.
That said, let's get things clear. I made the error of missing out a comma
in a sentence which you attacked as being unacceptable. When you make mistakes
it seems that this is somehow different in your view and should be treated
differently. Hmmmm... Sounds like you just don't like your own medicine.
As I have pointed out to you before if you wish to make such pedantic comment,
feel free. However, you should be aware that you can hardly complain when the
compliment is reciprocated.
I am certainly willing to let the grammar matter drop if you are.
John Burns
>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry Fabio, this is just such bad grammar that it defies interpretation.
>>>
>>
>>>Correct my mistakes, Sir, please.
>>
>>
>> Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you. Of course
>> if you can't see and admit to them then I will point them out. However, if
>> I am forced to do so then it will only prove your lack of knowledge of yet
>> another subject.
>LOL :) Sir, please, enlighten me :) And when you'll know how to speak
>and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
Enlightenment:
Second sentence begins with "And"; a very basic error.
Then "you'll" is wrongly used; the correct word being only "you".
The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
The words "make me" are wrongly used in this context; try either "give me" or,
(much simpler and less verbose), "phone me."
Oh, you didn't end either sentence with a period; (now where have I heard
that criticism before?).
Given that I don't speak Italian (only English, German and a small amount of
French) it is not surprising that I stick to English NGs. However, if I did
indulge in a conversation on a German NG I doubt I would start attacking their
odd grammatical error, if only because I ain't so pedantic unless forced.
Fabio Alemagna
>>John Burns wrote:
>>
>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry Fabio, this is just such bad grammar that it defies interpretation.
>>>>
>>>>Correct my mistakes, Sir, please.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you. Of course
>>>if you can't see and admit to them then I will point them out. However, if
>>>I am forced to do so then it will only prove your lack of knowledge of yet
>>>another subject.
>>
>
>>LOL :) Sir, please, enlighten me :) And when you'll know how to speak
>>and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
>
>
> Enlightenment:
Dude, are you stupid? You said the FIRST sentence was wrong. TELL ME
WHAT is wrong about it. Come on :)
> Second sentence begins with "And"; a very basic error.
An "error" which I do intentionally. Even in Italian it's "bad", but I
do it anyway, 'cause I like how it sounds. It's one of those "stupid"
grammar rules. Of course, If I were writing an essay, I would pay
attention even to those "stupid" rules.
Anyway, you put a semicolon there, you should have put a colon :)
> Then "you'll" is wrongly used; the correct word being only "you".
Right, I tend to forget that.
> The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
Wrong. There's no such rule. I can use "and" as many times as I want, it
serves to make the tone of the phrase stronger.
> The words "make me" are wrongly used in this context; try either "give me" or,
> (much simpler and less verbose), "phone me."
Right. I should have written "give me".
> Oh, you didn't end either sentence with a
> period; (now where have I heard that criticism before?).
I used ":)" which obviously ended the paragraph, given there's a new
line after it. Using a period would have made the smiley look ugly.
You, instead, often miss periods *within* paragraphs.
> Given that I don't speak Italian (only English, German and a small amount of
> French) it is not surprising that I stick to English NGs. However, if I did
> indulge in a conversation on a German NG I doubt I would start attacking their
> odd grammatical error, if only because I ain't so pedantic unless forced.
I've not attacked you, I've just pointed you out a fact, that is you
don't know how to use puntuaction, which is evident also in this your
post. I asked you to pay more attention to puntuaction, because it
serves to make life easier to people who attempt to read your stuff. You
should have just said "Oh, right", instead you started this other flame.
you just are not able to admit you are wrong.
FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
"Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
why goes a "?", not a comma.
Eric Haines
>
> An "error" which I do intentionally. Even in Italian it's "bad", but I
> do it anyway, 'cause I like how it sounds. It's one of those "stupid"
> grammar rules. Of course, If I were writing an essay, I would pay
> attention even to those "stupid" rules.
Ignore that. It's perfectly acceptable to start a sentence in English
with "And." There's no rule against it.
> Anyway, you put a semicolon there, you should have put a colon :)
Well, that's a bit vague...actually a comma would have worked too. Or
a dash.
> > The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
>
> Wrong. There's no such rule. I can use "and" as many times as I want, it
> serves to make the tone of the phrase stronger.
Yep.
> FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
> "Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
> why goes a "?", not a comma.
Er, no. In that context, "why" is an interjection, not a question.
Another example:
"Say, want to hang out in C.S.A.Misc tonight and engage in pointless
and off-topic grammar discussions?"
"Why, sure, I'd love to!"
--Eric
John Burns
>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry Fabio, this is just such bad grammar that it defies
>>>>>>interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct my mistakes, Sir, please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you. Of course
>>>>if you can't see and admit to them then I will point them out. However,
>>>>if I am forced to do so then it will only prove your lack of knowledge of
>>>>yet another subject.
>>>
>>
>>>LOL :) Sir, please, enlighten me :) And when you'll know how to speak
>>>and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
>>
>>
>> Enlightenment:
>Dude, are you stupid? You said the FIRST sentence was wrong. TELL ME
>WHAT is wrong about it. Come on :)
It's over verbose and reads like shit.
>> Second sentence begins with "And"; a very basic error.
>An "error" which I do intentionally. Even in Italian it's "bad", but I
>do it anyway, 'cause I like how it sounds. It's one of those "stupid"
>grammar rules. Of course, If I were writing an essay, I would pay
>attention even to those "stupid" rules.
Oh, so now Fabio decides which grammar rules are stupid and which aren't.
>Anyway, you put a semicolon there, you should have put a colon :)
A colon would have been incorrect, a semi-colon was the correct punctuation
mark to use.
>> Then "you'll" is wrongly used; the correct word being only "you".
>Right, I tend to forget that.
>> The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
>Wrong. There's no such rule. I can use "and" as many times as I want, it
>serves to make the tone of the phrase stronger.
Yes there is and you can't use the word ~and" in this sense as many times as you
wish. It doesn't make the phrase stronger, it actually makes the sentence harder
to say.
>> The words "make me" are wrongly used in this context; try either "give me"
>> or,
>> (much simpler and less verbose), "phone me."
>Right. I should have written "give me".
> > Oh, you didn't end either sentence with a
> > period; (now where have I heard that criticism before?).
>I used ":)" which obviously ended the paragraph, given there's a new
>line after it. Using a period would have made the smiley look ugly.
Doesn't mean it was correct though, Smileys are not punctuation marks.
>You, instead, often miss periods *within* paragraphs.
A claim which you have never demonstrated.
>> Given that I don't speak Italian (only English, German and a small amount
>> of French) it is not surprising that I stick to English NGs. However, if I
>> did indulge in a conversation on a German NG I doubt I would start
>> attacking their odd grammatical error, if only because I ain't so pedantic
>> unless forced.
>I've not attacked you, I've just pointed you out a fact, that is you
>don't know how to use puntuaction, which is evident also in this your
>post. I asked you to pay more attention to puntuaction, because it
>serves to make life easier to people who attempt to read your stuff. You
>should have just said "Oh, right", instead you started this other flame.
>you just are not able to admit you are wrong.
In the original sentence to which you refer I missed out a comma, big deal.
You started moaning and I admitted my mistake. It is not me who is unable to
admit to their errors but you. As I said Fabio, if you wish to attack my odd
grammatical error then do so but please stop bleating when I choose to return
the compliment.
>FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
>"Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
>why goes a "?", not a comma.
Not true as "Why" in this context was used as part of a statement not aa a
question in it's own right.
Fabio Alemagna
>>>Second sentence begins with "And"; a very basic error.
>>
>
>
> Well, that's a bit vague...actually a comma would have worked too. Or
> a dash.
Mmm... no. A colon serves to introduce an explanation, or a conclusion;
a comma just introduces a pause; a dash is not exactly suited for that
phrase, but I concede that it might have been an enough good choice too.
Using commas in place of colons is a very common mistake people do, even
journalists often do it, at least here in Italy.
>>FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
>>"Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
>>why goes a "?", not a comma.
>
>
> Er, no. In that context, "why" is an interjection, not a question.
> Another example:
>
> "Say, want to hang out in C.S.A.Misc tonight and engage in pointless
> and off-topic grammar discussions?"
>
> "Why, sure, I'd love to!"
Well, I guess it all depends on the way you pronounce it. I never see
myself beginning a phrase with "Why" without using an interrogative
tone. If I use that kind of tone, then a question mark should follow "Why".
A good reference:
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/punct.html
Fabio Alemagna
>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>
>
Ahahah :) I see, I see... IOWs, you cannot find anything wrong about
that phrase, and you have just admitted that your mental faculties are
underpowered... :)
> Oh, so now Fabio decides which grammar rules are stupid and which aren't.
Yes, I do, any problems? And, anyway, someone else said that's not an error.
>
>>Anyway, you put a semicolon there, you should have put a colon :)
>
>
> A colon would have been incorrect, a semi-colon was the correct punctuation
> mark to use.
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/colon.html
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/semicoln.html
you should go back to elementary school :)
>>>The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
>>
>
>>Wrong. There's no such rule. I can use "and" as many times as I want, it
>>serves to make the tone of the phrase stronger.
>
>
> Yes there is and you can't use the word ~and" in this sense as many times as you
> wish. It doesn't make the phrase stronger, it actually makes the sentence harder
> to say.
Point me out a grammar that says that, please.
>>I used ":)" which obviously ended the paragraph, given there's a new
>>line after it. Using a period would have made the smiley look ugly.
>
>
> Doesn't mean it was correct though, Smileys are not punctuation marks.
Do you put periods after smileys? :)
>>You, instead, often miss periods *within* paragraphs.
>
>
> A claim which you have never demonstrated.
Oh, just go read some of your posts...
>>FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
>>"Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
>>why goes a "?", not a comma.
>
>
> Not true as "Why" in this context was used as part of a statement not aa a
> question in it's own right.
Then you used it wrongly.
James Boswell
> and write and read Italian, make me a phone call :)
Attacking strawmen, great show of class!
(and exactly how do you intend to find out if he reads and writes italian over
the phone, which was, last I checked, an audio medium :)
-JB
Eric Haines
> > Another example:
> >
> > "Say, want to hang out in C.S.A.Misc tonight and engage in pointless
> > and off-topic grammar discussions?"
> >
> > "Why, sure, I'd love to!"
>
> Well, I guess it all depends on the way you pronounce it.
It's the way you use it.
> I never see
> myself beginning a phrase with "Why" without using an interrogative
> tone.
Possibly because you're not a native English speaker? Really, that
usage is perfectly legitimate.
> If I use that kind of tone, then a question mark should follow
> "Why".
Not if you're using it as an interjection. :)
> A good reference:
> http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/punct.html
Possibly, but I'd recommend Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style."
--Eric
John Burns
>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>>
>>
>> It's over verbose and reads like shit.
>Ahahah :) I see, I see... IOWs, you cannot find anything wrong about
>that phrase, and you have just admitted that your mental faculties are
>underpowered... :)
No Fabio it has so many faults that I can't be bothered just as you can't be
bothered to quote where I missed out a period.
>> Oh, so now Fabio decides which grammar rules are stupid and which aren't.
>Yes, I do, any problems? And, anyway, someone else said that's not an error.
Except that you did admit yourself that it was an error, one which you did
intentionally. If I was dishonest I could use the same argument to excuse my
missing that comma, namely that I think it's a stupid rule but I didn't I
admitted it was an error. Get the point.
OK, you can use "and" to begin a sentence though it should be avoided except
where a very effective addition is desired or when an arresting accumulation
is to be considered. Neither of which was the case here, it is actually bad
usage to begin a sentence "And" otherwise. You yourself admit you do it because
it sound nice.
>>
>>>Anyway, you put a semicolon there, you should have put a colon :)
>>
>>
>> A colon would have been incorrect, a semi-colon was the correct punctuation
>> mark to use.
>http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/colon.html
>http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/semicoln.html
Looked at these and I don't see how this precluded my use of a semi-colon as
used. Though I will accept that it may have been less confusing for you had I
used a dash to demarcate the sentences.
>you should go back to elementary school :)
No probs, which class are you in? It'd certainly be better than working. ;)
>>>>The "and" after speak is erroneous; a comma should have been used
>>>
>>
>>>Wrong. There's no such rule. I can use "and" as many times as I want, it
>>>serves to make the tone of the phrase stronger.
>>
>>
>> Yes there is and you can't use the word ~and" in this sense as many times
>> as you wish. It doesn't make the phrase stronger, it actually makes the
>> sentence harder to say.
>Point me out a grammar that says that, please.
It's not a grammatical rule but bad usage of the word. Accepted practice is to
use commas and "and" only for the final break. Using and for each break makes
the sentence clumsy and far harder for the reader. Which is similar to your
complaint about my missing comma. It didn't stop you understanding, just led
to your compaining it was more difficult to read.
>>>I used ":)" which obviously ended the paragraph, given there's a new
>>>line after it. Using a period would have made the smiley look ugly.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't mean it was correct though, Smileys are not punctuation marks.
>Do you put periods after smileys? :)
No I do it like this. :) Just as you did above with a question mark. Sorta
knocks your own argument doesn't it.
>>>You, instead, often miss periods *within* paragraphs.
>>
>>
>> A claim which you have never demonstrated.
>Oh, just go read some of your posts...
So no proof. eh?
>>>FYI and as demonstration of your misuse of puntuaction, in your phrase
>>>"Why, being an expert in grammar, they should be obvious to you", after
>>>why goes a "?", not a comma.
>>
>>
>> Not true as "Why" in this context was used as part of a statement not aa a
>> question in it's own right.
>Then you used it wrongly.
Nope the word why can be used without denoting a question.
Some references:
Words Confused and Misused (The Thomas Y Cromwell Co)
Words and their Way in English Speech (The Macmillan Co)
An Index to English (Scott, Foresman and Company)
A Comprehensive Guide to Good English (Rand McNally & Co)
An Advanced English Syntax (Messrs Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co Ltd)
Usage and Abusage (Penguin Books)
OK, Fabio here's a small test for you. What, if anything, is wrong with the
following sentence?
"The Commission has been feeling its way to modifications intended to better
equip successful candidates for careers."
Note: You cannot substitute any of the words but you can, if you wish, change
their order though the meaning must remain the same.
Timothy Rue
>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
lol!
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Graham Briggs
> On 11-Jun-02 23:01:11 John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism
>>>>>>>>>is exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the
>>>>>>>>>times.
>
> lol!
What an appalling display of trying to tar Mr Burns with having made that
post, which he didn't.
Learn how to snip attributions correctly.
Graham
Timothy Rue
>Graham
Shhhh, don't give him any hints.
John Burns
>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism is
>>>>>>>>>exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the times.
>lol!
Yes, I agree Tim. BTW Fabio wrote this not me. Please refrain from lying.
John Burns
Thanks Graham, though I'm not that bothered as all it shows is Timbo's purposeful
dishonety.
John Burns
>>Timothy Rue wrote:
>>> On 11-Jun-02 23:01:11 John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the other
>>>>>>>>>>>party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute dualism
>>>>>>>>>>>is exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>times.
>>>
>>> lol!
>>What an appalling display of trying to tar Mr Burns with having made that
>>post, which he didn't.
>>Learn how to snip attributions correctly.
>>Graham
>Shhhh, don't give him any hints.
I do hope you realise that deliberate wrong attribution is libel. I'll be in
the US on business later in the year, at which point you'd best hope I'm in a
good mood. If not, expect a summons.
Anyway Tim, have you figured out how version nos work yet or do you still stick
with your claim that they are based on a decimal system?
Timothy Rue
>>On 13-Jun-02 08:00:49 Graham Briggs <gra...@aledrinker.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Timothy Rue wrote:
>>>> On 11-Jun-02 23:01:11 John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>other party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>dualism is exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most
>>>>>>>>>>>>of the times.
>>>>
>>>> lol!
>>>What an appalling display of trying to tar Mr Burns with having made that
>>>post, which he didn't.
>>>Learn how to snip attributions correctly.
>>>Graham
>>Shhhh, don't give him any hints.
>I do hope you realise that deliberate wrong attribution is libel. I'll be in
>the US on business later in the year, at which point you'd best hope I'm in a
> good mood. If not, expect a summons.
What? you want me to testify that you don't use attributes and it makes
you look like a fool?
Gee, I hope you are in a bad mood. I'll be sure to charge you for wasting
my time with your apparent and obvious incompetentcy.
>Anyway Tim, have you figured out how version nos work yet or do you still
>stick with your claim that they are based on a decimal system?
.......
John Burns
>>>On 13-Jun-02 08:00:49 Graham Briggs <gra...@aledrinker.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Timothy Rue wrote:
>>>>> On 11-Jun-02 23:01:11 John Burns <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 8 Jun 2002, John Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't understand whether that was addressed to me or to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>other party. If it was for me, then be assured that the absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>dualism is exactly what I believe being the wrong instrument most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the times.
>>>>>
>>>>> lol!
>>>>What an appalling display of trying to tar Mr Burns with having made that
>>>>post, which he didn't.
>>>>Learn how to snip attributions correctly.
>>>>Graham
>>>Shhhh, don't give him any hints.
>>I do hope you realise that deliberate wrong attribution is libel. I'll be in
>>the US on business later in the year, at which point you'd best hope I'm in
>>a
>> good mood. If not, expect a summons.
>What? you want me to testify that you don't use attributes and it makes
>you look like a fool?
See below, but actually if you were to testify on this matter it would be
to state why you had decided to wrongly attribute Fabio's statement to me
and then to make a facetious remark which by implication is directed to me.
However, any time I have ever been guilty of wrong attribution I have immediately
apologised for my error something which you _never_ do, see the difference.
>Gee, I hope you are in a bad mood. I'll be sure to charge you for wasting
>my time with your apparent and obvious incompetentcy.
Actually Tim the libellous statement, (which I have yet to decide on whether
or not to take action on), is nothing to do with wrong attributions but to your
calling me a liar, a fact which we both know was completety false and for which
I am still waiting, as requested, for your apology. Unfortunately Tim if you
are going to accuse others of lying you must be able to prove it. You couldn't,
I did, so looks like you'll now have to face the music. Only incompetence seems
to be yours - who's the fool now?
BTW. A defence based on the fact that I too have wrongly attributed statements
would fail since it is immaterial and therefore inadmissable to the actual
libel being tried, you wouldn't even get the chance to present such evidence.
The last time I made such an error it was with Keith and it would be up to him
if he felt slighted to take such action. You cannot bring a counter claim for
libel as some sort of proxy without their permission. The only one who would
look foolish trying such a defence would be you. Sorry Tim you just don't have
a clue. Stick to carpentry - I'll accept that you may have some competence in
this area (though I could be wrong).
>>Anyway Tim, have you figured out how version nos work yet or do you still
>>stick with your claim that they are based on a decimal system?
No answer, eh? Just another example of your inability to accept the facts.
Timothy Rue
>>>>>Graham
>Actually Tim the libellous statement,.....
You are a moron John, so go ahead and take what action you think you can
and once it is exposed what a moron you are then maybe your keyboard will
be taken away from you by court order.
Do it John! Just Do it! Don't babel you shit about it here, your a moron,
your words mean nothing.
Personally I'd rather you not learn how to do attribute, for Amiga needs
plenty more like you showing what class of people support Amiga. And
although they have plenty, there is always room for more.
Brian Doe
news:3064.932T1357...@free-online.co.uk...
[huge snip of threats and counterthreats]
Unless you guys really enjoy this public saber-rattling, could you guys
please take this off-list? Nobody else here wants to hear how you plan to
waste the American Judicial System's time with a lawsuit over a missing
attribution on a friggin newsgroup post.
And no, I /don't/ want to hear who's right and who's wrong. I just couldn't
care less. As far as I'm concerned, you're /both/ being a couple of
immature imbeciles.
Brian Team *AMIGA*
Timothy Rue
>Brian Team *AMIGA*
I still think the post he is bitching about is funny as Fu&k.
And what were you saying about snipping?
lol!
Kelli Halliburton
news:3064.932T1357...@free-online.co.uk...
> Actually Tim the libellous statement, (which I have yet to decide on
whether
> or not to take action on), is nothing to do with wrong attributions but to
your
> calling me a liar, a fact which we both know was completety false and for
which
> I am still waiting, as requested, for your apology. Unfortunately Tim if
you
> are going to accuse others of lying you must be able to prove it. You
couldn't,
> I did, so looks like you'll now have to face the music. Only incompetence
seems
> to be yours - who's the fool now?
If you manage to track down Tim and bring suit against him -- AND it can be
shown that he is responsible for his own actions despite his brain tumor --
then I would suggest you bring a class action suit. He has called many
people liars in the past, and I am sure that they would like to join the
class.
Timothy Rue
there you go John, some moral? support.
hell you don't have to prove anything, all you need is mass. create enough
weight in the mass of expenses and numbers of peoples behind you and to
hell with the truth, it'll be just soooooo much easier to deal with
blaming little ol'me then to deal with the truth about such a mass......
You know, like how Christian Kemp would rather ask me to leave (not post
to) ANN or how mindspring in order to shut up false complaints about me and
remove their cost to investigate each and every one and expose them for
what falseness they are.........
I think it's a wonderful thing that Amiga Inc has so many cult followers
because it's bound to help any Amiga like OS efforts external to their
control, to succeed.
But the real thing is, what do you suppose you'd get out of me? You gonna
take the debt caused by such dishonesty as I can prove of the Amiga Market,
away from me?
Maybe there should be a class action suit against the Amiga IP, regardless
of who holds it? To have it put into the public domain. Certainly there
has been a whole hell of a lot of people who have lost a great deal due to
the bitch slapping that's gone on over the Amiga IP by others than
themselves. Many who would make forward moving productive use of such IP
placed in the public domain.
So have at it John!
Do you even have a clue as to who I am?
Maybe you'll just learn to give proper credit to others? It'll be soooooo
much easier.
John Burns
>>>>>>Graham
Another libellous statement - we are doing well.
>Do it John! Just Do it! Don't babel you shit about it here, your a moron,
>your words mean nothing.
Wait and see. Actually words do mean something that's the whole point of libel.
>Personally I'd rather you not learn how to do attribute, for Amiga needs
>plenty more like you showing what class of people support Amiga. And
>although they have plenty, there is always room for more.
Like you? Someone who by his own admission had a poor education in his native
language that you find it hard to write proper English.
John Burns
>Brian Team *AMIGA*
Yeah, you're right. Apologies everyone (except Tim, that is. Sorry couldn't resist. ;) )
John Burns
You are right of course Tim, what would be the point. I wouldn't want any money
and proving the case wouldn't change anything since everyone knows you are an
idiot anyway. Another reason I won't do it is because it'd doubtless just reinforce
your silly belief that everyone is out to get you. They aren't, not even me.