You wanted an example of a price drop...
Alan Baker
of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
$199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
the price was $99."
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
...in six months...
...but they dropped the price 60%...
...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Sandman
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> the price was $99."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>
> ...in six months...
>
> ...but they dropped the price 60%...
>
> ...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
The reason must have been that the Razr was a failure and they never
sold more than 146,000 units and they had to lower the price to make
people take it off the shelves... :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-94559A.09...@News.Individual.NET on 9/8/07 12:00 AM:
Just another example of Motorola price gouging! How dare they lower prices!
They would have really shown themselves to be evil if they had offered
refunds or credits to people who purchased it at the higher price. Damned
scoundrels!
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
ed
news:mr-94559A.09...@News.Individual.NET...
uhh, actually, the gist is kind of right, if you squint at it right... razr
started out high priced, exclusive, and super profitable- competition came
quickly, forcing motorola to cut prices quickly, eating into margins- but
the higher volume made up for it initially- but it diluted the brand,
causing more price cuts, and motorola has had losses the past two quarters
despite continued high sales of the razr...
Edwin
> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> the price was $99."
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>
> ...in six months...
After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
> ...but they dropped the price 60%...
After they pocketed $499 x 5 million.
> ...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
After they sold another 7 million units.
That's $199 x 7 million in addition to the previous figures.
"RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
50 million had been sold."
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
Edwin
> In article <alangbaker-E427C5.23394107092...@news.telus.net>,
"RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
50 million had been sold."
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
Your efforts to equate Apple to Motorola is further proof of how
despicably dishonest Mac Advocates are.
Steve Carroll
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over backwards
on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit when the
opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here. Alan's
comparison is off the mark.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
"People can *not* make their own ring tones without hacks or work-arounds".-Snit
Snit
noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/8/07 6:58 PM:
>> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
>> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
>> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
>
> I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over backwards
> on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit when
> the opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here. Alan's
> comparison is off the mark.
I am not saying it has been shown that Apple was *not* price gouging... but
I *am* defending the idea that they should be presumed innocent of doing so
unless or until they are proved to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you have such proof? If so I would love to hear it.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
John C. Randolph
> On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
>> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
>> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
>> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
>> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
>> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
>> the price was $99."
>>
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
>> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>>
>> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>>
>> ...in six months...
>
> After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
Moto sold 5M units in six months. Apple sold 270K units in 30 hours.
We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably
won't until the next quarterly report.
-jcr
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > The reason must have been that the Razr was a failure and they never
> > sold more than 146,000 units and they had to lower the price to make
> > people take it off the shelves... :)
>
> "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> 50 million had been sold."
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
>
> Your efforts to equate Apple to Motorola is further proof of how
> despicably dishonest Mac Advocates are.
Sorry, I was using what you taught me. After all, you've been spot-on
with regards to the failure of the iPod and iPhone so far, so I just
assumed what you said about the iPhone would be true for other
failures in the market place.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/8/07 6:58 PM:
>
> >> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
> >> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
> >> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
> >
> > I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over
> > backwards
> > on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit
> > when
> > the opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here. Alan's
> > comparison is off the mark.
>
> I am not saying it has been shown that Apple was *not* price gouging...
So then... what are you saying? Let's take a look:
"I can see where people would have a reasonable concern about the re-sale price
they hoped to get ... but to call it price gouging is just silly..." - Snit
"You really have no idea why your current "price gouging" claim is funny..."
"To call it "price gouging" is a bit absurd".
> but
> I *am* defending the idea that they should be presumed innocent of doing so
> unless or until they are proved to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Do you have such proof? If so I would love to hear it.
They should be "presumed innocent" of a "feeling" I (and many others) have that
the iPhone's price was too high for the marketplace? LOL! Put down the crack
pipe... and soon;)
Edwin
"John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
news:2007090822404650073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> On 2007-09-08 16:19:25 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> said:
>
>> On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
>>> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
>>> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
>>> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
>>> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
>>> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
>>> the price was $99."
>>>
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
>>> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>>>
>>> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>>>
>>> ...in six months...
>>
>> After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
>
> Moto sold 5M units in six months.
Tremedously more units than Apple sold before a price cut, and after a
longer sales period than Apple's price cut too.
> Apple sold 270K units in 30 hours.
Yet there were only 146,000 activations. It seems all those horders who
counted on reselling on eBay made a bad investment.
> We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably won't
> until the next quarterly report.
We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499 each,
nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and that
Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
Apple juiced its rabid fans, and after it was sure it had squeezed all of
them dry, it screwed them with a price drop.
The icing on the cake is how Apple zealots are making fun of iPhone buyers
for complaining about taking it up the tailpipe.
Edwin
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
Thanks, Steve. Your honesty and sensibility are a refreshing change of
pace from the usual replies one sees in this group. :-)
Now the question that remains was did Alan Baker post without bothering to
check his facts (as usual), or was he being deliberately dishonest (again)?
Edwin
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C308A400.8FD96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/8/07 6:58 PM:
>
>>> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
>>> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
>>> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
>>
>> I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over
>> backwards
>> on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit
>> when
>> the opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here.
>> Alan's
>> comparison is off the mark.
>
> I am not saying it has been shown that Apple was *not* price gouging...
> but
> I *am* defending the idea that they should be presumed innocent of doing
> so
> unless or until they are proved to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Do you have such proof?
It's already been shown to you many times.
> If so I would love to hear it.
No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be ignoring it if that were true.
Snit
Blaming Apple for the act of price gouging is, when we have no evidence, a
wrong thing to do. What your feelings are is irrelevant. I believe they
should be considered innocent of price gouging until or unless there is
ample reason to support the accusation.
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. --Albert Einstein
Snit
ztqdnfJqt_0OuXnb...@comcast.com on 9/9/07 9:49 AM:
If you had any support you would be screaming if from the highest
mountain... but you have none.
OK.
Edwin
As I said above, it's already been presented many times.
> but you have none.
As if anybody needed further proof you're a bald-faced liar.
> OK.
No it isn't.
Edwin
> In article <1189294548....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > The reason must have been that the Razr was a failure and they never
>> > sold more than 146,000 units and they had to lower the price to make
>> > people take it off the shelves... :)
>>
>> "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
>> in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
>> 50 million had been sold."
>>
>> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
>>
>> Your efforts to equate Apple to Motorola is further proof of how
>> despicably dishonest Mac Advocates are.
>
> Sorry, I was using what you taught me.
You're lying again.
> After all, you've been spot-on
> with regards to the failure of the iPod and iPhone so far, so I just
> assumed what you said about the iPhone would be true for other
> failures in the market place.
Your claim that I am responsible for your dishonest posts is even stupider
and more dishonest than what you usually post.
Snit
So.... back to the topic.
If you have reason to think Apple was price gouging I would love to hear it.
So far the only "defense" of this accusation I have seen is from Carroll,
who admits it is just based on his feelings... feelings he blames Apple for.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Alan Baker
> On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> > of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> > Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> > with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> > Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> > $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> > the price was $99."
> >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> > en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
> >
> > So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
> >
> > ...in six months...
>
> After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
You're still claiming that Apple has only sold and will only sell
146,000 iPhones, are you, Edwin?
>
> > ...but they dropped the price 60%...
>
> After they pocketed $499 x 5 million.
You're sure about that, are you?
Motorola got all of that, did they?
>
> > ...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
>
> After they sold another 7 million units.
>
> That's $199 x 7 million in addition to the previous figures.
>
> "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> 50 million had been sold."
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
>
> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
To me, it looks like dropping the price is one of the things that made
it widely successful.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I did check my facts and I wasn't in the least dishonest.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.n...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
> news:2007090822404650073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> > On 2007-09-08 16:19:25 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> said:
> >
> >> On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> >>> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> >>> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> >>> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> >>> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> >>> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> >>> the price was $99."
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> >>> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
> >>>
> >>> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
> >>>
> >>> ...in six months...
> >>
> >> After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
> >
> > Moto sold 5M units in six months.
>
> Tremedously more units than Apple sold before a price cut, and after a
> longer sales period than Apple's price cut too.
>
> > Apple sold 270K units in 30 hours.
>
> Yet there were only 146,000 activations. It seems all those horders who
> counted on reselling on eBay made a bad investment.
There were only 146,000 activations during those 30 hours.
Given the huge pressure placed on AT&T activation systems, this is
hardly surpising.
>
> > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably won't
> > until the next quarterly report.
>
> We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499 each,
> nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and that
> Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR either...
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Of course... it was Apple that set the price... if they hadn't set it quite so
high (in my opinion, obviously) I would have 'felt' it was more in line with the
competition. Jobs recently admitted that they 'felt' like "being more
aggressive" so they lowered the pricing:
"We're feeling like being more aggressive" - Steve Jobs
See how this stuff works YET? I've explained it to you about 8 or 9 times now...
do you think it will sink in any time soon? ;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
As a potential buyer... my "feelings" on the price are irrelevant?
"It's very clear we have a breakthrough product on our hands, but it's also
clear that many can afford it, some can't. We'd like to make it affordable to
even more folks going into this holiday season." - Steve Jobs
But the "folks" he's talking about... their "feelings" on the price of the
iPhone are "irrelevant", right? ROFL! Do you ever read what you write?
> I believe they should be considered innocent of price gouging
"Innocent" as opposed to guilty? Of what? Pricing too high according to *my*
"feelings"? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Apparently not.
> until or unless there is ample reason to support the accusation.
What accusation? That the price is too high for *me* and the other "folks" Steve
Jobs was referring to when he explained why the prices were being lowered?
Put the crack pipe down now;)
Snit
>> If you have reason to think Apple was price gouging I would love to hear it.
>> So far the only "defense" of this accusation I have seen is from Carroll,
>> who admits it is just based on his feelings... feelings he blames Apple for.
>
> Of course...
And this is one area where we have different world views. I do not blame
Apple, you, or others for *my* feelings nor my thoughts *nor* my actions.
Here you blame Apple for your feelings... elsewhere you have tried to excuse
your actions by making accusations against me and claiming that excuses your
poor behavior.
This shows, from you, an external locus of control. I have an internal
locus of control. Folks with external locus of controls tend to
* have lower goals
* are less ability to delay gratification (which may explain why you
could not appreciate my looking at delayed costs and benefits in
regards to my computer and to the costs of using an iPhone
* are less able to resist coercion and get more benefit from social
support (which may explain why you often on people's views so much)
* are less able to "tolerate" ambiguous situations
* struggle more with mental health recovery in at least some cases
* are more likely to enjoy games based on luck
Please note, Steve, that is just a trend - I am not saying you fit all of
those things... but it is something you might want to think about. for more
info see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control>.
> it was Apple that set the price...
Has anyone questioned this? I know I have not...
> if they hadn't set it quite so high (in my opinion, obviously) I would have
> 'felt' it was more in line with the competition. Jobs recently admitted that
> they 'felt' like "being more aggressive" so they lowered the pricing:
>
> "We're feeling like being more aggressive" - Steve Jobs
Jobs is not blaming or attributing his feelings to anyone else.
>
> See how this stuff works YET? I've explained it to you about 8 or 9 times
> now... do you think it will sink in any time soon? ;)
What do you think I disagree with that you are explaining?
Snit
>> Blaming Apple for the act of price gouging is, when we have no evidence, a
>> wrong thing to do. What your feelings are is irrelevant.
>
> As a potential buyer... my "feelings" on the price are irrelevant?
No. Why would you think so?
> "It's very clear we have a breakthrough product on our hands, but it's also
> clear that many can afford it, some can't. We'd like to make it affordable to
> even more folks going into this holiday season." - Steve Jobs
>
> But the "folks" he's talking about... their "feelings" on the price of the
> iPhone are "irrelevant", right?
Of course not.
> ROFL! Do you ever read what you write?
Sure. Do you ever understand what you read?
>> I believe they should be considered innocent of price gouging
>
> "Innocent" as opposed to guilty? Of what? Pricing too high according to *my*
> "feelings"? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Apparently not.
The topic is your accusation... not your feelings. You act as though you
are unable to disassociate your accusations about others from your feelings.
>> until or unless there is ample reason to support the accusation.
>
> What accusation?
You accused Apple of price gouging.
You *later* said you merely felt this was true. Will you now admit your
initial accusation was unfair?
> That the price is too high for *me* and the other "folks" Steve Jobs was
> referring to when he explained why the prices were being lowered?
Is that an "accusation"? If so, how?
>
> Put the crack pipe down now;)
Once again: you have backed yourself into a corner and are making drug
references.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-95EB33....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 1:09 PM:
>
> >> If you have reason to think Apple was price gouging I would love to hear
> >> it.
> >> So far the only "defense" of this accusation I have seen is from Carroll,
> >> who admits it is just based on his feelings... feelings he blames Apple
> >> for.
> >
> > Of course...
>
> And this is one area where we have different world views.
World views? I thought we were talking about pricing?
> I do not blame Apple, you, or others for *my* feelings
So you don't blame Bush for your "feelings" about what went on in Iraq?
Interesting... considering that you have spent years whining that it's
essentially all Bush's fault. LOL!
> nor my thoughts *nor* my actions.
>
> Here you blame Apple for your feelings
Of course... they set the price of their product that I felt was too high.
Recently they 'felt' that was the case for too many "folks" so they lowered it.
> .. elsewhere you have tried to excuse
> your actions by making accusations against me and claiming that excuses your
> poor behavior.
>
> This shows, from you, an external locus of control. I have an internal
> locus of control. Folks with external locus of controls tend to
> * have lower goals
You're stoned to the bone again, aren't you;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-6AA39B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 1:20 PM:
>
> >> Blaming Apple for the act of price gouging is, when we have no evidence, a
> >> wrong thing to do. What your feelings are is irrelevant.
> >
> > As a potential buyer... my "feelings" on the price are irrelevant?
>
> No. Why would you think so?
LOL!
Snit
> In article <C309A846.8FF27%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-95EB33....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 1:09 PM:
>>
>>>> If you have reason to think Apple was price gouging I would love to hear
>>>> it. So far the only "defense" of this accusation I have seen is from
>>>> Carroll, who admits it is just based on his feelings... feelings he blames
>>>> Apple for.
>>>
>>> Of course...
>>
>> And this is one area where we have different world views.
>
> World views?
Yes. World views. The fact we have different ones may help to explain our
different views on the pricing issue.
> I thought we were talking about pricing?
Of course.
>> I do not blame Apple, you, or others for *my* feelings nor my thoughts *nor*
>> my actions.
>
> So you don't blame Bush for your "feelings" about what went on in Iraq?
Of course not. I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards
to his actions.
> Interesting... considering that you have spent years whining that it's
> essentially all Bush's fault. LOL!
Bush's *actions* are his fault. For the record, Steve, Bush is not
responsible for all of "what went on in Iraq", but maybe in context you just
meant his part of it. In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his*
part in it.
>>
>> Here you blame Apple for your feelings... elsewhere you have tried to excuse
>> your actions by making accusations against me and claiming that excuses your
>> poor behavior.
>>
>> This shows, from you, an external locus of control. I have an internal locus
>> of control. Folks with external locus of controls tend to
>> * have lower goals
>> * are less ability to delay gratification (which may explain why you
>> could not appreciate my looking at delayed costs and benefits in
>> regards to my computer and to the costs of using an iPhone
>> * are less able to resist coercion and get more benefit from social
>> support (which may explain why you often on people's views so much)
>> * are less able to "tolerate" ambiguous situations
>> * struggle more with mental health recovery in at least some cases
>> * are more likely to enjoy games based on luck
>>
>> Please note, Steve, that is just a trend - I am not saying you fit all of
>> those things... but it is something you might want to think about. for more
>> info see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control>.
>
> Of course... they set the price of their product that I felt was too high.
That is not in question. Why even bring it up? Remember, I do not disagree
with you on *who* changed the price or *what* your emotions are - I am
merely noting that you are blaming Apple for *your* feelings... much as you
blame me for your *actions*. This shows an external locus of control on
your part. I am not judging you based on your external locus, just noting
it to see if you have any thoughts on it or what it says about you. It does
help to explain some of the differences you and I have in the way we see
things - I have a very strong internal locus of control, indications are
that you have an external one. So be it.
Still, internal or external locus of controls does not excuse you of not
giving Apple the benefit of a presumption of innocence as you accuse them of
price gouging.
> Recently they 'felt' that was the case for too many "folks" so they lowered
> it.
Again not in question.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Snit
> In article <C309AAD7.8FF34%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-6AA39B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 1:20 PM:
>>
>>>> Blaming Apple for the act of price gouging is, when we have no evidence, a
>>>> wrong thing to do. What your feelings are is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> As a potential buyer... my "feelings" on the price are irrelevant?
>>
>> No. Why would you think so?
>
> LOL!
Why would you think your feelings excuse your unsupported accusations
against others? Please, Steve, answer the question if you can.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-BBE4EB....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 3:54 PM:
>
> > In article <C309A846.8FF27%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-95EB33....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 1:09 PM:
> >>
> >>>> If you have reason to think Apple was price gouging I would love to hear
> >>>> it. So far the only "defense" of this accusation I have seen is from
> >>>> Carroll, who admits it is just based on his feelings... feelings he
> >>>> blames
> >>>> Apple for.
> >>>
> >>> Of course...
> >>
> >> And this is one area where we have different world views.
> >
> > World views?
>
> Yes. World views. The fact we have different ones may help to explain our
> different views on the pricing issue.
>
> > I thought we were talking about pricing?
>
> Of course.
>
> >> I do not blame Apple, you, or others for *my* feelings nor my thoughts
> >> *nor*
> >> my actions.
> >
> > So you don't blame Bush for your "feelings" about what went on in Iraq?
>
> Of course not.
So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on there?
> I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards
> to his actions.
If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel" he is
responsible.
> > Interesting... considering that you have spent years whining that it's
> > essentially all Bush's fault. LOL!
>
> Bush's *actions* are his fault. For the record, Steve, Bush is not
> responsible for all of "what went on in Iraq", but maybe in context you just
> meant his part of it.
No Snit, I was talking about everything that has ever happened in Iraq and
everything that ever twill happen there <shaking head in total disbelief>.
By the way... that last line was sarcasm.
> In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his*
> part in it.
So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
Snit
>>> So you don't blame Bush for your "feelings" about what went on in Iraq?
>>>
>> Of course not.
>>
> So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on there?
What? See below...
>> I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards to his actions.
>>
> If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel" he is
> responsible.
See below
>>> Interesting... considering that you have spent years whining that it's
>>> essentially all Bush's fault. LOL!
>>
>> Bush's *actions* are his fault. For the record, Steve, Bush is not
>> responsible for all of "what went on in Iraq", but maybe in context you just
>> meant his part of it.
>
> No Snit, I was talking about everything that has ever happened in Iraq and
> everything that ever twill happen there <shaking head in total disbelief>.
>
> By the way... that last line was sarcasm.
>
>> In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his* part in it.
>
> So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
See below
You keep asking, in different words, if I *really* believe in the idea of
personal responsibility - where Bush is responsible for his actions and
thoughts and feelings, you are responsible for yours, and I am responsible
for mine.
Yes, Steve, I *really* believe in the idea of personal responsibility. It
is amazing how foreign the concept is to you.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Donald McDaniel
On 9/8/07 7:09 PM, in article C308A400.8FD96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/8/07 6:58 PM:
>
>>> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
>>> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
>>> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
>>
>> I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over
>> backwards
>> on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit when
>> the opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here. Alan's
>> comparison is off the mark.
>
> I am not saying it has been shown that Apple was *not* price gouging... but
> I *am* defending the idea that they should be presumed innocent of doing so
> unless or until they are proved to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Do you have such proof? If so I would love to hear it.
>
Ambiguous innuendo and ad hominem "arguments" are the long suits of
propagandists. You will never see their "proof", since they have
none...just innuendo and double-talk. If they are proven to be wrong about
one of their lies about Apple's "greatness", they then use "common humanity"
as the excuse for Apple's grab for our dollars.
Anyway, we are all "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of
our peers". Since Apple will probably never answer to a "real" jury of its
peers, concepts like that are useless in the "court room" of the Market
Place, where public impressions and consistent lies are the "evidence"
presented in that Court.
--
Donald McDaniel
Snit
C30A23E3.1928%ortho...@comcast.net on 9/9/07 10:27 PM:
The weird part is at the very time Steve was denying Apple its presumption
of innocence and claiming they were price gouging (despite his lack of
evidence... even he has stated it is merely based on his feelings) he *also*
was talking about how he felt the need to defend the idea of the presumption
of innocence ... though he could not find anyone other than him who was
actually arguing against it... at least not in CSMA.
Just bizarre.
I will note that he and Tim Adams have been focusing on my comments where I
stated we have no idea what made Apple drop their prices... they claim that
we do have *some* ideas... which is a point I have also stated. Ok, so we
have *some* ideas but no real knowledge. The best they can do to defend
themselves is to focus on silly semantic games. Sad.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > The reason must have been that the Razr was a failure and they never
> >> > sold more than 146,000 units and they had to lower the price to make
> >> > people take it off the shelves... :)
> >>
> >> "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> >> in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> >> 50 million had been sold."
> >>
> >> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
> >>
> >> Your efforts to equate Apple to Motorola is further proof of how
> >> despicably dishonest Mac Advocates are.
> >
> > Sorry, I was using what you taught me.
>
> You're lying again.
Nopes.
> > After all, you've been spot-on
> > with regards to the failure of the iPod and iPhone so far, so I just
> > assumed what you said about the iPhone would be true for other
> > failures in the market place.
>
> Your claim that I am responsible for your dishonest posts is even stupider
> and more dishonest than what you usually post.
What was dishonest about my post? I made guesses about the reason for
Motorola to dramatically drop the price of their product based on the
reasons you gave for the iPhone.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8DDE8F....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/9/07 5:17 PM:
> >>> So you don't blame Bush for your "feelings" about what went on in Iraq?
> >>>
> >> Of course not.
> >>
> > So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on
> > there?
>
> What? See below...
Running away so soon;)
>
> >> I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards to his actions.
> >>
> > If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel" he is
> > responsible.
>
> See below
There is no answer there.
>
> >>> Interesting... considering that you have spent years whining that it's
> >>> essentially all Bush's fault. LOL!
> >>
> >> Bush's *actions* are his fault. For the record, Steve, Bush is not
> >> responsible for all of "what went on in Iraq", but maybe in context you
> >> just
> >> meant his part of it.
> >
> > No Snit, I was talking about everything that has ever happened in Iraq and
> > everything that ever twill happen there <shaking head in total disbelief>.
> >
> > By the way... that last line was sarcasm.
> >
> >> In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his* part in it.
> >
> > So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
>
> See below
It's just your usual gibberish. Oh well... I expected nothing more from you.
Steve Carroll
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/8/07 7:09 PM, in article C308A400.8FD96%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/8/07 6:58 PM:
> >
> >>> Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
> >>> and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
> >>> price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
> >>
> >> I'm just not getting it... I fail to see why people are bending over
> >> backwards
> >> on this. Apple is like lots of other companies... they will gouge a bit
> >> when
> >> the opportunity arises and that is obviously what has happened here.
> >> Alan's
> >> comparison is off the mark.
> >
> > I am not saying it has been shown that Apple was *not* price gouging... but
> > I *am* defending the idea that they should be presumed innocent of doing so
> > unless or until they are proved to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt.
> >
> > Do you have such proof? If so I would love to hear it.
> >
>
> Ambiguous innuendo and ad hominem "arguments" are the long suits of
> propagandists. You will never see their "proof", since they have
> none...just innuendo and double-talk. If they are proven to be wrong about
> one of their lies about Apple's "greatness", they then use "common humanity"
> as the excuse for Apple's grab for our dollars.
Here's the reality of the situation... no matter how stoned you and Snit get I
am free to believe that Apple initially overcharged for their iPhone. I don't
need to "prove" that to anyone... it's not like I said they were "guilty" of
criminal wrongdoing in a public forum.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Of course I think the iPhone was overpriced for many "folks", in fact, Steve
Jobs thought the same thing... which is why he lowered the price for those
"folks":
We'd like to make it affordable to even more folks going into this holiday
season." - Steve Jobs
Now go lock the medicine cabinet;)
Steve Carroll
This necessarily presumes that I am stating Apple is guilty of something. I said
I "feel" they are price gouging... even you admit to this in this very post, you
ignorant fool:
"even he has stated it is merely based on his feelings"
See how easy it was to catch you being disingenuous? Into the light you went and
you were seen for what you are. I wonder what Donald will think about this?
> and claiming they were price gouging (despite his lack of
> evidence... even he has stated it is merely based on his feelings) he *also*
> was talking about how he felt the need to defend the idea of the presumption
> of innocence ... though he could not find anyone other than him who was
> actually arguing against it... at least not in CSMA.
Sure, Snit... and here you are... presuming Bush's innocence...
"Bush is guilty of breaking the law" - Snit
"Seems you are trying to change my claim that Bush is guilty to Bush has
committed an offense" - Snit
"Bush is guilty of breaking laws and doing morally reprehensible things" - Snit
I wonder if Donald is willing to recognize that you just lied to him twice?
> Just bizarre.
Yes, your easily proven lies were "Just bizarre".
Snit
>> The weird part is at the very time Steve was denying Apple its presumption
>> of innocence and claiming they were price gouging (despite his lack of
>> evidence... even he has stated it is merely based on his feelings)
>
> Of course I think the iPhone was overpriced for many "folks",
Irrelevant.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
>> See below
>
> It's just your usual gibberish. Oh well... I expected nothing more from you.
>> You keep asking, in different words, if I *really* believe in the idea of
>> personal responsibility - where Bush is responsible for his actions and
>> thoughts and feelings, you are responsible for yours, and I am responsible
>> for mine.
>>
>> Yes, Steve, I *really* believe in the idea of personal responsibility. It is
>> amazing how foreign the concept is to you.
Personal responsibility is not "gibberish", Steve. Each of your questions
can be answered by my saying I believe in personal responsibility:
Steve:
So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on
there [in Iraq]?
He *is* responsible for his actions. He is not responsible for my feelings.
Snit:
I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards to
his actions.
Steve:
If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel"
he is responsible.
He *is* responsible for his actions. I believe in personal responsibility
for him as well as for you and for me.
Snit:
In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his* part in it.
Steve:
So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
Of course... personal responsibility. Again.
Did you mean to call personal responsibility "gibberish"? If you offer a
retraction I will accept it - maybe you just did not understand what you
were reading.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
>> Ambiguous innuendo and ad hominem "arguments" are the long suits of
>> propagandists. You will never see their "proof", since they have none...just
>> innuendo and double-talk. If they are proven to be wrong about one of their
>> lies about Apple's "greatness", they then use "common humanity" as the excuse
>> for Apple's grab for our dollars.
>>
> Here's the reality of the situation... no matter how stoned you and Snit get
> I am free to believe that Apple initially overcharged for their iPhone. I
> don't need to "prove" that to anyone... it's not like I said they were
> "guilty" of criminal wrongdoing in a public forum.
Nobody has asked you to prove your feelings, Steve. Nobody.
Edwin
> In article <ArGdne_9Td6It3nbnZ2dnUVZ_jadn...@comcast.com>,
>
>
>
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > The reason must have been that the Razr was a failure and they never
> > >> > sold more than 146,000 units and they had to lower the price to make
> > >> > people take it off the shelves... :)
>
> > >> "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> > >> in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> > >> 50 million had been sold."
>
> > >>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
>
> > >> Your efforts to equate Apple to Motorola is further proof of how
> > >> despicably dishonest Mac Advocates are.
>
> > > Sorry, I was using what you taught me.
>
> > You're lying again.
>
> Nopes.
You're lying again.
> > > After all, you've been spot-on
> > > with regards to the failure of the iPod and iPhone so far, so I just
> > > assumed what you said about the iPhone would be true for other
> > > failures in the market place.
>
> > Your claim that I am responsible for your dishonest posts is even stupider
> > and more dishonest than what you usually post.
>
> What was dishonest about my post?
You know full well what was dishonest about it.
> I made guesses about the reason for
> Motorola to dramatically drop the price of their product
You didn't present anything you wrote as a guess, you presented it as
fact.
> based on the
> reasons you gave for the iPhone.
Don't blame me for your dishonesty. It's all YOU.
Edwin
> In article <DcOdnVJmEcQlv3nbnZ2dnUVZ_t6on...@comcast.com>,
>
>
>
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >news:noone-E166B2....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
You're lying again.
Edwin
> In article <qMOdnfv7q4Y-vHnbnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn...@comcast.com>,
>
>
>
> "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > "John C. Randolph" <jcr.nos...@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:2007090822404650073-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> > > On 2007-09-08 16:19:25 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> said:
>
> > >> On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >>> "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> > >>> of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> > >>> Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> > >>> with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> > >>> Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> > >>> $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> > >>> the price was $99."
>
> > >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> > >>> en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> > >>> So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>
> > >>> ...in six months...
>
> > >> After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
>
> > > Moto sold 5M units in six months.
>
> > Tremedously more units than Apple sold before a price cut, and after a
> > longer sales period than Apple's price cut too.
>
> > > Apple sold 270K units in 30 hours.
>
> > Yet there were only 146,000 activations. It seems all those horders who
> > counted on reselling on eBay made a bad investment.
>
> There were only 146,000 activations during those 30 hours.
>
> Given the huge pressure placed on AT&T activation systems, this is
> hardly surpising.
There still have been no reports of more activations, and that means a
significant number, not just one more.
And again, it's obvious that Apple didn't drop the price because they
were having no trouble selling lots of iPhones for $499 and $599 each.
>
> > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably won't
> > > until the next quarterly report.
>
> > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499 each,
> > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and that
> > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
>
> Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR either...
After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000. You'd
have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
Motorola.
Edwin
> In article <1189293565.819839.115...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> > > of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> > > Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> > > with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> > > Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> > > $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> > > the price was $99."
>
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600&
> > > en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> > > So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
>
> > > ...in six months...
>
> > After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
>
> 146,000 iPhones, are you, Edwin?
Have you got documentation of any further sales at the original price,
Alan?
>
> > > ...but they dropped the price 60%...
>
> > After they pocketed $499 x 5 million.
>
> You're sure about that, are you?
>
> Motorola got all of that, did they?
I see you're desperately attempting to shift the argument to something
you think you can win.
>
>
>
> > > ...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
>
> > After they sold another 7 million units.
>
> > That's $199 x 7 million in addition to the previous figures.
>
> > "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> > in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> > 50 million had been sold."
>
> >http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
>
> > Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
> > and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
> > price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
>
> To me, it looks like dropping the price is one of the things that made
> it widely successful.
That would be because you're an idiot. They sold FIVE MILLION phones
for $499 each before they dropped the price.
Don't you ever get tired of keeping your head up your arse? I ask
for information only.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-B1091D....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 6:36 AM:
>
> >> See below
> >
> > It's just your usual gibberish. Oh well... I expected nothing more from
> > you.
>
> >> You keep asking, in different words, if I *really* believe in the idea of
> >> personal responsibility - where Bush is responsible for his actions and
> >> thoughts and feelings, you are responsible for yours, and I am responsible
> >> for mine.
> >>
> >> Yes, Steve, I *really* believe in the idea of personal responsibility. It
> >> is
> >> amazing how foreign the concept is to you.
>
> Personal responsibility is not "gibberish", Steve.
No... but your version of it is... as shown below. You won't even take personal
responsibility for something that you wrote below.
> Each of your questions
> can be answered by my saying I believe in personal responsibility:
>
> Steve:
> So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on
> there [in Iraq]?
>
> He *is* responsible for his actions.
The answer you just gave to my question tells me that you do feel he is
responsible for his actions in Iraq.
> He is not responsible for my feelings.
LOL! Now you backtrack. You obviously feel that Bush "*is*" responsible for his
actions in Iraq to the point where you are willing to exclaim he "*is*"
publicly. To pretend otherwise is absurd as you just exclaimed it when you
answered my question.
You are either unwilling to take "Personal responsibility" for your answer or
you do not understand the context that you gave the answer in.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-7E8367....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 6:39 AM:
>
> >> Ambiguous innuendo and ad hominem "arguments" are the long suits of
> >> propagandists. You will never see their "proof", since they have
> >> none...just
> >> innuendo and double-talk. If they are proven to be wrong about one of
> >> their
> >> lies about Apple's "greatness", they then use "common humanity" as the
> >> excuse
> >> for Apple's grab for our dollars.
> >>
> > Here's the reality of the situation... no matter how stoned you and Snit
> > get
> > I am free to believe that Apple initially overcharged for their iPhone. I
> > don't need to "prove" that to anyone... it's not like I said they were
> > "guilty" of criminal wrongdoing in a public forum.
>
> Nobody has asked you to prove your feelings, Steve. Nobody.
You called my feeling an accusation and then asked me to provide support for it.
Since when is a feeling an accusation? You have repeatedly stated that even *I*
have admitted I had a "feeling" about the iPhone's price being too high (I *do*
feel that it was too high... never said anything otherwise) Then, when you
thought you were being clever, you tried to turn my "feeling" into an
accusation... one that you began asking me to provide support for. Are you so
delusional that you will deny having done this? LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
LOL!
Snit
>>>> See below
>>>
>>> It's just your usual gibberish. Oh well... I expected nothing more from
>>> you.
>>
>>>> You keep asking, in different words, if I *really* believe in the idea of
>>>> personal responsibility - where Bush is responsible for his actions and
>>>> thoughts and feelings, you are responsible for yours, and I am responsible
>>>> for mine.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Steve, I *really* believe in the idea of personal responsibility. It
>>>> is amazing how foreign the concept is to you.
>>
>> Personal responsibility is not "gibberish", Steve. Each of your questions
>> can be answered by my saying I believe in personal responsibility:
>>
>> Steve:
>> So you *don't* "feel" that he bears any responsibility for what went on
>> there [in Iraq]?
>>
>> He *is* responsible for his actions.
>
> The answer you just gave to my question tells me that you do feel he is
> responsible for his actions in Iraq.
He *is* responsible his a action, Steve. *IS* Just as you are responsible
for your actions... and I am responsible for mine.
>
>> He is not responsible for my feelings.
>
> LOL! Now you backtrack.
Incorrect. He is responsible for his *actions*. Not my *feelings*.
Can you understand the difference between his actions and my feelings?
> You obviously feel that Bush "*is*" responsible for his actions in Iraq
Gee, you figured that out all on your own, eh? Sigh.
> to the point where you are willing to exclaim he "*is*" publicly.
Yes, Steve, I will *publicly* state that Bush holds personal responsibility
for his actions. How many times do you need to go over this?
> To pretend otherwise is absurd as you just exclaimed it when you answered my
> question.
Who do you think is pretending otherwise?
>
> You are either unwilling to take "Personal responsibility" for your answer or
> you do not understand the context that you gave the answer in.
I take responsibility for my comments... but not your silly accusation and
insinuations.
>> He *is* responsible for his actions. He is not responsible for my feelings.
>>
>> Snit:
>> I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards to
>> his actions.
>>
>> Steve:
>> If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel"
>> he is responsible.
>>
>> He *is* responsible for his actions. I believe in personal responsibility
>> for him as well as for you and for me.
>>
>> Snit:
>> In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his* part in it.
>>
>> Steve:
>> So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
>>
>> Of course... personal responsibility. Again.
>>
>> Did you mean to call personal responsibility "gibberish"? If you offer a
>> retraction I will accept it - maybe you just did not understand what you were
>> reading.
OK... so you did not retract your claim that you think personal
responsibility is "gibberish". Weird. I had truly hoped you had merely
worded something poorly when you called personal responsibility "gibberish".
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > After all, you've been spot-on
> > > > with regards to the failure of the iPod and iPhone so far, so I just
> > > > assumed what you said about the iPhone would be true for other
> > > > failures in the market place.
> >
> > > Your claim that I am responsible for your dishonest posts is even stupider
> > > and more dishonest than what you usually post.
> >
> > What was dishonest about my post?
>
> You know full well what was dishonest about it.
If I did, I wouldn't ask you.
> > I made guesses about the reason for
> > Motorola to dramatically drop the price of their product
>
> You didn't present anything you wrote as a guess, you presented it as
> fact.
The phrase "must have been" means that it was a guess. If it was
stated as a fact, it would have been phrased as "The reason is", not
"The reason must have been".
> > based on the
> > reasons you gave for the iPhone.
>
> Don't blame me for your dishonesty. It's all YOU.
Since I'm not dishonest, I don't know what you're talking about.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I got it, Snit', you feel that Bush bears responsibility for his actions in Iraq.
> *IS* Just as you are responsible
> for your actions... and I am responsible for mine.
Yes, you are responsible for what you have written here. I asked you a question
and you answered it based on what you 'felt' was the right answer.
> >> He is not responsible for my feelings.
> >
> > LOL! Now you backtrack.
>
> Incorrect. He is responsible for his *actions*. Not my *feelings*.
>
> Can you understand the difference between his actions and my feelings?
I'm not asking about Bush's actions... I asked you if you feel Bush "bears any
responsibility for what went on there [in Iraq]?"
You said you do feel he bears responsibility. Why are you trying to make this
more complicated than it is?
> > You obviously feel that Bush "*is*" responsible for his actions in Iraq
>
> Gee, you figured that out all on your own, eh? Sigh.
Like I said, you feel that way, I'm glad to see you finally admit it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-9A29A4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 6:55 AM:
>
> >>> Anyway, we are all "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury
> >>> of
> >>> our peers". Since Apple will probably never answer to a "real" jury of
> >>> its
> >>> peers, concepts like that are useless in the "court room" of the Market
> >>> Place, where public impressions and consistent lies are the "evidence"
> >>> presented in that Court.
> >>>
> >> The weird part is at the very time Steve was denying Apple its presumption
> >> of
> >> innocence
> >>
> > This necessarily presumes that I am stating Apple is guilty of something.
>
> You accused Apple of price gouging.
I said Apple is "guilty" of price gouging? Where?
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
What part of what I posted was not factual, Edwin?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Once again: absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.
>
> And again, it's obvious that Apple didn't drop the price because they
> were having no trouble selling lots of iPhones for $499 and $599 each.
You're concluding that, but you don't know it for a fact.
> >
> > > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably
> > > > won't
> > > > until the next quarterly report.
> >
> > > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499
> > > each,
> > > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and that
> > > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
> >
> > Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR either...
>
> After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000. You'd
> have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
> Motorola.
I claimed that Motorola dropped the price of a popular product by a
large amount. Nothing more.
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 12:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <1189293565.819839.115...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 8, 1:39 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > "Mobile phones tend to be more prone to price declines because the pace
> > > > of product introductions is faster than for televisions or DVD players.
> > > > Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultrathin Razr phone for $499
> > > > with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six months later,
> > > > Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped the price to
> > > > $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005,
> > > > the price was $99."
> >
> > > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?ex=1346817600
> > > > &
> > > > en=915fa767929b0f14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
> >
> > > > So Motorola dropped the price of the Razr...
> >
> > > > ...in six months...
> >
> > > After they sold 5 million units, not 146,000.
> >
> > You're still claiming that Apple has only sold and will only sell
> > 146,000 iPhones, are you, Edwin?
>
> Have you got documentation of any further sales at the original price,
> Alan?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours.
>
> >
> > > > ...but they dropped the price 60%...
> >
> > > After they pocketed $499 x 5 million.
> >
> > You're sure about that, are you?
> >
> > Motorola got all of that, did they?
>
> I see you're desperately attempting to shift the argument to something
> you think you can win.
LOL
I have no need to "win", Edwin.
I've posted facts.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > ...and before a year had passed, they'd dropped the price 80%.
> >
> > > After they sold another 7 million units.
> >
> > > That's $199 x 7 million in addition to the previous figures.
> >
> > > "RAZR sold 5 million units in the second quarter of 2005, 12 million
> > > in the third quarter, and by July 2006, two years after its unveiling,
> > > 50 million had been sold."
> >
> > >http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/07/iphone_may_sell_fast_but_not_r.html
> >
> > > Motorola dropped its prices after the Rarz became widely successful
> > > and massively profitable. To equate Apple price cuts to Motorola
> > > price cuts proves that Maccies are desperate and dishonest.
> >
> > To me, it looks like dropping the price is one of the things that made
> > it widely successful.
>
> That would be because you're an idiot. They sold FIVE MILLION phones
> for $499 each before they dropped the price.
>
> Don't you ever get tired of keeping your head up your arse? I ask
> for information only.
And FIVE MILLION is a lot less than FIFTY MILLION, isn't it?
Please show that they would have sold the other FORTY-FIVE MILLION if
they hadn't dropped the price.
Alan Baker
You regularly present your guesses as fact.
For instance, since there have been no additional reports from AT&T
about iPhone activations, you're guessing that there haven't actually
been any activations.
Snit
>>>> He *is* responsible for his actions. He is not responsible for my
>>>> feelings.
>>>>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> I blame Bush for his *actions*, not my feelings in regards to
>>>> his actions.
>>>>
>>>> Steve:
>>>> If you "blame" him then it stands to reason that you must "feel"
>>>> he is responsible.
>>>>
>>>> He *is* responsible for his actions. I believe in personal responsibility
>>>> for him as well as for you and for me.
>>>>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> In that case Bush clearly *is* responsible for *his* part in it.
>>>>
>>>> Steve:
>>>> So you *do* "feel" he bears some responsibility?
>>>>
>>>> Of course... personal responsibility. Again.
>>>>
>>>> Did you mean to call personal responsibility "gibberish"? If you offer a
>>>> retraction I will accept it - maybe you just did not understand what you
>>>> were reading.
>>>>
>> OK... so you did not retract your claim that you think personal
>> responsibility is "gibberish". Weird. I had truly hoped you had merely
>> worded something poorly when you called personal responsibility "gibberish".
On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
We each have personal responsibility.
As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
feelings about his actions.
You call the idea of personal responsibility "gibberish" and complain that
when I state it I am making things "more complicated that it is". It is
*not* complex, Steve. Not at all.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke
Edwin
> In article <1189437613.296842.124...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
You're lying again.
> For instance, since there have been no additional reports from AT&T
> about iPhone activations, you're guessing that there haven't actually
> been any activations.
You're lying again.
I won't accept that there are any new activations until their are
verifiable reports of activations.
You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Not accepting for you, yourself, isn't what you've done.
You've stated that there HAVE BEEN NO ACTIVATIONS.
>
> You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
Do you have any current figures for Windows Vista sales?
What? They're only for last quarter (month, week, yesterday), then
according to your own logic, you can't accept that there have been any
Vista sales since the last report.
There have been a million iPhones sold, Edwin.
Yes or no: do you really think that the bulk of those have been bought
and not activated?
Edwin
> In article <1189438216.900182.81...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Given the uproar about this, AT&T would not have kept new activations
to themselves.
>
> > And again, it's obvious that Apple didn't drop the price because they
> > were having no trouble selling lots of iPhones for $499 and $599 each.
>
> You're concluding that, but you don't know it for a fact.
If you applied the same rules to your own posts, you wouldn't have
made 99% of them!
>
> > > > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably
> > > > > won't
> > > > > until the next quarterly report.
>
> > > > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499
> > > > each,
> > > > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and that
> > > > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
>
> > > Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR either...
>
> > After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000. You'd
> > have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
> > Motorola.
>
> I claimed that Motorola dropped the price of a popular product by a
> large amount. Nothing more.
Isn't it bad enough you're a bald-faced liar without you telling
idiotic lies like that one?
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, Edwin, you shrilling on and on about "Only 146,000
activations!" doesn't constitute an "uproar".
>
> >
> > > And again, it's obvious that Apple didn't drop the price because they
> > > were having no trouble selling lots of iPhones for $499 and $599 each.
> >
> > You're concluding that, but you don't know it for a fact.
>
> If you applied the same rules to your own posts, you wouldn't have
> made 99% of them!
Give some examples...
>
> >
> > > > > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably
> > > > > > won't
> > > > > > until the next quarterly report.
> >
> > > > > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499
> > > > > each,
> > > > > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and
> > > > > that
> > > > > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
> >
> > > > Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR
> > > > either...
> >
> > > After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000. You'd
> > > have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
> > > Motorola.
> >
> > I claimed that Motorola dropped the price of a popular product by a
> > large amount. Nothing more.
>
> Isn't it bad enough you're a bald-faced liar without you telling
> idiotic lies like that one?
What lie is in there, Edwin?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It's pretty evident here that you are unable to post coherently. For instance,
you just tried to quote 5 words from me and even fucked that up. I wrote:
"...more complicated than it is?"
LOL!
Snit
>> On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
>>
>> We each have personal responsibility.
>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>> feelings about his actions.
>>
>> You call the idea of personal responsibility "gibberish" and complain that
>> when I state it I am making things "more complicated that it is". It is
>> *not* complex, Steve. Not at all.
>
> It's pretty evident here that you are unable to post coherently. For instance,
> you just tried to quote 5 words from me and even fucked that up. I wrote:
>
> "...more complicated than it is?"
>
> LOL!
Are you saying you did not understand what you read or that your
responsibility itself is "gibberish" to you?
Either way, of course, you have been arguing *against* me as I note that
adults have personal responsibility for themselves. Sad.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-AD583F....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 3:16 PM:
>
> >> On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
> >>
> >> We each have personal responsibility.
> >> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> >> feelings about his actions.
> >>
> >> You call the idea of personal responsibility "gibberish" and complain that
> >> when I state it I am making things "more complicated that it is". It is
> >> *not* complex, Steve. Not at all.
> >
> > It's pretty evident here that you are unable to post coherently. For
> > instance,
> > you just tried to quote 5 words from me and even fucked that up. I wrote:
> >
> > "...more complicated than it is?"
> >
> > LOL!
>
> Are you saying you did not understand what you read
I'm saying you were incoherent to the point where you fucked up something that
could have better been accomplished with a simple cut and paste, yet, you... the
'IT teacher', couldn't pull that off;)
Snit
> In article <C30B1D6C.902BE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-AD583F....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 3:16 PM:
>>
>>>> On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
>>>>
>>>> We each have personal responsibility.
>>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>>>> feelings about his actions.
...
>>
>> Are you saying you did not understand what you read
>
> I'm saying you were incoherent
We each have personal responsibility.
As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
feelings about his actions.
I admit to being unaware how divorced from the concept of personal
responsibility you are... to the point that you find such simple statements
about it to be "gibberish" and "incoherent". Amazing. Simply amazing.
--
BU__SH__
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-89AEBB....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 4:25 PM:
>
> > In article <C30B1D6C.902BE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-AD583F....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 3:16 PM:
> >>
> >>>> On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
> >>>>
> >>>> We each have personal responsibility.
> >>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> >>>> feelings about his actions.
> ...
> >>
> >> Are you saying you did not understand what you read
> >
> > I'm saying you were incoherent to the point where you fucked up
> > something that could have better been accomplished with a simple
> > cut and paste, yet, you... the 'IT teacher', couldn't pull that off;)
>
> We each have personal responsibility.
> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> feelings about his actions.
And?
> I admit to being unaware how divorced from the concept of personal
> responsibility you are...
I saw you run from the statement you made and pointed it out... so I am
obviously not as "divorced" from it as you are;)
> to the point that you find such simple statements
> about it to be "gibberish" and "incoherent". Amazing. Simply amazing.
And non existent in the real world... I suppose even your fantasies can be
amazing.
Snit
>> We each have personal responsibility.
>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>> feelings about his actions.
>
> And?
You blame Apple for some of your feelings, post accusations against others
to try to excuse your own actions, and claim simple comments about personal
responsibility are (from your perspective) "gibberish" and "incoherent".
Says a lot about you.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-774EBC....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 4:42 PM:
>
> >> We each have personal responsibility.
> >> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> >> feelings about his actions.
> >
> > And?
>
> You blame Apple for some of your feelings,
Yeah...awhile back I 'felt' a little bummed out over the fact that my son's
iMac needed to go in for repairs so soon after having come out of the shop for
repair. Due to what the cause was, I blamed Apple for my 'feeling' that it was
all their fault for the repeat trip. Apple then apologized and admitted it was
all their fault for causing me to have the "feelings" I did about having to go
back a second time. They did not question this one bit. They rightfully agreed
that they were the cause of my "feelings" about their service dept. They took
care of me... I 'felt' better;)
Snit
>>>> We each have personal responsibility.
>>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>>>> feelings about his actions.
>>>
>>> And?
>>
>> You blame Apple for some of your feelings, post accusations against others to
>> try to excuse your own actions, and claim simple comments about personal
>> responsibility are (from your perspective) "gibberish" and "incoherent".
>>
>> Says a lot about you.
>
> Yeah...
And none of it is good. I sincerely hope, Steve, that you at least try to
gain a better sense of personal responsibility. Maybe this will help you:
<http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/responsibility.htm>
-----
When we take responsibility, we admit we are the ones
responsible for the choices we make. We, not other people or
events, are responsible for the way we think and feel. It is
our life, and we are in charge of it. We are free to enjoy
it or disdain it. No, we are not responsible for all that
happens to us, but we are responsible for how we think,
feel, and act when they happen.
-----
Note: nowhere in there does it state that Apple is responsible for how you
feel. :)
> awhile back I 'felt' a little bummed out over the fact that my son's iMac
> needed to go in for repairs so soon after having come out of the shop for
> repair. Due to what the cause was, I blamed Apple for my 'feeling' that it was
> all their fault for the repeat trip. Apple then apologized and admitted it was
> all their fault for causing me to have the "feelings" I did about having to go
> back a second time. They did not question this one bit. They rightfully agreed
> that they were the cause of my "feelings" about their service dept. They took
> care of me... I 'felt' better;)
So?
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-EBA02B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 5:33 PM:
>
> >>>> We each have personal responsibility.
> >>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> >>>> feelings about his actions.
> >>>
> >>> And?
> >>
> >> You blame Apple for some of your feelings
> >
> > Yeah...awhile back I 'felt' a little bummed out over the fact that my son's
> > iMac needed to go in for repairs so soon after having come out of the shop for
> > repair. Due to what the cause was, I blamed Apple for my 'feeling' that it was
> > all their fault for the repeat trip. Apple then apologized and admitted it was
> > all their fault for causing me to have the "feelings" I did about having to go
> > back a second time. They did not question this one bit. They rightfully agreed
> > that they were the cause of my "feelings" about their service dept. They took
> > care of me... I 'felt' better;)
>
> And none of it is good.
Why not? As I said, they took care of it.
Snit
>>>>>> We each have personal responsibility.
>>>>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>>>>>> feelings about his actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> And?
>>>>>
>>>> You blame Apple for some of your feelings, post accusations against others
>>>> to try to excuse your own actions, and claim simple comments about personal
>>>> responsibility are (from your perspective) "gibberish" and "incoherent".
>>>>
>>>> Says a lot about you.
>>>>
>>> Yeah...
>>>
>> And none of it is good.
>
> Why not?
An admitted value judgment by me: I believe we are all responsible for
ourselves. You show you believe we are not - that others are responsible,
in you view, for our feeling and actions and our mistakes. I find this to
be something that is not good... something that I see too much of in the
USA, though - admittedly - not the the extent you show it, where you call
simple statements of personal responsibility "gibberish" and admit that, to
you, they are "incoherent".
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> You blame Apple for some of your feelings
> >>
> >>> Yeah...awhile back I 'felt' a little bummed out over the fact that my son's
> >>> iMac needed to go in for repairs so soon after having come out of the shop for
> >>> repair. Due to what the cause was, I blamed Apple for my 'feeling' that it was
> >>> all their fault for the repeat trip. Apple then apologized and admitted it was
> >>> all their fault for causing me to have the "feelings" I did about having to go
> >>> back a second time. They did not question this one bit. They rightfully agreed
> >>> that they were the cause of my "feelings" about their service dept. They took
> >>> care of me... I 'felt' better;)
> >>
> >> And none of it is good.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> An admitted value judgment by me
That's a strange value judgement for you to make. As I said... they took care of
me. I think you're being a bit too hard on Apple here.
Snit
>>>>>>>> We each have personal responsibility.
>>>>>>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>>>>>>>> feelings about his actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You blame Apple for some of your feelings, post accusations against
>>>>>> others to try to excuse your own actions, and claim simple comments about
>>>>>> personal responsibility are (from your perspective) "gibberish" and
>>>>>> "incoherent".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says a lot about you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah...
>>>>>
>>>> And none of it is good.
>>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> An admitted value judgment by me: I believe we are all responsible for
>> ourselves. You show you believe we are not - that others are responsible, in
>> you view, for our feeling and actions and our mistakes. I find this to be
>> something that is not good... something that I see too much of in the USA,
>> though - admittedly - not the the extent you show it, where you call simple
>> statements of personal responsibility "gibberish" and admit that, to you,
>> they are "incoherent".
>
> That's a strange value judgement for you to make.
I disagree. I think it is sad you have such a poor sense of personal
responsibility.
> As I said... they took care of me.
Learn to take care of yourself.
> I think you're being a bit too hard on Apple here.
I did not mention Apple, Steve.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> You blame Apple for some of your feelings
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yeah...awhile back I 'felt' a little bummed out over the fact that my son's
> >>>>> iMac needed to go in for repairs so soon after having come out of the shop for
> >>>>> repair. Due to what the cause was, I blamed Apple for my 'feeling' that it was
> >>>>> all their fault for the repeat trip. Apple then apologized and admitted it was
> >>>>> all their fault for causing me to have the "feelings" I did about having to go
> >>>>> back a second time. They did not question this one bit. They rightfully agreed
> >>>>> that they were the cause of my "feelings" about their service dept. They took
> >>>>> care of me... I 'felt' better;)
> >>>>
> >>>> And none of it is good.
> >>>
> >>> Why not?
> >>
> >> An admitted value judgment by me
> >
> > That's a strange value judgement for you to make. As I said... they took care of
> > me. I think you're being a bit too hard on Apple here.
>
> I disagree. I think it is sad you have such a poor sense of personal
> responsibility.
Apple even admitted they were responsible... you're making no sense here.
> > As I said... they took care of me.
>
> Learn to take care of yourself.
I'll let Apple handle the repair work on their machines if you don't mind..
> > I think you're being a bit too hard on Apple here.
>
> I did not mention Apple, Steve.
Are you "feeling" OK tonight, Snit?
Snit
The post you responded to:
---------
>> An admitted value judgment by me: I believe we are all responsible for
>> ourselves. You show you believe we are not - that others are responsible, in
>> you view, for our feeling and actions and our mistakes. I find this to be
>> something that is not good... something that I see too much of in the USA,
>> though - admittedly - not the the extent you show it, where you call simple
>> statements of personal responsibility "gibberish" and admit that, to you,
>> they are "incoherent".
>
> That's a strange value judgement for you to make.
I disagree. I think it is sad you have such a poor sense of personal
responsibility.
> As I said... they took care of me.
Learn to take care of yourself.
> I think you're being a bit too hard on Apple here.
I did not mention Apple, Steve.
---------
Gee, Steve, how do you explain your dishonest alteration of what the post
you responded to even contained.
You asked recently if I could point to lies of yours - well, Steve, clearly
you were being dishonest in this thread. I predict you will not take
personal responsibility for your dishonest actions... you simply will snip
and run or otherwise try to dodge.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
> In article <C30B1D6C.902BE%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-AD583F....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/10/07 3:16 PM:
>>
>>>> On and on you go, Steve, but the concept I am sharing is simple:
>>>>
>>>> We each have personal responsibility.
>>>> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
>>>> feelings about his actions.
>>>>
>>>> You call the idea of personal responsibility "gibberish" and complain that
>>>> when I state it I am making things "more complicated that it is". It is
>>>> *not* complex, Steve. Not at all.
>>>
>>> It's pretty evident here that you are unable to post coherently. For
>>> instance,
>>> you just tried to quote 5 words from me and even fucked that up. I wrote:
>>>
>>> "...more complicated than it is?"
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Are you saying you did not understand what you read
>
> I'm saying you were incoherent to the point where you fucked up something that
> could have better been accomplished with a simple cut and paste, yet, you...
> the 'IT teacher', couldn't pull that off;)
You not only cannot understand what you read, Steve, you now are going
completely off topic. What "IT teacher" are you talking about? Are you
actually taking some classes on how to use technology better? If so, good!
But why bring up whatever IT teacher you have in the context of this thread?
Just bizarre.
To get you refused... if that is possible, my view is simple:
We each have personal responsibility.
As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
feelings about his actions.
You have admitted you disagree and find such comments to be "gibberish", and
then repeatedly blame Apple for your *feelings*. I say Apple is responsible
for their actions but *not* your feelings... just as you are responsible for
your actions no matter how many times you try to excuse your poor behavior
by claiming others committed the same acts first.
I truly wish, Steve, that you would gain an understanding for the idea of
personal responsibility and would incorporate it into your life, or at least
your posting to CSMA. Doing so or not, however, is clearly *your*
responsibility - I will not take responsibility for you if you fail to take
responsibility for yourself.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
Snit
C30B771D.9041D%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com on 9/10/07 10:35 PM:
Um, make that re-focused. Oh well. :)
> We each have personal responsibility.
> As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
> feelings about his actions.
>
> You have admitted you disagree and find such comments to be "gibberish", and
> then repeatedly blame Apple for your *feelings*. I say Apple is responsible
> for their actions but *not* your feelings... just as you are responsible for
> your actions no matter how many times you try to excuse your poor behavior
> by claiming others committed the same acts first.
>
> I truly wish, Steve, that you would gain an understanding for the idea of
> personal responsibility and would incorporate it into your life, or at least
> your posting to CSMA. Doing so or not, however, is clearly *your*
> responsibility - I will not take responsibility for you if you fail to take
> responsibility for yourself.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Sandman
> > > You didn't present anything you wrote as a guess, you presented it as
> > > fact.
> >
> > You regularly present your guesses as fact.
>
> You're lying again.
>
> > For instance, since there have been no additional reports from AT&T
> > about iPhone activations, you're guessing that there haven't actually
> > been any activations.
>
> You're lying again.
>
> I won't accept that there are any new activations until their are
> verifiable reports of activations.
What you accept is irrelevant. You're not on record as not accepting
that there probably is more. You're on record claiming that since july
1st, there *hasn't* been any activations. You are explicitly claiming
- without support - that not a single person has activated their
iPhone since july 1st.
That's 854,000 iPhones that, according to you, are not being used.
> You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
Because he has a brain that can use logic.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > > There still have been no reports of more activations, and that means a
> > > significant number, not just one more.
> >
> > Once again: absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.
>
> Given the uproar about this, AT&T would not have kept new activations
> to themselves.
Like MS is keeping Vista sales figures to themselves?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
... was limited to me responding to the following portion:
> >> An admitted value judgment by me:
I still say it was a strange value judgement for you to make.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
No... I understood that you tried to quote 5 simple words and were unable to do
that correctly. Apparently you haven't quite mastered the difficult process of
copy and paste yet;)
>, you now are going completely off topic.
You, misquoting me... is always going to be a topic of discussion when you do it.
> What "IT teacher" are you talking about?
You.
(snip crap)
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Geez... you must have been really stoned last night to have made so many of
these kinds of errors. Go ahead and tell me how they were all just simple typos;)
I spotted it right away with the first 5 or so... but then you got worse as the
night wore on. You need to relax, dude;)
Edwin
> In article <1189457537.237540.291...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
IOW, you've pulled your usual stunt, of getting me to repeat myself
over and over, until I slipped, and wrote "no more activations"
instead of "no reports of further activations."
> > You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> > the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
>
> Do you have any current figures for Windows Vista sales?
WTF to Vista sales have to do with this?
> What? They're only for last quarter (month, week, yesterday), then
> according to your own logic, you can't accept that there have been any
> Vista sales since the last report.
"Windows Vista sales hit 60 million"
"Number of Windows computers headed for one billion"
"By John Fontana, Network World, 07/26/07"
"Redmond, Wash.-- Microsoft Thursday moved to counter criticism about
the uptake of Windows Vista by announcing it now has shipped 60
million copies of the operating system."
""By our math, we eclipsed the entire install base of Apple in the
first five weeks of shipment," Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, said at
the company's annual financial analysts meeting."
> There have been a million iPhones sold, Edwin.
Prove it.
> Yes or no: do you really think that the bulk of those have been bought
> and not activated?
I think you can't document any further activations beyond the initial
146,000.
Edwin
> In article <1189458252.774126.211...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Take a flying leap.
>
>
> > > > > > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we probably
> > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > until the next quarterly report.
>
> > > > > > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at $499
> > > > > > each,
> > > > > > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months, and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices did.
>
> > > > > Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR
> > > > > either...
>
> > > > After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000. You'd
> > > > have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
> > > > Motorola.
>
> > > I claimed that Motorola dropped the price of a popular product by a
> > > large amount. Nothing more.
>
> > Isn't it bad enough you're a bald-faced liar without you telling
> > idiotic lies like that one?
>
> What lie is in there, Edwin?
You tried to equate Apple price cuts to Motorola price cuts. You
did it here, and I called you of your denial of doing it in another
thread where you're still doing it.
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > > > And again, it's obvious that Apple didn't drop the price because they
> > > > > were having no trouble selling lots of iPhones for $499 and $599
> > > > > each.
> >
> > > > You're concluding that, but you don't know it for a fact.
> >
> > > If you applied the same rules to your own posts, you wouldn't have
> > > made 99% of them!
> >
> > Give some examples...
>
> Take a flying leap.
You're reeally short on references these days, Edwin...
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > We don't know yet how many they've sold since then, and we
> > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > until the next quarterly report.
> >
> > > > > > > We know that they couldn't sustain the sales of 4 GB iPhones at
> > > > > > > $499
> > > > > > > each,
> > > > > > > nor the sale of 8 GB iPhones at $599 each, for even two months,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > Apple's prices did not drop for the same reasons as Rarz prices
> > > > > > > did.
> >
> > > > > > Then we "know" Motorola couldn't sustain the price of the RAZR
> > > > > > either...
> >
> > > > > After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000.
That is you explictly claiming that not only have there only been
146,000 iPhone activations, but that there have only been 146,000
iPhones sold. BTW.
> > > > > You'd
> > > > > have to be a moron or Alan Baker to claim Apple is the same as
> > > > > Motorola.
> >
> > > > I claimed that Motorola dropped the price of a popular product by a
> > > > large amount. Nothing more.
> >
> > > Isn't it bad enough you're a bald-faced liar without you telling
> > > idiotic lies like that one?
> >
> > What lie is in there, Edwin?
>
> You tried to equate Apple price cuts to Motorola price cuts. You
> did it here, and I called you of your denial of doing it in another
> thread where you're still doing it.
I gave an example of another company that cut the price of a product
even though it was successful.
Yes, Motorola sold 5 million RAZRs before it dropped the price, but then
it dropped the price farther. Once they dropped the price sales *really*
took off.
Apple has been selling iPhones faster than Motorola sold RAZRs. This is
fact, Edwin. In its first 90 days, the RAZR sold 750,000, while the
iPhone reached 1,000,000 in just 74 days. And the RAZRs first 90 days
included the Christmas buying season.
I never denied *comparing* the price cuts, because they are comparable.
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Actually, when you said it, it wasn't even in reply to something I'd
said.
But you've said it far more than once.
For instance, yesterday:
"After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000."
<1189438216....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
>
> > > You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> > > the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
> >
> > Do you have any current figures for Windows Vista sales?
>
> WTF to Vista sales have to do with this?
It's called an "analogy*, Edwin.
>
> > What? They're only for last quarter (month, week, yesterday), then
> > according to your own logic, you can't accept that there have been any
> > Vista sales since the last report.
>
> "Windows Vista sales hit 60 million"
> "Number of Windows computers headed for one billion"
>
> "By John Fontana, Network World, 07/26/07"
>
> "Redmond, Wash.-- Microsoft Thursday moved to counter criticism about
> the uptake of Windows Vista by announcing it now has shipped 60
> million copies of the operating system."
>
> ""By our math, we eclipsed the entire install base of Apple in the
> first five weeks of shipment," Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, said at
> the company's annual financial analysts meeting."
So you have no reports of any Vista sales beyond those 60 million...
>
> > There have been a million iPhones sold, Edwin.
>
> Prove it.
Prove Motorola sold 5 million RAZRs...
>
> > Yes or no: do you really think that the bulk of those have been bought
> > and not activated?
>
> I think you can't document any further activations beyond the initial
> 146,000.
That doesn't answer my question. Why are you so afraid of that simple
question, Edwin? Why is it so hard for you to simply state your opinion?
Snit
> snip
That is, of course, the best you can do. This is what you snipped (one typo
fixed):
---------
> I'm saying you were incoherent to the point where you fucked up something that
> could have better been accomplished with a simple cut and paste, yet, you...
> the 'IT teacher', couldn't pull that off;)
You not only cannot understand what you read, Steve, you now are going
completely off topic. What "IT teacher" are you talking about? Are you
actually taking some classes on how to use technology better? If so, good!
But why bring up whatever IT teacher you have in the context of this thread?
Just bizarre.
To get you re-focused... if that is possible, my view is simple:
We each have personal responsibility.
As an example: Bush is responsible for his *actions*... not my
feelings about his actions.
You have admitted you disagree and find such comments to be "gibberish", and
then repeatedly blame Apple for your *feelings*. I say Apple is responsible
for their actions but *not* your feelings... just as you are responsible for
your actions no matter how many times you try to excuse your poor behavior
by claiming others committed the same acts first.
I truly wish, Steve, that you would gain an understanding for the idea of
personal responsibility and would incorporate it into your life, or at least
your posting to CSMA. Doing so or not, however, is clearly *your*
responsibility - I will not take responsibility for you if you fail to take
responsibility for yourself.
---------
When the topic is personal responsibility you snip. You cannot handle the
topic. I can accept that... but do no expect me to take responsibility for
your poor behavior.
--
BU__SH__
Snit
>>> To get you refused... if that is possible, my view is simple:
>>
>> Um, make that re-focused. Oh well. :)
>
> Geez... you must have been really stoned last night to have made so many of
> these kinds of errors.
Edwin:
What's "uninformed" about that?
Carroll:
What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors, Steve. Please stop
projecting.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-12C6A6....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 7:59 AM:
>
> >>> To get you refused... if that is possible, my view is simple:
> >>
> >> Um, make that re-focused. Oh well. :)
> >
> > Geez... you must have been really stoned last night to have made so many of
> > these kinds of errors.
>
> Edwin:
> What's "uninformed" about that?
>
> Carroll:
> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
>
> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
Where's my error here?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-EEF227....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 7:55 AM:
>
> > snip
>
> That is, of course, the best you can do.
(Snit said as he ran from the fact that he tried to quote 5 simple words of mine
and was unable to do that correctly. Apparently Snit hasn't quite mastered the
difficult process of copy and paste yet;)
> This is what you snipped (one typo
> fixed):
>
> ---------
> > I'm saying you were incoherent to the point where you fucked up something
> > that
> > could have better been accomplished with a simple cut and paste, yet,
> > you...
> > the 'IT teacher', couldn't pull that off;)
>
> You not only cannot understand what you read, Steve, you now are going
> completely off topic. What "IT teacher" are you talking about? Are you
> actually taking some classes on how to use technology better? If so, good!
> But why bring up whatever IT teacher you have in the context of this thread?
> Just bizarre.
>
> To get you re-focused... if that is possible, my view is simple:
What about this "typo"? The above line previously read:
"To get you refused... if that is possible, my view is simple:"-Snit
You don't know what a "typo" is... too funny;)
Refused? Like you get every night? LOL!
Snit
>> Edwin:
>> What's "uninformed" about that?
>>
>> Carroll:
>> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
>> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
>>
>> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
>
> Where's my error here?
"Uninformed" does *not* mean "he didn't inform anyone about anything"...
really, Steve... look it up.
I see you snipped you talk about why so many errors would be made - drug
abuse. I suggest, Steve, if you are serious about having a drug abuse
problem that you seek help... and not in CSMA. Seriously... I suspect that
you very well may have the drug abuse problem you speak of so often. If so,
it is not a laughing matter or one to use against you in CSMA - it is simply
something you should seek help for and get over.
If you do not have a drug abuse problem you should stop talking about drug
abuse so often and then using that as an explanation for the type of errors
you make so often.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-08DA52....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:00 AM:
>
> >> Edwin:
> >> What's "uninformed" about that?
> >>
> >> Carroll:
> >> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
> >> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
> >>
> >> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
> >
> > Where's my error here?
>
> "Uninformed" does *not* mean "he didn't inform anyone about anything"...
Very good, Snit.! Unfortunately... it has nothing to do with what I was talking
about :(
Here is today's language lesson (in 3 parts, so pay attention... if you able;)
1 - I said that Donald had an uninformed attitude:
"And uninformed attitudes like this"
--
[Note: If you need a definition (and are able to comprehend what you read;),
this is the way I was using the word "attitude":
at?ti?tude (t-td, -tyd)
n.
2. A manner of acting.]
--
2 -Donald made statements regarding Mac programs... statements that contained no
support at all:
"I surely hope someone takes you up on learning to write OS X programs,
since so few are able to create useful OS X programs. I say this because
there is such a paucity of good programs for the Mac, which I attribute to
the paucity of Macintosh developers, as well as Apple developers' long
tradition of refusing to give their customers those features they ask for".
3 - I commented that Donald's attitude or "manner of acting" while making such
statements was "uninformed" due to the fact that he provided no support. Edwin
then asked me what you quoted above - "What's "uninformed" about that?" ("that"
being Donald's attitude or "manner of acting"). Edwin obviously asked because
he wanted to know why I said Donald's attitude or "manner of acting" appeared to
be "uninformed" to me. I replied with what you quoted above - " What's informed
about it?" (the "it" being Donald's attitude or "manner of acting". I then
correctly pointed out that Donald's attitude or "manner of acting" had him
making statements and not showing any support for them, which is why I continued
with: "He provided nothing in the way of substance".
Fact: Donald provided no support for his statements.
I then followed up with: "... he didn't inform anyone about anything..."
Which was a true statement and completely relevant to the statement I made
regarding Donald's attitude or "manner of acting".... but, more to the point,
it answered the question Edwin asked about "that" (again... "that" being
Donald's attitude or "manner of acting").
I can give you language lessons whenever you need them, Snit... don't be ashamed
to ask me;)
Snit
> In article <C30C1B39.90498%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-08DA52....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:00 AM:
>>
>>>> Edwin:
>>>> What's "uninformed" about that?
>>>>
>>>> Carroll:
>>>> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
>>>> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
>>>
>>> Where's my error here?
>>
>> "Uninformed" does *not* mean "he didn't inform anyone about anything"...
>
> Very good, Snit.! Unfortunately... it has nothing to do with what I was
> talking about :(
So you did not mean what you said. As I noted before, Steve, if you just
want to say you worded something poorly and did not mean what you said I am
open to that. Why did you just not admit that right from the beginning.
The sad thing is you feel the need to post tons of obfuscations and BS to
hide your error... look below where you dishonestly pretend to give a
"language lesson". Bizarre and dishonest of you... over 350 words of off
topic silliness from you:
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-88D3EA....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:57 AM:
>
> > In article <C30C1B39.90498%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-08DA52....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:00 AM:
> >>
> >>>> Edwin:
> >>>> What's "uninformed" about that?
> >>>>
> >>>> Carroll:
> >>>> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
> >>>> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
> >>>
> >>> Where's my error here?
> >>
> >> "Uninformed" does *not* mean "he didn't inform anyone about anything"...
> >
> > Very good, Snit.! Unfortunately... it has nothing to do with what I was
> > talking about :(
>
> So you did not mean what you said.
Of course I meant what I said. Edwin asked me a question in a given context and
I answered it.
> As I noted before, Steve, if you just
> want to say you worded something poorly and did not mean what you said I am
> open to that.
Why would I say that? I answered Edwin's question accurately.
> Why did you just not admit that right from the beginning.
Admit what?
> The sad thing is you feel the need to post tons of obfuscations and BS to
> hide your error...
What error? You keep talking about my error and when I ask you to point to it
you quote Edwin asking me a question and me accurately answering him in the
context that it was asked, of course, you are not including the context so you
are obviously confusing yourself;)
Perhaps you're simply insane. LOL!
Get someone to read to you the language lesson I have provided for you below...
--
Edwin
> In article <1189457537.237540.291...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > You didn't present anything you wrote as a guess, you presented it as
> > > > fact.
>
> > > You regularly present your guesses as fact.
>
> > You're lying again.
>
> > > For instance, since there have been no additional reports from AT&T
> > > about iPhone activations, you're guessing that there haven't actually
> > > been any activations.
>
> > You're lying again.
>
> > I won't accept that there are any new activations until their are
> > verifiable reports of activations.
>
> What you accept is irrelevant.
Why are you here arguing with me about it then?
> You're not on record as not accepting
> that there probably is more.
Why is what I don't accept relevant if what I do accept is not
relevant?
> You're on record claiming that since july
> 1st, there *hasn't* been any activations.
I've been claiming no further activations have been reported, and
nobody has proved otherwise.
> You are explicitly claiming
> - without support - that not a single person has activated their
> iPhone since july 1st.
You're lying again.
> That's 854,000 iPhones that, according to you, are not being used.
That's not according to me.
> > You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> > the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
>
> Because he has a brain that can use logic.
He keeps it in his freezer. Maybe one day he'll thaw it out and use
it.
Snit
> In article <C30C2A41.904AD%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-88D3EA....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:57 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C30C1B39.90498%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>>> noone-08DA52....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 9/11/07 10:00 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>> Edwin:
>>>>>> What's "uninformed" about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carroll:
>>>>>> What's informed about it? He provided nothing in the way
>>>>>> of substance... he didn't inform anyone about anything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for explaining why you make so many errors
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's my error here?
>>>>
>>>> "Uninformed" does *not* mean "he didn't inform anyone about anything"...
>>>
>>> Very good, Snit.! Unfortunately... it has nothing to do with what I was
>>> talking about :(
>>
>> So you did not mean what you said.
>
> Of course I meant what I said.
Well, then, I disagree with what you said. I do not think "Uninformed"
means "he didn't inform anyone about anything".
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Edwin
> In article <1189525264.592765.135...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Irrelevant.
> But you've said it far more than once.
>
> For instance, yesterday:
>
> "After selling 5 million phones for $499 each. Not 146,000."
>
> <1189438216.900182.81...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Not the same thing at all.
>
> > > > You're the one who's guessing that there must have been some in spite
> > > > the lack of any reports to support your guesses.
>
> > > Do you have any current figures for Windows Vista sales?
>
> > WTF to Vista sales have to do with this?
>
> It's called an "analogy*, Edwin.
No, it's called "obfuscation," Alan.
>
>
> > > What? They're only for last quarter (month, week, yesterday), then
> > > according to your own logic, you can't accept that there have been any
> > > Vista sales since the last report.
>
> > "Windows Vista sales hit 60 million"
> > "Number of Windows computers headed for one billion"
>
> > "By John Fontana, Network World, 07/26/07"
>
> > "Redmond, Wash.-- Microsoft Thursday moved to counter criticism about
> > the uptake of Windows Vista by announcing it now has shipped 60
> > million copies of the operating system."
>
> > ""By our math, we eclipsed the entire install base of Apple in the
> > first five weeks of shipment," Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, said at
> > the company's annual financial analysts meeting."
>
> So you have no reports of any Vista sales beyond those 60 million...
What has this got to do with your failed attempt to equate Apple price
cuts to Motorola price cuts?
>
> > > There have been a million iPhones sold, Edwin.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Prove Motorola sold 5 million RAZRs...
Already done.
>
>
> > > Yes or no: do you really think that the bulk of those have been bought
> > > and not activated?
>
> > I think you can't document any further activations beyond the initial
> > 146,000.
>
> That doesn't answer my question. Why are you so afraid of that simple
> question, Edwin? Why is it so hard for you to simply state your opinion?
You don't get to shift this discussion from being about facts to being
about my opinions.
Why is it so hard for you to simply show facts to support your
opinions?
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > You regularly present your guesses as fact.
> >
> > > You're lying again.
> >
> > > > For instance, since there have been no additional reports from AT&T
> > > > about iPhone activations, you're guessing that there haven't actually
> > > > been any activations.
> >
> > > You're lying again.
> >
> > > I won't accept that there are any new activations until their are
> > > verifiable reports of activations.
> >
> > What you accept is irrelevant.
>
> Why are you here arguing with me about it then?
I'm not arguing with what you accept.
> > You're not on record as not accepting
> > that there probably is more.
>
> Why is what I don't accept relevant if what I do accept is not
> relevant?
What you accept or not accept is irrelevant.
> > You're on record claiming that since july
> > 1st, there *hasn't* been any activations.
>
> I've been claiming no further activations have been reported, and
> nobody has proved otherwise.
No, you have outright claimed that there has been no activation. Do
you want me to quote you?
> > You are explicitly claiming
> > - without support - that not a single person has activated their
> > iPhone since july 1st.
>
> You're lying again.
Incorrect.
> > That's 854,000 iPhones that, according to you, are not being used.
>
> That's not according to me.
Yes, according to you.
--
Sandman[.net]