How apple doubles its money instantly
Dr. zara
OldCSMAer
"Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
It's hard to defend ProCare.
Edwin
> Split the product in two - charge the same for each.http://www.macrumors.com/
>
> smart business -
"· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over a year.
· Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day service at the
Genius Bar.
· Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the Genius Bar and
The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
· Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your Apple software, and
even clean your monitor and keyboard.
· Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to your new
computer, organize everything into convenient folders, and set up your
system and your new software. "
So much for the "Macs are easier" myth.
MuahMan
"OldCSMAer" <OldC...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:OldCSMAer-786E3...@news.cha.sbcglobal.net...
Should be called "ProScam"
OldCSMAer
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
Sandman
What about it?
--
Sandman[.net]
MuahMan
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-A92028.17...@News.Individual.NET...
I'll explain it to swedish retard........ If macs are so much easier why
does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
and maintainence of the computer.
> --
> Sandman[.net]
Jim
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you implication is that Windows is thus easier, why is there a
*cottage industry* of IT folks around Windows(even for the home user)
not to mention the miles of shelves of Windows fix-it books at Borders,
B&N and so on.
Jim Lee Jr.
> I'll explain it to swedish retard. If macs are so much easier, why
> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
> and maintainence of the computer.
You misspelled "intensive" and "maintenance," and forgot to capitalize
"Swedish" and "Macs."
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
Jim
Dumb, ZERO nothing. Folks won't use Both, doubling the income, they're
smartly choose one or the other.
MuahMan
"Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
news:jpolaski-FB8B4A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Windows isn't running commercials or touting ease of use as a selling point.
They are pretty much the same on ease of use with the nod going slightly in
favor of Windows. Of course there are going to be more Windows fix-it books.
There are like 2,000,000 winboxen to ever 1 Mac on planet earth.
MuahMan
"Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote in message
news:M8GZh.7110$TD3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Split the product in two - charge the same for each.
> http://www.macrumors.com/
>
> smart business -
>
>
LOL, did you read the comments for the fanbois? Two of the idiots bought
ProCare because, "The card they give you is cool looking good to show off to
friends". Wow, holy Kool-Aid chuggin freaks of nature.
Dr. zara
"Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
Glug, glug, glug. You know, fat and alcohol are not a good mix. They slow
the thinking process.
Jim
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're right there since most folks are forced to use Windows because of
work or think they need to because of work, or that someone, usually
misinformed, tells them the things like you and others that there's no
software, or other such crap.
That said, there are commercials on for Windows too.
> They are pretty much the same on ease of use with the nod going slightly in
> favor of Windows.
Um no...
> Of course there are going to be more Windows fix-it books.
> There are like 2,000,000 winboxen to ever 1 Mac on planet earth.
And zillion more problems due to Windows bolted on nature going back to
it's legacy which it needs to dump, desperately after the cheapo windows
users realize that a 10 year old box is worthless.
Mitch
Jim <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote:
> > I'll explain it to swedish retard........ If macs are so much easier why
> > does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
> > and maintainence of the computer.
> >
> > > --
> > > Sandman[.net]
>
> If you implication is that Windows is thus easier, why is there a
> *cottage industry* of IT folks around Windows(even for the home user)
> not to mention the miles of shelves of Windows fix-it books at Borders,
> B&N and so on.
No, ask him how $99 is "expensive."
Ask him where he got the idea that there was any _need_ for these
services.
Ask him why he imagines they apply to computer users in general.
Then force him to explain why the simple existence of this service,
with no idea of how many users it applies to, equates Mac OS to the
horror of Windows (which is infamous for needing enormous numbers of
the same, in much more depth, at several magnitudes more in cost).
Edwin
> In article <1178031730.268953.319...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
above training if Macs were "easier."
They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
updates for you.
So much for the myth that Macs are "easier."
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>
> You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
> above training if Macs were "easier."
How do you figure? Can Macs only be easier if no support was available
or needed at any time? It's not enough that it - for example - needs
less support than other options, it actually has to need no support?
> They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
> updates for you.
I.e. they launch the installer, which also does that for you. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
So here's another private Edwin definition:
"easier" means "so easy that absolutely no one could possibly require
any assistance in using it".
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
Edwin
> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
As if anybody need further proof that Alan Baker is a bald-faced liar.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
> Glug, glug, glug. You know, fat and alcohol are not a good mix. They slow
> the thinking process.
You should know from personal experience.
Edwin
> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>
> > You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
> > above training if Macs were "easier."
>
> How do you figure?
I figure by all the stuff you snipped out of the post.
> Can Macs only be easier if no support was available
> or needed at any time?
That "support" is setting up an ordinary desktop and moving files and
folders over. Small wonder you did all that snipping.
> It's not enough that it - for example - needs
> less support than other options, it actually has to need no support?
The stuff you snipped out doesn't show the Mac needs less support
"than other options."
> > They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
> > updates for you.
>
> I.e. they launch the installer, which also does that for you. :)
So now you're telling us Apple is ripping people off with this service?
Mayor of R'lyeh
us with the following wisdom:
LOL! Be careful! Don't you know that Alan Baker is the center of the
universe and you're just here to serve as backdrop for his exalted
existence?
There was one day recently where he took Snit to task for changing
names to avoid killfilters, took me to task for using a handle and
then posted himself under 'not me'. That was priceless.
It also sums up how Alan looks at the world - he demands everyone else
meet standards that he has no intention of meeting himself. But then
again is it reasonable to try and hold the center of the universe to
the same rules that the 'ordinary' people need to live by?
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling
>>> the above training if Macs were "easier."
>>
>> How do you figure? Can Macs only be easier if no support was
>> available or needed at any time?
>
> That "support" is setting up an ordinary desktop and moving files and
> folders over.
Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
support?
>> It's not enough that it - for example - needs less support than
>> other options, it actually has to need no support?
>
> The stuff you snipped out doesn't show the Mac needs less support
> "than other options."
Nor did it show that it needs more or just as much support. It just
showed support options.
>>> They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and
>>> do updates for you.
>>
>> I.e. they launch the installer, which also does that for you. :)
>
> So now you're telling us Apple is ripping people off with this service?
I think so, yes. But maybe they offer it to people that don't have the
time to do it, or just don't want to be bothered at all. No matter how
easy something is, some people just won't do it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jim
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
Mitch, I think you just did ask ZERO. Perhaps the real question now is
will he dare and honest answer and not a ZERO-nothing answer. Only the
shadow knows....not your hair-dresser(maybe ZERO's though..) knows for
sure.
Jim
"Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
> "Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
> news:jpolaski-03E8E6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <M8GZh.7110$TD3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Split the product in two - charge the same for each.
> >> http://www.macrumors.com/
> >>
> >> smart business -
> >
> > Dumb, ZERO nothing. Folks won't use Both, doubling the income, they're
> > smartly choose one or the other.
>
> Glug, glug, glug. You know, fat and alcohol are not a good mix. They slow
> the thinking process.
No matter (even if it's one of your wishful fabrications), but still
better than your no-thinking process for which you're known as the ZERO.
Dr. zara
"Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
I wonder if anyone on this group decipher what you just said?
Dr. zara
"Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
If you read my OP - you would have seen that I complimented apple for their
business acumen - nothing else. Lay off the sauce.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
I think he's asking for anyone with a ten year old computer running
Windows to take a dump on him.
Snit
1178047414....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 5/1/07 12:23 PM:
> On May 1, 2:02 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>>
>>> You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
>>> above training if Macs were "easier."
>>
>> How do you figure?
>
> I figure by all the stuff you snipped out of the post.
>
>> Can Macs only be easier if no support was available
>> or needed at any time?
>
> That "support" is setting up an ordinary desktop and moving files and
> folders over. Small wonder you did all that snipping.
Moving files is a common support issue on both Macs and PCs. This certainly
does not show the Mac as being harder or even as hard!
>
>> It's not enough that it - for example - needs
>> less support than other options, it actually has to need no support?
>
> The stuff you snipped out doesn't show the Mac needs less support
> "than other options."
Did it show the Mac as needing as much or more?
>>> They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
>>> updates for you.
>>
>> I.e. they launch the installer, which also does that for you. :)
>
> So now you're telling us Apple is ripping people off with this service?
No, he is not.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Edwin
> On 1 May 2007 12:15:47 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> chose to bless
How about those times I admitted to an error, and Alan went on and on
about how I didn't admit it quickly enough (IOW, within minutes)?
Look at all his errors that took him months to admit to. Some he
still owes admissions on, years later.
Edwin
> In article <1178047414.981309.52...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>> You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling
> >>> the above training if Macs were "easier."
>
> >> How do you figure? Can Macs only be easier if no support was
> >> available or needed at any time?
>
> > That "support" is setting up an ordinary desktop and moving files and
> > folders over.
>
> Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
> question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
> support?
Apple isn't selling this service because it thinks nobody needs it.
> >> It's not enough that it - for example - needs less support than
> >> other options, it actually has to need no support?
>
> > The stuff you snipped out doesn't show the Mac needs less support
> > "than other options."
>
> Nor did it show that it needs more or just as much support. It just
> showed support options.
The options weren't offered because Apple thinks nobody needs them,
and the kind of options offered showed that the Mac is no easier than
Windows.
> >>> They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and
> >>> do updates for you.
>
> >> I.e. they launch the installer, which also does that for you. :)
>
> > So now you're telling us Apple is ripping people off with this service?
>
> I think so, yes.
Mac Advocate declares "Apple rips you off!" Film at eleven.
> But maybe they offer it to people that don't have the
> time to do it, or just don't want to be bothered at all.
You're getting mealy-mouthed again.
> No matter how
> easy something is, some people just won't do it.
IOW, expect your Mac TCO to be much higher than for Windows, as was
recently documented.
nospamatall
>
> I'll explain it to swedish retard........ If macs are so much easier why
> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the
> operation and maintainence of the computer.
There's a very simple answer to that... they don't have to.
nospamatall
> In article <CrOdnYPzo4pFxKrb...@adelphia.com>,
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll explain it to swedish retard. If macs are so much easier, why
>> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
>> and maintainence of the computer.
>
> You misspelled "intensive" and "maintenance," and forgot to capitalize
> "Swedish" and "Macs."
>
nospamatall
> You misspelled "intensive" and "maintenance," and forgot to capitalize
> "Swedish" and "Macs."
>
Sorry Jim, it's not the language he is referring to. My mistake
nospamatall
> I'll explain it to swedish retard........ If macs are so much easier why
> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the
> operation and maintainence of the computer.
you're just annoyed because you can't use a service like that because of
all your pirated software!
Andy
nospamatall
> The stuff you snipped out doesn't show the Mac needs less support
> "than other options."
He doesn't need to, the assertion was that the existence of this service
proves that macs are not easier. YOu have to support that. It doesn't
stand on its own logically.
Tim Murray
> I'll explain it to swedish retard........ If macs are so much easier why
> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
> and maintainence of the computer.
To help people such as you, I suppose:
10/02/05: Mac Mini hard as shit to use.
10/02/05: OSX may be even more complicated an Unix.
10/07/05: CTL-A, CTL-C, CTL-V [don't work in OSX, and you no right- click cut
and paste???? WTF was Apple thinking.]
10/07/05: more annoying OSX stuff [If they could just make it more like
Windows it would be sweet. Working installs, some manuals, at little smaller
learning curve, more intuitive features and this comp would be adequate.
12/16/05: Can you plug in a Firewire or USB2 drive into a Mac and load the OS
to it?
12/27/05: Thought it would be easy to just basically image/copy and use the
faster drive to boot from. But noooo.
12/27/05: Why the $%#*! can't I select the firewire drive as the boot???
12/27/05: Amazing that my totally secure OSX machines needs nearly 17 patches
a day to remain safe. WOW
Dr. zara
"nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:f18lds$7qj$4...@aioe.org...
Yeah - that got him. Keep up the good work. I think you sunk him with that
one. You definitely put him in his place. He is CRUSHED. I think this
group has seen the last of MM.
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
> > question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
> > support?
>
> Apple isn't selling this service because it thinks nobody needs it.
I agree, and repeat my question - Can Macs only be easier if no one
would ever need such support?
> > Nor did it show that it needs more or just as much support. It just
> > showed support options.
>
> The options weren't offered because Apple thinks nobody needs them,
> and the kind of options offered showed that the Mac is no easier than
> Windows.
What support options should Apple offer to show to you that Macs are
easier than Windows, then?
--
Sandman[.net]
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Then explain what you mean.
Why is it that Macs can't be easier to use than the available
alternatives simply because Apple provides a service for those who don't
find them easy enough for *them*.
Edwin
> In article <1178046947.305714.4...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
I can't dumb it down enough for you.
> Why is it that Macs can't be easier to use than the available
> alternatives simply because Apple provides a service for those who don't
> find them easy enough for *them*.
It's not just because Apple provides a service, it's because what that
service entails.
Figuring this one out is going to require something you're loathe to
do: THINK!
Edwin
> In article <1178057812.903357.295...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
> > > question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
> > > support?
>
> > Apple isn't selling this service because it thinks nobody needs it.
>
> I agree, and repeat my question - Can Macs only be easier if no one
> would ever need such support?
You ought to know the answer to that. You've seen all the claims
posted here over and over about users providing their own support
while Windows users need a ton of suppport from IT people. Now when
Apple sells the very thing you guys have been yelling Windows users
can't do without, you somehow find it impossible to figure out what
that means.
> > > Nor did it show that it needs more or just as much support. It just
> > > showed support options.
>
> > The options weren't offered because Apple thinks nobody needs them,
> > and the kind of options offered showed that the Mac is no easier than
> > Windows.
>
> What support options should Apple offer to show to you that Macs are
> easier than Windows, then?
There should be no support options needed, in keeping with decades of
claims made by Mac Advocates on this group.
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
How does what the service entails enter into it?
>
> Figuring this one out is going to require something you're loathe to
> do: THINK!
Nope. It requires you to explain rather than evade.
So it's probably never going to happen.
Edwin
> In article <1178139495.974714.47...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
You ought to know.
> > Figuring this one out is going to require something you're loathe to
> > do: THINK!
>
> Nope. It requires you to explain rather than evade.
Thanks for proving me correct about your aversion to thinking.
> So it's probably never going to happen.
I may take pity on you if you keep whimpering. But I'm in no hurry
to do your thinking for you... again.
Edwin
Yes it does. If Macs were easier they wouldn't be able to sell such
a basic level of support, things which any Windows user can easily
accomplish without any assistance, other than maybe perusing a help
file or two.
You may find it convenient to forget all those claims Maccies made
about end users providing all of their own support, but I'm not going
to let you.
Tim Murray
> On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>
> You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
> above training if Macs were "easier."
>
> They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
> updates for you.
>
> So much for the myth that Macs are "easier."
>
Which is easier? Two plus two, or derive the differential equation from thje
observation of a dissipating wave? Humans need training on both, at different
levels.
Further, there will always be those such as yourself who actually need the
toaster directions for Pop-Tarts.
Edwin
> On May 1, 2007, Edwin wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >> They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>
> > You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
> > above training if Macs were "easier."
>
> > They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
> > updates for you.
>
> > So much for the myth that Macs are "easier."
>
> Which is easier? Two plus two, or derive the differential equation from thje
> observation of a dissipating wave? Humans need training on both, at different
> levels.
Thanks for the non sequitor.
> Further, there will always be those such as yourself who actually need the
> toaster directions for Pop-Tarts.
Next time remove your Pop Tart from its packaging before you toast it,
Tim. It'll taste better. Just FYI.
Edwin
> > "MuahMan" <muah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'll explain it to swedish retard. If macs are so much easier, why
> >> does Apple have to supply such expensive, entensive help with the operation
> >> and maintainence of the computer.
>
> > You misspelled "intensive" and "maintenance," and forgot to capitalize
> > "Swedish" and "Macs."
>
> you don't have to capitalize a language.
In American English language names must start with capital letter.
nospamatall
> How does what the service entails enter into it?
>
>> Figuring this one out is going to require something you're loathe to
>> do: THINK!
>
> Nope. It requires you to explain rather than evade.
>
> So it's probably never going to happen.
>
He's not evading, you have to understand something to be evading it. I
think he genuinely doesn't understand that providing this service
doesn't prove or even indicate that macs are not easier to use than
those other things. I think the problem is one of cognition. It has do
do with understanding the difference between a relative and an absolute
term.
Funny, it's always the wintrolls that bring up these silly arguments.
nospamatall
machines to see the flaw in your logic. Some people need training to use
logic pro. Does that mean it is not easier to use than Pro Tools?
nospamatall
Snit
5/2/07 5:23 PM:
There are many simple things I have taught Edwin where someone like him
might benefit: how to use the Control + Scroll Wheel to zoom, how Macs can
play MIDI files, how to streamline PDF workflows, how to avoid malware (easy
on a Mac!), how Intel Macs are Macs... on and on...
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
MuahMan
>As if anybody need further proof that Alan Baker is a bald-faced liar.
Yes, that Alan Baker is a bald-face Canadian liar is confirmed!
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
> > > > question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
> > > > support?
> >
> > > Apple isn't selling this service because it thinks nobody needs it.
> >
> > I agree, and repeat my question - Can Macs only be easier if no one
> > would ever need such support?
>
> You ought to know the answer to that.
Well, at least I think I do. Macs CAN be easier even if there are
support options like this. The presence of a support option is not the
sole determining factor of any device's ease of use. It may be a hint,
at best.
> You've seen all the claims posted here over and over about users
> providing their own support while Windows users need a ton of
> suppport from IT people.
Sure. Or rather, about users that needed no support since they didn't
have any issues. That seems to be more common.
> Now when Apple sells the very thing you guys have been yelling
> Windows users can't do without, you somehow find it impossible to
> figure out what that means.
Well, actually I'm trying to figure out what *you* think it means. I
know what I think it means perfectly fine. :)
> > What support options should Apple offer to show to you that Macs are
> > easier than Windows, then?
>
> There should be no support options needed, in keeping with decades of
> claims made by Mac Advocates on this group.
Ah, so you ARE claming that for Macs to be "easier to use" than
Windows, it should have NO supports options, not just LESS support
options?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
This is true. I looked it up when it was pointed out to me years ago.
I didn't capitalize it since it's not required in Swedish.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.o...@gmail.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>On 1 May 2007 15:09:57 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
>us with the following wisdom:
>
>>On May 1, 2:35 pm, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2007 12:15:47 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On May 1, 2:04 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> >> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> >> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > In article <1178031730.268953.319...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> >> > > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > > On May 1, 7:13 am, "Dr. zara" <D...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > Split the product in two - charge the same for
>>> >> > > > > each.http://www.macrumors.com/
>>>
>>> >> > > > > smart business -
>>>
>>> >> > > > "· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over a year.
>>> >> > > > · Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day service at the
>>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
>>> >> > > > · Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the Genius Bar and
>>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
>>> >> > > > · Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your Apple software, and
>>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
>>> >> > > > · Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to your new
>>> >> > > > computer, organize everything into convenient folders, and set up your
>>> >> > > > system and your new software. "
>>>
>>> >> > > > So much for the "Macs are easier" myth.
>>>
>>> >> > > They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>>>
>>> >> > You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
>>> >> > above training if Macs were "easier."
>>>
>>> >> > They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
>>> >> > updates for you.
>>>
>>> >> > So much for the myth that Macs are "easier."
>>>
>>> >> So here's another private Edwin definition:
>>>
>>> >> "easier" means "so easy that absolutely no one could possibly require
>>> >> any assistance in using it".
>>>
>>> >As if anybody need further proof that Alan Baker is a bald-faced liar.
>>>
>>> LOL! Be careful! Don't you know that Alan Baker is the center of the
>>> universe and you're just here to serve as backdrop for his exalted
>>> existence?
>>> There was one day recently where he took Snit to task for changing
>>> names to avoid killfilters, took me to task for using a handle and
>>> then posted himself under 'not me'. That was priceless.
>>> It also sums up how Alan looks at the world - he demands everyone else
>>> meet standards that he has no intention of meeting himself. But then
>>> again is it reasonable to try and hold the center of the universe to
>>> the same rules that the 'ordinary' people need to live by?
>>
>>How about those times I admitted to an error, and Alan went on and on
>>about how I didn't admit it quickly enough (IOW, within minutes)?
>>Look at all his errors that took him months to admit to. Some he
>>still owes admissions on, years later.
I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
follow? Heresy! 8)
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
Dr. zara
"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lqck331k7jn4cr02q...@4ax.com...
Don't be so hard on Alan. He's one of those "know nothings" who believes he
knows more than anyone. He is an amusing little macminnow.
Steve Carroll
It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and Snit
would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
--
"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
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <lqck331k7jn4cr02q...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:12:21 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh
>> <mayor.o...@gmail.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>> >On 1 May 2007 15:09:57 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
>> >us with the following wisdom:
>> >
>> >>On May 1, 2:35 pm, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 1 May 2007 12:15:47 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> chose to bless
>> >>> us with the following wisdom:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >On May 1, 2:04 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>> >>> >> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>
>> >>> >> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > In article
>> >>> >> > > <1178031730.268953.319...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>
>> >>> >> > > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > On May 1, 7:13 am, "Dr. zara" <D...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > > Split the product in two - charge the same for
>> >>> >> > > > > each.http://www.macrumors.com/
>> >>>
>> >>> >> > > > > smart business -
>> >>>
>> >>> >> > > > "· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over a year.
>> >>> >> > > > · Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day service
>> >>> >> > > > at the
>> >>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
>> >>> >> > > > · Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the Genius
>> >>> >> > > > Bar and
>> >>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
>> >>> >> > > > · Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your Apple
>> >>> >> > > > software, and
>> >>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
>> >>> >> > > > · Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to your new
Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
Snit
d4al331j4ebhph63p...@4ax.com on 5/3/07 8:29 PM:
>>>>> How about those times I admitted to an error, and Alan went on and on
>>>>> about how I didn't admit it quickly enough (IOW, within minutes)? Look at
>>>>> all his errors that took him months to admit to. Some he still owes
>>>>> admissions on, years later.
>>>>>
>>> I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
>>> Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
>>> follow? Heresy! 8)
>>>
>> It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and
>> Snit would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
>>
> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
And is it the legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, or literary sense?
Unless he puts his claims into context how is one supposed to understand
them?
LOL! I bet Steve does not even get how much he is being mocked. :)
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.o...@gmail.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>On 1 May 2007 15:09:57 -0700, Edwin <thor...@juno.com> chose to bless
>us with the following wisdom:
>
>>On May 1, 2:35 pm, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2007 12:15:47 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> chose to bless
>>> us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On May 1, 2:04 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> >> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> >> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > In article <1178031730.268953.319...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> >> > > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > > On May 1, 7:13 am, "Dr. zara" <D...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > > > Split the product in two - charge the same for
>>> >> > > > > each.http://www.macrumors.com/
>>>
>>> >> > > > > smart business -
>>>
>>> >> > > > "· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over a year.
>>> >> > > > · Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day service at the
>>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
>>> >> > > > · Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the Genius Bar and
>>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
>>> >> > > > · Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your Apple software, and
>>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
>>> >> > > > · Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to your new
>>> >> > > > computer, organize everything into convenient folders, and set up your
>>> >> > > > system and your new software. "
>>>
>>> >> > > > So much for the "Macs are easier" myth.
>>>
>>> >> > > They are easier, not effortless. But you know that, silly troll.
>>>
>>> >> > You're only fooling yourself. Apple couldn't make money selling the
>>> >> > above training if Macs were "easier."
>>>
>>> >> > They even set your system up for you, and transfer your files, and do
>>> >> > updates for you.
>>>
>>> >> > So much for the myth that Macs are "easier."
>>>
>>> >> So here's another private Edwin definition:
>>>
>>> >> "easier" means "so easy that absolutely no one could possibly require
>>> >> any assistance in using it".
>>>
>>> >As if anybody need further proof that Alan Baker is a bald-faced liar.
>>>
>>> LOL! Be careful! Don't you know that Alan Baker is the center of the
>>> universe and you're just here to serve as backdrop for his exalted
>>> existence?
>>> There was one day recently where he took Snit to task for changing
>>> names to avoid killfilters, took me to task for using a handle and
>>> then posted himself under 'not me'. That was priceless.
>>> It also sums up how Alan looks at the world - he demands everyone else
>>> meet standards that he has no intention of meeting himself. But then
>>> again is it reasonable to try and hold the center of the universe to
>>> the same rules that the 'ordinary' people need to live by?
>>
>>How about those times I admitted to an error, and Alan went on and on
>>about how I didn't admit it quickly enough (IOW, within minutes)?
>>Look at all his errors that took him months to admit to. Some he
>>still owes admissions on, years later.
I'm inclined to believe that Alan is either a poor little rich boy
whose Daddy bought him out of every screw up no matter how major so he
never learned to be responsible or he grew up abused so he learned to
be hateful or maybe even both.
Either one would explain the haughty self-rightousness he constantly
displays and why he can't stand it when someone in here points out
what a clueless clod he actually is.
Steve Carroll
As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to you.
You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
existed before there was U.S. law.
Snit
noone-5D2CDF....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 2:39 PM:
>>>> I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
>>>> Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
>>>> follow? Heresy! 8)
>>>>
>>> It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and
>>> Snit would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
>>>
>> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
>>
> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
> you. You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a
> wife existed before there was U.S. law.
So, Steve, when did you get married? The last time I asked you it ended up
with you lying:
Snit:
When did Steve get married?
Carroll:
Geez... your memory is shot... lay off the glue;)
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
And yet that link does not have an answer to the question of when you got
married - if at all! I do know as of 22 Mar 2004 you made it clear the you
and the woman you call your "wife" "are not married by either church or
state and do not get the entitlements that our married neighbors get."
After that date, however, you started claiming you *are* married. So,
Steve, the question still stands: *when* did you get marred? I bet you
never did... just another example of you being caught in your lies.
By the way, are you still fantasizing about me emailing your unmarried
"wife"? That was a weird accusation - even for you!
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Alan Baker
"Dr. zara" <Doct...@ballbuster.com> wrote:
"More than anyone"? Hardly.
More than you: that, I'd make book on.
Jolly Roger
>>> Of course there are going to be more Windows fix-it books.
>>> There are like 2,000,000 winboxen to ever 1 Mac on planet earth.
>>
>> And zillion more problems due to Windows bolted on nature going back to
>> it's legacy which it needs to dump, desperately after the cheapo windows
>> users realize that a 10 year old box is worthless.
>
> I wonder if anyone on this group decipher what you just said?
You're the only one unable to comprehend it, Dr. DUH. God you're stupid.
--
(If you send an email to this address, please notify me ahead of time
so I can watch for it among the sea of SPAM that gets filtered out
daily.)
JR
Jolly Roger
>
> "Jim" <jpol...@NOync.net> wrote in message
> news:jpolaski-03E8E6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <M8GZh.7110$TD3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Split the product in two - charge the same for each.
>>> http://www.macrumors.com/
>>>
>>> smart business -
>>
>> Dumb, ZERO nothing. Folks won't use Both, doubling the income, they're
>> smartly choose one or the other.
>
> Glug, glug, glug. You know, fat and alcohol are not a good mix. They slow
> the thinking process.
It's crystal clear you know that from experience.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-5D2CDF....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 2:39 PM:
>
> >>>> I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
> >>>> Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
> >>>> follow? Heresy! 8)
> >>>>
> >>> It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and
> >>> Snit would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
> >>>
> >> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
> >>
> > As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
> > you. You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a
> > wife existed before there was U.S. law.
>
> So, Steve, when did you get married? The last time I asked you it ended up
> with you lying:
>
> Snit:
> When did Steve get married?
Where, Snit, did I ever give you the idea that I have any confidence in your
ability to comprehend the answer if I bothered to show you (and, for the record,
I have *already* bothered to show you, more then once)?
Oh well, I hope you're not *still* running around telling people how you are
ignoring me;)
You're too easy, Snit... just way too easy. LOL!
Snit
noone-5D2CDF....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 2:39 PM:
>>>> I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
>>>> Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
>>>> follow? Heresy! 8)
>>>>
>>> It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and
>>> Snit would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
>>>
>> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
>>
> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
> you. You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a
> wife existed before there was U.S. law.
So, Steve, when did you get married? The last time I asked you it ended up
with you lying:
Snit:
When did Steve get married?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-5D2CDF....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 2:39 PM:
>
> >>>> I'm shocked! Are you actually saying that you think Mr. Center of the
> >>>> Universe should follow the same rules he declares everyone else has to
> >>>> follow? Heresy! 8)
> >>>>
> >>> It's too bad people aren't always paid for what they're best at... you and
> >>> Snit would be the highest paid hypocrites in the country.
> >>>
> >> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
> >>
> > As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
> > you. You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a
> > wife existed before there was U.S. law.
>
> So, Steve, when did you get married?
In this century.
Snit
>> So, Steve, when did you get married?
>
> In this century.
LOL! You really have no idea, do you? In the past when I have asked you
have outright lied:
Snit:
When did Steve get married?
Carroll:
Geez... your memory is shot... lay off the glue;)
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
And yet that link does not have an answer to the question of when you got
married - if at all! I do know as of 22 Mar 2004 you made it clear the you
and the woman you call your "wife" "are not married by either church or
state and do not get the entitlements that our married neighbors get."
After that date, however, you started claiming you *are* married. So,
Steve, the question still stands: *when* did you get marred? I bet you
never did... just another example of you being caught in your lies.
By the way, are you still fantasizing about me emailing your unmarried
"wife"? That was a weird accusation - even for you!
--
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:35 pm, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1 May 2007 12:15:47 -0700, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> chose to bless
> > us with the following wisdom:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On May 1, 2:04 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >> In article <1178044023.465979.158...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > On May 1, 10:05 am, OldCSMAer <OldCSM...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > >> > > In article <1178031730.268953.319...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >> > > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > On May 1, 7:13 am, "Dr. zara" <D...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > Split the product in two - charge the same for
Give some examples...
> Look at all his errors that took him months to admit to. Some he
> still owes admissions on, years later.
Give some examples...
Alan Baker
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 4:50 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article <1178057812.903357.295...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Yeah, sure, maybe some people buy that. You didn't answer the
> > > > question. Can Macs only be easier if no one ever would buy such
> > > > support?
> >
> > > Apple isn't selling this service because it thinks nobody needs it.
> >
> > I agree, and repeat my question - Can Macs only be easier if no one
> > would ever need such support?
>
> You ought to know the answer to that. You've seen all the claims
> posted here over and over about users providing their own support
> while Windows users need a ton of suppport from IT people. Now when
> Apple sells the very thing you guys have been yelling Windows users
> can't do without, you somehow find it impossible to figure out what
> that means.
Hmmmm....
Wouldn't it help to know what percentage of users for each system are
availing themselves of support?
Yeah, it would.
>
> > > > Nor did it show that it needs more or just as much support. It just
> > > > showed support options.
> >
> > > The options weren't offered because Apple thinks nobody needs them,
> > > and the kind of options offered showed that the Mac is no easier than
> > > Windows.
> >
> > What support options should Apple offer to show to you that Macs are
> > easier than Windows, then?
>
> There should be no support options needed, in keeping with decades of
> claims made by Mac Advocates on this group.
Nope.
They should be *less* necessary, Edwin. Not unneeded at all.
Dr. zara
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-39319...@news.telus.net...
Another asinine statement by Alan Baker.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-0DBE69....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 8:02 PM:
>
> >> So, Steve, when did you get married?
> >
> > In this century.
>
> LOL! You really have no idea, do you?
I obviously do as I just answered your question. Reading is fundamental.
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a raving loon for whom
I'd prefer had as little info about me as possible. You forget that I saw what
you did with Elizabot.
Snit
> In article <C261476D.7F617%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-0DBE69....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 8:02 PM:
>>
>>>> So, Steve, when did you get married?
>>>
>>> In this century.
>>
>> LOL! You really have no idea, do you?
>
> I obviously do as I just answered your question. Reading is fundamental.
Well, Steve... you clearly do not. You cannot figure out when you got
married. Do you remember if it was before or after you made it clear you
were cheating on her?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-D75335....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/5/07 6:46 AM:
>
> > In article <C261476D.7F617%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-0DBE69....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/4/07 8:02 PM:
> >>
> >>>> So, Steve, when did you get married?
> >>>
> >>> In this century.
> >>
> >> LOL! You really have no idea, do you?
> >
> > I obviously do as I just answered your question. Reading is fundamental.
>
> Well, Steve... you clearly do not. You cannot figure out when you got
> married.
Prove it.
> Do you remember if it was before or after you made it clear you
> were cheating on her?
Do you still beat your wife, Snit?
Mayor of R'lyeh
>> >> >>> >> > > > "· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over a
>> >> >>> >> > > > year.
>> >> >>> >> > > > · Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day
>> >> >>> >> > > > service
>> >> >>> >> > > > at the
>> >> >>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
>> >> >>> >> > > > · Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the
>> >> >>> >> > > > Genius
>> >> >>> >> > > > Bar and
>> >> >>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
>> >> >>> >> > > > · Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your Apple
>> >> >>> >> > > > software, and
>> >> >>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
>> >> >>> >> > > > · Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to your
Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
>You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
>existed before there was U.S. law.
Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
Snit
2tjp33pgi7qp17dnm...@4ax.com on 5/5/07 11:42 AM:
>>> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
>>
>> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
>> you.
>
> Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
Steve runs in 3... 2... 1...
>
>> You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
>> existed before there was U.S. law.
>
> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
Heck, Steve cannot figure out if he is or is not married, or, if he is, if
he has or has not told CSMA the date he got married:
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
But then later he says he does not want me to know the date:
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a
raving loon for whom I'd prefer had as little info about me
as possible.
Now Steve does not owe it to me or anyone to tell them the date of his
supposed marriage, but I do wish he could be honest. Heck, it would be nice
if he could just keep his lies consistent!
Steve Carroll
I already have... it wasn't pretty back then, it won't be pretty now.
>
> >You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
> >existed before there was U.S. law.
>
> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I made
my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase insurance
through my partner's place of employment".
You were the guy that got confused by it, claiming that I was "playing fast and
loose with words". I used nothing "fast and loose"... I didn't mislead anyone
in any way as to what my marital status was with respect to the topic. If you
needed me to explain that my having said "I don't have a legally recognized
marriage" meant that I didn't have any kind of legal marriage certificate you
could have asked for clarification. I can see how what I wrote may have left a
question in your mind... but you never asked... you just went off on a BS spree.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 2tjp33pgi7qp17dnm...@4ax.com on 5/5/07 11:42 AM:
>
> >>> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
> >>
> >> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
> >> you.
> >
> > Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
>
> Steve runs in 3... 2... 1...
> >
> >> You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
> >> existed before there was U.S. law.
> >
> > Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>
> Heck, Steve cannot figure out if he is or is not married, or, if he is, if
> he has or has not told CSMA the date he got married:
>
> Snit:
> If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
> not see it.
How is the exact date that I got married relevant in any way? Oh, that's
right... it isn't... the idea that it is was just another of your irrelevant
smokescreens that you mistakenly thought no one would notice. LOL!
All that is relevant is the fact that, at some point, I've made it clear I was
legally married. I made that clear to you but you were unable to process it...
probably because you were coming down off drugs. No biggie;)
Snit
>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>
> In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
> made my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
>
> "I don't have a legally recognized marriage ...
As of March 22 Mar 2004 when you made it clear the you and the woman you
call your "wife" "are not married by either church or state and do not get
the entitlements that our married neighbors get." Still, you recently told
me you got married this century... though you could not figure out if you
had or had not told me the date or would even be willing to tell me the date
or not!:
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
But then later you told me you do not want me to know the date:
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a
raving loon for whom I'd prefer had as little info about me
as possible.
Steve, you do not owe it to me or anyone to state the date of your claimed
marriage, but I do wish you could be honest. Heck, it would be an
improvement if you could just keep your lies consistent! Since you cannot,
how can he expect *anyone* to know what story you are claiming is the real
one on any given day?
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
> In article <C2622FC7.7F71F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 2tjp33pgi7qp17dnm...@4ax.com on 5/5/07 11:42 AM:
>>
>>>>> Is that in the modern sense of hypocrite or the sixth century sense?
>>>>
>>>> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
>>
>> Steve runs in 3... 2... 1...
And, of course, Steve did run.
>>>> You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
>>>> existed before there was U.S. law.
>>>
>>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>>
>> Heck, Steve cannot figure out if he is or is not married, or, if he is, if
>> he has or has not told CSMA the date he got married:
>>
>> Snit:
>> If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
>> not see it.
>
> How is the exact date that I got married relevant in any way?
It is relevant to you being a liar. First you claimed you *had* told me the
date:
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
But then later you told me you do not want me to know the date:
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a
raving loon for whom I'd prefer had as little info about me
as possible.
As I have noted, Steve, you do not owe it to anyone to talk about your
private life, but you *should* be honest... something you show no signs of
even trying to do.
Below you babble and try to change the topic. Whatever.
> Oh, that's right... it isn't... the idea that it is was just another of your
> irrelevant smokescreens that you mistakenly thought no one would notice. LOL!
>
> All that is relevant is the fact that, at some point, I've made it clear I was
> legally married. I made that clear to you but you were unable to process it...
> probably because you were coming down off drugs. No biggie;)
When do you first think you told me you were legally married? And why did
you tell me this if you *really* prefer I had as little info about you as
possible, as you state, above? Again, Steve, you are unable to keep your BS
stories consistent. Please do try to work on that!
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-02BF23....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/5/07 5:06 PM:
>
> >> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
> >
> > In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
> > made my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
> >
> > "I don't have a legally recognized marriage ...
>
> As of March 22 Mar 2004 when you made it clear the you and the woman you
> call your "wife" "are not married by either church or state and do not get
> the entitlements that our married neighbors get." Still, you recently told
> me you got married this century... though you could not figure out if you
> had or had not told me the date or would even be willing to tell me the date
> or not!:
Incorrect. I knew I hadn't told you the exact date (it wasn't something that was
necessary for you to know... and all this begging for it won't get me to tell
you now, either;)
If you're as smart as you keep telling people you are then perhaps you may have
figured out that the date is somewhere between "March 22 Mar 2004" (whatever
that is) and the date I stated I had gotten married (you know, the post you
replied to). What's really funny is that you are kicking up this big fuss about
the exact date... pretending you might possibly remember it (providing I would
ever have told you), yet, you can't remember that I told you I got married at
all (the thing you would more likely remember if you actually *had* a memory).
Yes... the irony here will be lost on you;)
Snit
> In article <C2626F0A.7F7A7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-02BF23....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/5/07 5:06 PM:
>>
>>>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>>>
>>> In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
>>> made my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
>>>
>>> "I don't have a legally recognized marriage ...
>>
>> As of March 22 Mar 2004 when you made it clear the you and the woman you
>> call your "wife" "are not married by either church or state and do not get
>> the entitlements that our married neighbors get." Still, you recently told
>> me you got married this century... though you could not figure out if you
>> had or had not told me the date or would even be willing to tell me the date
>> or not!:
>
> Incorrect. I knew I hadn't told you the exact date (it wasn't something that
> was necessary for you to know...
Your story has not stayed the same. Before you told me my memory was "shot"
because I could not remember something you now tell me you never told me!
At least you explain why *your* memory is shot - though you project it on to
me:
Snit:
When did Steve get married?
Carroll:
Geez... your memory is shot... lay off the glue;)
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
Only later did you change your story to say:
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a
raving loon for whom I'd prefer had as little info about me
as possible.
But then you flip flopped *again* and said you *had* told me about your
private life... the very thing you told me you did not want me to know:
All that is relevant is the fact that, at some point, I've
made it clear I was legally married. I made that clear to
you but you were unable to process it... probably because
you were coming down off drugs. No biggie;)
Note your continued focus on drugs. You sure project a lot.
> and all this begging for it won't get me to tell you now, either;)
Gee, I tell Steve:
As I have noted, Steve, you do not owe it to anyone to talk
about your private life, but you *should* be honest...
something you show no signs of even trying to do.
And you show you are so unable to understand what you read that you think I
am begging for the very thing I state you do not owe me... or anyone. Once
again, Steve, you show you cannot understand what you read.
> If you're as smart as you keep telling people you are
As smart as I keep telling people? When? Quote me. Come on, Steve...
> then perhaps you may have figured out that the date is somewhere between
> "March 22 Mar 2004" (whatever that is) and the date I stated I had gotten
> married (you know, the post you replied to). What's really funny is that you
> are kicking up this big fuss about the exact date... pretending you might
> possibly remember it (providing I would ever have told you), yet, you can't
> remember that I told you I got married at all (the thing you would more likely
> remember if you actually *had* a memory). Yes... the irony here will be lost
> on you;)
I have been very clear about your flip flops and lies, Steve... no matter
how much you whine and try to twist things.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Incorrect. I told you I had gotten married... I even pointed to the post that
you replied to where I stated it.
You: "When did Steve get married?"
Where you really looking for an exact date? Or was the fact that I got married
at all the more important issue? Gee... I wonder how will you answer this;)
My prediction; You won't.
Apparently you're so stoned you have also forgotten we've been through this
already:
<noone-A02771....@newsgroups.comcast.net>
See how reality works YET?
(snip glue droppings)
> > then perhaps you may have figured out that the date is somewhere between
> > "March 22 Mar 2004" (whatever that is) and the date I stated I had gotten
> > married (you know, the post you replied to). What's really funny is that
> > you
> > are kicking up this big fuss about the exact date... pretending you might
> > possibly remember it (providing I would ever have told you), yet, you can't
> > remember that I told you I got married at all (the thing you would more
> > likely
> > remember if you actually *had* a memory). Yes... the irony here will be
> > lost
> > on you;)
>
> I have been very clear about your flip flops and lies, Steve... no matter
> how much you whine and try to twist things.
Snit didn't get the obvious irony... as expected. LOL!
Snit
> snip
The *best* Steve can do.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-11B6A5....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/5/07 6:38 PM:
>
> > snip
>
> The *best* Steve can do.
That you are able to comprehend. Don't worry, Snit... no one will blame you for
removing all that reality that exposed you for what you are;)
Snit
> In article <C2626F0A.7F7A7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-02BF23....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/5/07 5:06 PM:
>>
>>>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>>>
>>> In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
>>> made my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
>>>
>>> "I don't have a legally recognized marriage ...
>>
>> As of March 22 Mar 2004 when you made it clear the you and the woman you
>> call your "wife" "are not married by either church or state and do not get
>> the entitlements that our married neighbors get." Still, you recently told
>> me you got married this century... though you could not figure out if you
>> had or had not told me the date or would even be willing to tell me the date
>> or not!:
>
> Incorrect. I knew I hadn't told you the exact date (it wasn't something that
> was necessary for you to know...
Your story has not stayed the same. Before you told me my memory was "shot"
because I could not remember something you now tell me you never told me!
At least you explain why *your* memory is shot - though you project it on to
me:
Snit:
When did Steve get married?
Carroll:
Geez... your memory is shot... lay off the glue;)
Snit:
If you have ever posted the date you were married I did
not see it.
Carroll
<C034A2D5.47E9E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As it is another thing I have been contending about you
all along, thanks for admitting you "did not see" that
which you responded to... just more concrete proof that
you don't comprehend what you read...
Only later did you change your story to say:
If you're looking for a specific date, forget it. You're a
raving loon for whom I'd prefer had as little info about me
as possible.
But then you flip flopped *again* and said you *had* told me about your
private life... the very thing you told me you did not want me to know:
All that is relevant is the fact that, at some point, I've
made it clear I was legally married. I made that clear to
you but you were unable to process it... probably because
you were coming down off drugs. No biggie;)
Note your continued focus on drugs. You sure project a lot.
> and all this begging for it won't get me to tell you now, either;)
Gee, I tell Steve:
As I have noted, Steve, you do not owe it to anyone to talk
about your private life, but you *should* be honest...
something you show no signs of even trying to do.
And you show you are so unable to understand what you read that you think I
am begging for the very thing I state you do not owe me... or anyone. Once
again, Steve, you show you cannot understand what you read.
> If you're as smart as you keep telling people you are
As smart as I keep telling people? When? Quote me. Come on, Steve...
> then perhaps you may have figured out that the date is somewhere between
> "March 22 Mar 2004" (whatever that is) and the date I stated I had gotten
> married (you know, the post you replied to). What's really funny is that you
> are kicking up this big fuss about the exact date... pretending you might
> possibly remember it (providing I would ever have told you), yet, you can't
> remember that I told you I got married at all (the thing you would more likely
> remember if you actually *had* a memory). Yes... the irony here will be lost
> on you;)
I have been very clear about your flip flops and lies, Steve... no matter
how much you whine and try to twist things.
Mayor of R'lyeh
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > "· Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour sessions over
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > a
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > year.
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > · Fast Track - priority repairs and available same-day
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > service
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > at the
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > · Advance Reservations - schedule appointments for the
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > Genius
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > Bar and
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > · Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update your
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > Apple
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > software, and
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
>> >> >> >>> >> > > > · Computer Setup - transfer all your existing files to
I didn't think you'd have anything.
>
>>
>> >You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
>> >existed before there was U.S. law.
>>
>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>
>In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I made
>my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
>
>"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase insurance
>through my partner's place of employment".
Actualy you kept switching between calling her your wife and your
girlfriend and making fun of people who thought you were talking about
two different people.
>
>
>You were the guy that got confused by it, claiming that I was "playing fast and
>loose with words".
When you refer to the same woman as your wife on Monday, your
girlfriend on Tuesday and then call her your wife again on Wednesday
you are playing fast and loose with words. In any case its firmly
established that she's just your shack-up buddy no matter what title
you decide to give her today.
> I used nothing "fast and loose"...
Must resist the obvious joke...must resist...
> I didn't mislead anyone
>in any way as to what my marital status was with respect to the topic. If you
>needed me to explain that my having said "I don't have a legally recognized
>marriage" meant that I didn't have any kind of legal marriage certificate you
>could have asked for clarification. I can see how what I wrote may have left a
>question in your mind... but you never asked... you just went off on a BS spree.
How do you get BS to stand for 'Nailed Steve's Hide To The Wall For
Playing Fast and Loose With Word Definitions'? And could you repeat it
again in Old English?
Snit
2jgq33ta26odk07so...@4ax.com on 5/5/07 7:54 PM:
>>>> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it to
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
>>
>> I already have... it wasn't pretty back then, it won't be pretty now.
>
> I didn't think you'd have anything.
Steve has been using this cop-out a bunch recently. Heck, look at his
excuse for why he will not point to *any* evidence to back up his claims
about me and routers... while I *happily* quote his lies and flip-flops.
Face it: if Steve could find quotes to support his claims he would be
posting them repeatedly to try to embarrass us... and then if we did not
respond he would talk about how he hears voices and crickets in his head.
It is clear even Steve knows he has *nothing* to back up his claims.
>>>
>>>> You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a wife
>>>> existed before there was U.S. law.
>>>>
>>> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
>>>
>> In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
>> made my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
>>
>> "I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase
>> insurance through my partner's place of employment".
>>
> Actualy you kept switching between calling her your wife and your girlfriend
> and making fun of people who thought you were talking about two different
> people.
Steve also spent some time making it clear he was cheating on his unmarried
"wife". Even now he will not state he has not cheated on her... not if
there is a chance his "other woman" might be reading CSMA.
>>
>> You were the guy that got confused by it, claiming that I was "playing fast
>> and loose with words".
>>
> When you refer to the same woman as your wife on Monday, your girlfriend on
> Tuesday and then call her your wife again on Wednesday you are playing fast
> and loose with words. In any case its firmly established that she's just your
> shack-up buddy no matter what title you decide to give her today.
Well, he is now jumping back and forth between saying he has made it clear
he has married her and how he does not want people in CSMA to know about his
personal life... someday, maybe, he will make up his mind.
>
>> I used nothing "fast and loose"...
>
> Must resist the obvious joke...must resist...
LOL! Really... out loud...
>
>> I didn't mislead anyone in any way as to what my marital status was with
>> respect to the topic. If you needed me to explain that my having said "I
>> don't have a legally recognized marriage" meant that I didn't have any kind
>> of legal marriage certificate you could have asked for clarification. I can
>> see how what I wrote may have left a question in your mind... but you never
>> asked... you just went off on a BS spree.
>
> How do you get BS to stand for 'Nailed Steve's Hide To The Wall For
> Playing Fast and Loose With Word Definitions'? And could you repeat it
> again in Old English?
BS = Busting Steve! :)
Steve Carroll
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > "ŐńČŘšŐ‚ŚŠ Personal Training - up to 52 one-hour
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > sessions over
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > a
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > year.
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > ŐńČŘšŐ‚ŚŠ Fast Track - priority repairs and available
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > same-day
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > service
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > at the
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Genius Bar.
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > ŐńČŘšŐ‚ŚŠ Advance Reservations - schedule appointments
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > for the
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Genius
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Bar and
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > The Studio up to 14 days in advance.
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > ŐńČŘšŐ‚ŚŠ Yearly Tune-up - system diagnostics, update
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > your
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Apple
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > software, and
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > even clean your monitor and keyboard.
> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > ŐńČŘšŐ‚ŚŠ Computer Setup - transfer all your existing
You didn't "think" I would have anything last time we went through this, you
know... when I produced the same quote I did below... the same one that you'll
ignore this time, Snit... uh... Clyde:
"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase insurance
through my partner's place of employment".
> >> >You're the guy who is still trying to comprehend that the concept of a
> >> >wife
> >> >existed before there was U.S. law.
> >>
> >> Steve reaches into his bag of lies and pulls out a big one.
> >
> >In that thread you kept talking about "wife" in the context of U.S. law. I
> >made
> >my position very clear to the guy I was speaking to (jfizer):
> >
> >"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase
> >insurance
> >through my partner's place of employment".
>
> Actualy you kept switching between calling her your wife and your
> girlfriend and making fun of people who thought you were talking about
> two different people.
Actually, I quoted what I've shown here... and you *still* got confused;) Go
ahead and prove this isn't a quote of me from that thread. LOL!
(snip evidence of Clyde's rich fantasy life)
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 2jgq33ta26odk07so...@4ax.com on 5/5/07 7:54 PM:
>
> >>>> As you wouldn't understand either... what good would it do to explain it
> >>>> to
> >>>> you.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, go ahead and give it a try. I might surprise you.
> >>
> >> I already have... it wasn't pretty back then, it won't be pretty now.
> >
> > I didn't think you'd have anything.
>
> Steve has been using this cop-out a bunch recently.
As I posted to Clyde... in that thread *before* Clyde started whining, I wrote:
"I don't have a legally recognized marriage and I'm able to purchase insurance
through my partner's place of employment"
Put the crack pipe down now, Snit;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Never happened. You asked when I got married, not the exact date. I said your
memory was shot and did so because you had forgotten about a post I pointed you
to where I had stated that I had gotten married... a post that you replied to
(so I know you saw it). Now you're pretending that the date is all important...
as if you would have remembered it... reality shows you couldn't even remember
me stating I got married at all ;)
Crack pipe... down... now. LOL!
willbilly
"Dr. zara" <Do...@nutbuster.com> wrote:
> Split the product in two - charge the same for each.
> http://www.macrumors.com/
>
> smart business -
I guessed that Apple would save the Santa Rosa chip for the Mac Book Pro
since they only boosted increased the memory and hard drive on the MB.
They are in it for the phony baloney - no doubt.