Mac Mini hard as shit to use.
MuahMan
it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
corner every time?
Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
finding it.
System would be great if it used right clicks. The fonts are pretty sweet,
and the progress bars are beautiful I'll give it that. Ichat has no support
for anythng but AIM and the Isight camera won't work with any window users.
UGH, sorely dissapointed. You bitches lied to me.
MuahMan
infuriating. You can only grab it on the lower right hand corner I think. A
momumental pain in the ass compared to windows.
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cqdne2Mo_L...@adelphia.com...
C Lund
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
Hmm.. I see muahman has spent all of five minutes in an Apple Store...
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Wally
clund-9318D5....@amstwist00.chello.com, "C Lund"
<cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
That would explain his preoccupation with the weather widget.......popped in
to get out of the rain! ;=)
MuahMan
connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG file.
Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when the
dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght Safari
was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JKCdndjagLJ...@adelphia.com...
Wally
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat won't
> connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG file.
> Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when the
> dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
> a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght Safari
> was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
--
"Your punishment is to use a PC forever..."
Edwin
NashtOn
> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat won't
> connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG file.
> Where do I put programs?
Well designed programs will install themselves in /Applications (either
on the lower level of the HD or in <your user>. Just drag MS messenger
there. A quick way of getting there: Go>Applications in the menus in the
Finder.
Where do they install to? What happens when the
> dock is full?
Dock never gets full but the icons get smaller and smaller as you add
programs.
Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
> a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght Safari
> was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
Don't use Safari, use Camino. Safari sucks. Just double-click on the
.dmg file and drag the application into the Applications folder.
You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
Nicolas
NashtOn
> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
> calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> corner every time?
Apple stole this from the folks at Konfabulator and ruined it. It's the
crappiest excuse for a feature that the idiots at Apple have come out
with in ages. These complete morons seem to fail at everything they do
and when it bombs, they'll say things like: It was ahead of it's time,
when in fact it was Apple thinking they actually made something useful.
>
> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
That's the Apple way. You have to use your comp the way SJ wants you to
use it.
>
> There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> finding it.
They mean that the program is running.
>
> System would be great if it used right clicks.
It does but is very primitive compared to real GUIs like Windows.
The fonts are pretty sweet,
> and the progress bars are beautiful I'll give it that. Ichat has no support
> for anythng but AIM and the Isight camera won't work with any window users.
> UGH, sorely dissapointed. You bitches lied to me.
Apple makes things for Mac users. That's why it's been circling the
drain clockwise since for many years.
It'll never go out of business, but will always be second best.
Nicolas
>
>
Snit
BF65E1AD.949E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 4:12 AM:
Have you not read Steve Carroll's posts on how if someone believes the US
should follow treaties *unless* they contradict the Constitution that must
somehow mean the Constitution (according to Steve's straw man) is
subordinate to treaties? What about Steve admitted inability to understand
the very concept of someone breaking the law unless he is able to place it
into some legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, judicial, or logical cubby
hole.
In other words: I do believe it is possible to be *that* stupid - we see
examples of it in almost every one of Steve's posts.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF65E1AD.949E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 4:12 AM:
>
>> On 2/10/05 5:57 PM, in article hKOdnYoUSd9...@adelphia.com,
>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat won't
>>> connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG file.
>>> Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when the
>>> dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
>>> a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght Safari
>>> was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
>>
>> No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
>
> Have you not read Steve Carroll's posts on how if someone believes the US
> should follow treaties *unless* they contradict the Constitution that must
> somehow mean the Constitution (according to Steve's straw man) is
> subordinate to treaties?
I did read what Steve had to say on that subject, which leads me to
understand why you would want to engage me on the subject and not him! ;)
> What about Steve admitted inability to understand
> the very concept of someone breaking the law unless he is able to place it
> into some legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, judicial, or logical cubby
> hole.
I don't find that strange at all actually! What I do /did find strange was
when you kept asking me if I found the very act of breaking a law to be
immoral, and yet you would never allow me to judge the morality of the law
in question, which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based
on my morals, by not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on
a/any law put me in the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact
was that had I answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could
have/would have used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of
what moral position I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the
need for what you term cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any
ambiguity from a proposition!
> In other words: I do believe it is possible to be *that* stupid - we see
> examples of it in almost every one of Steve's posts.
A simple 'yes' would have done nicely!
m.
Sandman
Sorry - no one is falling for this. Someone being able to type the words above
couldn't possibly be as stupid as the words imply.
--
Sandman[.net]
Houston CAPCOM
No. No one who can figure out how and where to post to Usenet is stupid
enough not to know how to open a tab, or that applications go in the
"Applications" folder. The OP is trolling.
C Lund
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Apple stole this from the folks at Konfabulator and ruined it.
And the folks from Konfabulator "stole" it from older versions of the
MacOS.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> Nicolas
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Peter Hayes
I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
means an intuitive process.
What's bad about the way Windows deals with apps is that the uninstall
process is controlled by the software vendor, not Microsoft. It's an all
too easy route for unscrupulous vendors to leave spyware and trojans
behind.
I hope this defect will be fixed in Vista, but probably Gates won't want
to offend Microsoft's "partners".
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
> like a caluclator, and a
> calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> corner every time?
It's the Apple way.
Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
to stay running in the Dock.
I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I
don't know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
Once you figure it out it's better than Windows. OS X doesn't have a
registry for errant apps to screw up.
> There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> finding it.
Ask Joe (TravellinMan) Ragosta. He's a fan of the little black arrow...
--
Peter
Snit
> On 2/10/05 7:37 PM, in article BF651480.31E7C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> BF65E1AD.949E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 4:12 AM:
>>
>>> On 2/10/05 5:57 PM, in article hKOdnYoUSd9...@adelphia.com,
>>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat
>>>> won't connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG
>>>> file. Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when
>>>> the dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG
>>>> file to a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght
>>>> Safari was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
>>>
>>> No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
>>
>> Have you not read Steve Carroll's posts on how if someone believes the US
>> should follow treaties *unless* they contradict the Constitution that must
>> somehow mean the Constitution (according to Steve's straw man) is
>> subordinate to treaties?
>
> I did read what Steve had to say on that subject, which leads me to
> understand why you would want to engage me on the subject and not him! ;)
Engaging him is like debating with an infant - he has no capacity to
understand such discussions - he merely repeats the same lies over and over
(hmmm, that puts him one step below an infant).
>> What about Steve admitted inability to understand
>> the very concept of someone breaking the law unless he is able to place it
>> into some legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, judicial, or logical cubby
>> hole.
>
> I don't find that strange at all actually! What I do /did find strange was
> when you kept asking me if I found the very act of breaking a law to be
> immoral, and yet you would never allow me to judge the morality of the law
> in question,
The question was an abstract one - there was no single law in question.
This was explained to you repeatedly. There was no "trick" where I would
jump to the erroneous conclusion that if you did not find the act of law
breaking in the abstract to be immoral than you must not find any specific
illegal act immoral.
While I believe all things being equal one should follow the law, I do not
think that that breaking a law is, in the abstract, an immoral thing. This
does not imply that any specific act of law breaking is not immoral.
That is the type of answer I was looking for from you - *not* about any
specific law. You repeatedly were unable to understand the abstract nature
of the question and needed a specific law in order to understand it. To
give a specific law, however, would be to completely change the nature of
the question! You showed no ability nor understanding of the very
question... so why you would bring it up again is rather odd.
> which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based on my morals, by
> not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on a/any law put me in
> the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact was that had I
> answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could have/would have
> used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of what moral position
> I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the need for what you term
> cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any ambiguity from a
> proposition!
And again you demonstrate your inability to understand abstractions. That
is a weakness of yours I hope you overcome.
>
>> In other words: I do believe it is possible to be *that* stupid - we see
>> examples of it in almost every one of Steve's posts.
>
> A simple 'yes' would have done nicely!
LOL... OK.... Yes. Yes I believe there are those who are *that* stupid.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Sandman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> > > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> >
> > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> >
> > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
>
> I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
> more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
>
> When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> means an intuitive process.
It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing it
in the location where you want it.
The WIndows way is having a guy that comes along with the CD player and asks
about question you don't care about or don't know the answer to:
- "Are you sure you want me to unpack the CD player?"
- "Yes"
- "Do you agree to this license agreement?" (hands over 4 pages license
paper)
- "Eh, whatever, ok."
- "Do you want a basic or advance installation?"
- "What's the difference?"
- "No questions please. Basic or advance?"
- "Uh, advanced.. No, basic! Yeah, basic I suppose"
- "Where do you want it installed? Default is living room"
- "Yeah, that works for me"
Installer starts packing up the player on the living room floor
- "Wait, I want it here in the book shelf"
- "Tell me to cancel if you want to abort this installation and start from
the beginning"
- "Bah, I'll move it myself later"
- "Do you want me place remote control on side table?"
- "Yeah"
Installer places big box on the side table with the SONY logo on, and inside
that box, a smaller box with the model number on it. Inside that he places
remote control, manual, guarantee papers, trouble shooting documents and
service telephone number for de-ionstallement of the CD player by another guy
- "Hey, wait, I only need the remote control right on the table"
- "No talking during the setup please"
- "Sigh, whatever, I'll fix that later"
After the installer left, you find out that if you move the CD player from its
position on the table, it won't even work any more. When you get tired of this,
you call the uninstaller guy, which asks if you want to have chips removed that
you've never heard of and don't know if they are form inside the CD player or
not.
--
Sandman[.net]
Travelinman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> > it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
>
> It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
Not on my system. No measurable CPU activity. Even when you activate it,
it uses only a few percent.
But, then, you never did mind making up lies to try to put down Mac OS X.
>
> > like a caluclator, and a
> > calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> > it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> > can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> > the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> > properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> > corner every time?
>
> It's the Apple way.
>
> Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
> to stay running in the Dock.
>
> I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I
> don't know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
Why would it do that?
It's not like the crappy OSs you seem to prefer.
>
> > Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> > downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> > can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> > where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
>
> Once you figure it out it's better than Windows. OS X doesn't have a
> registry for errant apps to screw up.
>
> > There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> > I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> > finding it.
>
> Ask Joe (TravellinMan) Ragosta. He's a fan of the little black arrow...
Lacking a brain, you most stupid drivel.
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h3temr.irq1181pfrrwuN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
> > > Dashboard it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
> >
> > It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
>
> Not on my system. No measurable CPU activity.
1-2%. Not much, but more than if it was off.
> Even when you activate it, it uses only a few percent.
About 20-25%
It also uses about 20Mb memory per widget.
> But, then, you never did mind making up lies to try to put down Mac OS X.
I report it as I see it.
> > > like a caluclator, and a calender. You can move them around the screen
> > > but once you click on it again it disappears. I guess it's all or
> > > nothing, look at the widgets but you can't do anything else unless you
> > > close it. I keep trying to right click on the weather thing to get it
> > > to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the properties for anything
> > > open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand corner every time?
> >
> > It's the Apple way.
> >
> > Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
> > to stay running in the Dock.
> >
> > I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I
> > don't know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
>
> Why would it do that?
I don't know, but I don't want to waste time resurrecting the system.
I value my PowerBook too much to do that.
> It's not like the crappy OSs you seem to prefer.
Apple shouldn't have included an app that has to be removed to stop, or
d/l some third party hack.
> > > Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> > > downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive
> > > and can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after
> > > using Windows where you can pretty much figure stuff out without
> > > hitting the help files.
> >
> > Once you figure it out it's better than Windows. OS X doesn't have a
> > registry for errant apps to screw up.
> >
> > > There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock
> > > mean. I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but
> > > good luck finding it.
> >
> > Ask Joe (TravellinMan) Ragosta. He's a fan of the little black arrow...
>
> Lacking a brain, you most stupid drivel.
:-)
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> > > > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> > >
> > > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> > > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> > >
> > > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> >
> > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
> > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
> >
> > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> > means an intuitive process.
>
> It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing it
> in the location where you want it.
It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about someone
who has never seen a Mac before.
> The WIndows way is having a guy that comes along with the CD player and asks
> about question you don't care about or don't know the answer to:
>
> - "Are you sure you want me to unpack the CD player?"
> - "Yes"
> - "Do you agree to this license agreement?" (hands over 4 pages license
> paper)
Some OS X apps have licence agreements also, ever downloaded an update
from Apple?
> - "Eh, whatever, ok." - "Do you want a basic or advance installation?" -
> "What's the difference?" - "No questions please. Basic or advance?" - "Uh,
> advanced.. No, basic! Yeah, basic I suppose" - "Where do you want it
> installed? Default is living room" - "Yeah, that works for me" Installer
> starts packing up the player on the living room floor - "Wait, I want it
> here in the book shelf" - "Tell me to cancel if you want to abort this
> installation and start from the beginning" - "Bah, I'll move it myself
> later" - "Do you want me place remote control on side table?" - "Yeah"
> Installer places big box on the side table with the SONY logo on, and
> inside that box, a smaller box with the model number on it. Inside that he
> places remote control, manual, guarantee papers, trouble shooting
> documents and service telephone number for de-ionstallement of the CD
> player by another guy - "Hey, wait, I only need the remote control right
> on the table" - "No talking during the setup please" - "Sigh, whatever,
> I'll fix that later"
>
> After the installer left, you find out that if you move the CD player from
> its position on the table, it won't even work any more. When you get tired
> of this, you call the uninstaller guy, which asks if you want to have
> chips removed that you've never heard of and don't know if they are form
> inside the CD player or not.
Very good...
--
Peter
Nicholas Buenk
> MuahMan wrote:
>
>> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
>> Dashboard it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a
>> caluclator, and a calender. You can move them around the screen but
>> once you click on it again it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing,
>> look at the widgets but you can't do anything else unless you close
>> it. I keep trying to right click on the weather thing to get it to
>> remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the properties for anything
>> open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand corner every time?
>
>
> Apple stole this from the folks at Konfabulator and ruined it. It's the
> crappiest excuse for a feature that the idiots at Apple have come out
> with in ages. These complete morons seem to fail at everything they do
> and when it bombs, they'll say things like: It was ahead of it's time,
> when in fact it was Apple thinking they actually made something useful.
It's way better than konfabulator, who wants widgets hanging over screen
space where you your applications are. dashboard gives a very easy and
fast way to access them without wasting any screen space.
Be interesting to see how good micrsoft's gadgets and sidebar is.
>
>>
>> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
>> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive
>> and can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after
>> using Windows where you can pretty much figure stuff out without
>> hitting the help files.
>
>
> That's the Apple way. You have to use your comp the way SJ wants you to
> use it.
I just love those virtual drive images, much better system than install
wizards.
>
>>
>> There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock
>> mean. I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but
>> good luck finding it.
>
>
> They mean that the program is running.
>
>>
>> System would be great if it used right clicks.
>
>
> It does but is very primitive compared to real GUIs like Windows.
Actually OSX has very good context menu support, but because of the lack
of endorsement apple has for a 2 button mouse, many 3rd party
developers are very sloppy in their context menu's.
>
> The fonts are pretty sweet,
>
But the font smoothing tends to be a bit too fussy I think.
>> and the progress bars are beautiful I'll give it that. Ichat has no
>> support for anythng but AIM and the Isight camera won't work with any
>> window users. UGH, sorely dissapointed. You bitches lied to me.
>
>
> Apple makes things for Mac users. That's why it's been circling the
> drain clockwise since for many years.
>
> It'll never go out of business, but will always be second best.
>
> Nicolas
>
>>
>>
Windows UI has a lot of clutter that OSX lacks. Perhaps Windows is
better for newbie's, I'm not sure, it has a lot of wizards and things to
help newbies. But OSX has simple but powerful design. And I think it's a
great OS for power users. It's powerful, but simple, so that you don't
have to spend hours getting a feature to work right, aka linux.
Nicholas Buenk
> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
> calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> corner every time?
?? What kind of drunken rambling is this.
>
> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
What, you can't figure out what a virtual disk image is?
>
> There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> finding it.
It's pretty obvious.
>
> System would be great if it used right clicks.
It does.
Peter Ammon
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
>>>Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
>>
>>It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
>>things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
>>
>>Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
>
>
> I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense".
What makes sense about "installing" an application? I don't have to
"install" a document to use it, or "install" a web page to open it.
> It's
> more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
Oh PLEASE. Tried installing RealPlayer recently? If all you do is
click "Next," you'll have many miserable hours trying to undo what it did.
[...]
-Peter
--
Pull out a splinter to reply.
Timberwoof
> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
You're such a stupid shit for using "gay" as a pejorative, there's no real point
in addressing any of the rest of what you wrote. Fucktard.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
Houston CAPCOM <cap...@unix.site> wrote:
> The OP is trolling.
Oh, do you think so? Now what makes you say that? }: ) ;- )
Timberwoof
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> > NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> > > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
This can be determined systematically. I think you are wrong.
> > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> >
> > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
>
> I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
> more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
OS X dev tools also provide a way to make an installer that provides a UI for
the same process. (This lets you do more complex things such as checking for
required OS versions or updating old software.)
> When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> means an intuitive process.
First, don't confuse "intuitive" with "instinctive." There's no such thing as
"instinctive." And things are "intuitive" only after you've learned the rules
for interacting with something.
And there's plenty of Apple documentation that lets you put Applications into
the Applications folder. Frequently, stuff you download comes with installation
instructions that say "Drag this to your Applications folder."
What's cool about OS X is that each user can have his own private applications
folder.
Mr. T
> > It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing
> > it
> > in the location where you want it.
>
> It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
> immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
> doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about someone
> who has never seen a Mac before.
yes, but the .dmg file automatically transforms into a "Disk Icon", and
not only that, it auto opens and shows you the application, with
directions to "drag" into your applications folder or hard drive. it's
just a little toooo easy, that's all. the major fault has to do with
residual files it leaves, the stuffit expander has the incorrect
default, since it should "delete" the stuffed, or .bin file from the
destktop, most of the confusion stems from that. expander is no longer
part of Tiger, so that problem will go away in time.
Timberwoof
wrote:
I never understood why Windows had to put all its applications in a multiply
nested menu thing, with each app in its own little folder with all sorts of
other cruft there. What's worse is how Windows XP has this habit of rearranging
the order of those folders in the menu for me. Looking for some obscure app
always ends up a linear search where I have to look through every item in the
Start menu. Frequently you have to find the folder with the name of the software
publisher before you can find the app.
By the way, you can put together a stereo out of components from various
manufacturers, but if Windows does the installation, you also get one cabinet
for each manufacturer, and you can't tell which component is in which cabinet
because the doors are wood, not glass. So if you want to play an LP you have to
remember whether your turntable is a Dual or a Sony. If you want to play a CD
you have to remember whether you got that from Sony or Aiwa or Technics. God
help you if you want to turn on your Aiwa receiver so you can watch a video on
your Mitsibushi VCR through your Sony monitor and your Advent speakers: You can
have only one cabinet open at once!
Timberwoof
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> > not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve
> > > > > as Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> > > >
> > > > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> > > > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> > > >
> > > > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> > >
> > > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
> > > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> > > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
> > >
> > > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> > > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> > > means an intuitive process.
> >
> > It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing
> > it in the location where you want it.
>
> It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user immediately
> and instinctively
No. Intuitive is not instinctive. Instinctive means you were born with that
knowledge. Intuitive means you know the general rules and can make a good guess
about how to apply them in this case. For instance, when it's dark in your
teenager's room, you intuitively reach for the light switch on the wall. Then
you recoil as his Sansui plays "Alice Bowie" on 11 through a pair of
Cerwin-Vegas.
> knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file doesn't tell the user what to do.
> Remember, we're talking about someone who has never seen a Mac before.
The Mac has fewer rules, and they are somewhat different. So there will be some
relearning.
I liked it. :-)
Timberwoof
Peter Ammon <gers...@splintermac.com> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> >> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> >>>Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> >>
> >>It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> >>things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> >>
> >>Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense".
>
> What makes sense about "installing" an application? I don't have to
> "install" a document to use it, or "install" a web page to open it.
Well, it takes a little more to hook up a DVD player to your stereo than just to
push the button and put a disc on the tray.
> > It's
> > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
>
> Oh PLEASE. Tried installing RealPlayer recently? If all you do is
> click "Next," you'll have many miserable hours trying to undo what it did.
::shivershudder::
GreyCloud
You should wander over to Suns website and click on
products->desktops->Ultra20.
Not the best looking machine in the world, but it is
certified to run solaris 10, suse 9, rhel, and winders.
Also comes bundled with Sun Studio 10, a $2900 value that
comprises the Sun compiler set of C, C++, & fortran 95, Java
Enterprise development, all for $895 on an AMD64 1.8Ghz
box. The only problem I see is that the output to video is
DVI and not VGA connector.
Only thing I couldn't seem to locate was the OpenGL support.
Timberwoof
wrote:
Well, he did write "gay shit" which pretty much makes him look like someone
trying very hard to be mistaken for a fucktard.
MuahMan
"NashtOn" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message
news:0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> MuahMan wrote:
>> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat
>> won't connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some
>> DMG file. Where do I put programs?
>
> the lower level of the HD or in <your user>. Just drag MS messenger there.
> A quick way of getting there: Go>Applications in the menus in the Finder.
>
> Where do they install to? What happens when the
>> dock is full?
>
> programs.
>
> Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
>> a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght
>> Safari was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
>
> file and drag the application into the Applications folder.
>
> You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
>
>
>
>>
Thanks man. Wow, these zealots are assholes. All I did was ask some simple
questions. I was slightly confused because they said "Just turn it on and it
reads your mind" type stuff. I'm finding myriads more difficult to get
anything accomplished on the Mac. I hate the no right click thing! At least
it works for the trash can.
>>
>>
>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:JKCdndjagLJ...@adelphia.com...
>>
>>>One more thing. This is soooooooooooooooooooo annoying. Trying is
>>>infuriating. You can only grab it on the lower right hand corner I think.
>>>A momumental pain in the ass compared to windows.
>>>
>>>"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2cqdne2Mo_L...@adelphia.com...
Timberwoof
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> > it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
>
> It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
Much like Word or Excel.
> > like a caluclator, and a
> > calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> > it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> > can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> > the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> > properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> > corner every time?
>
> It's the Apple way.
>
> Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
> to stay running in the Dock.
>
> I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I
> don't know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
Try it and see what happens. I bet you can do that without any problems.
Have you tried exploring its Preferences?
> > Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> > downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> > can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> > where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
>
> Once you figure it out it's better than Windows. OS X doesn't have a
> registry for errant apps to screw up.
Oh, God. Not another "OS X preferences files are just like the Windows Registry"
thread!
> > There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> > I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> > finding it.
>
> Ask Joe (TravellinMan) Ragosta. He's a fan of the little black arrow...
Click on the icon...
Peter Hayes
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing
> > > it
> > > in the location where you want it.
> >
> > It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
> > immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
> > doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about someone
> > who has never seen a Mac before.
>
> yes, but the .dmg file automatically transforms into a "Disk Icon", and
> not only that, it auto opens and shows you the application,
Not on my machine it doesn't.
I have to double click the .dmg to unstuffit it, then double click on
the "mounted volume" to open it. It may be self-evident to you and I,
but it isn't to a newbie.
Maybe my machine is set up differently, but it is as set up by a clean
install of Tiger.
> with directions to "drag" into your applications folder or hard drive.
Sometimes.
> it's just a little toooo easy, that's all. the major fault has to do with
> residual files it leaves, the stuffit expander has the incorrect
> default, since it should "delete" the stuffed, or .bin file from the
> destktop, most of the confusion stems from that. expander is no longer
> part of Tiger, so that problem will go away in time.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> > means an intuitive process.
>
> First, don't confuse "intuitive" with "instinctive." There's no such thing as
> "instinctive." And things are "intuitive" only after you've learned the rules
> for interacting with something.
That's my point. A point many Maccies seem to ignore.
--
Peter
MuahMan
"Peter Hayes" <not_i...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1h3tkcg.447ks6j965u6N%not_i...@btinternet.com...
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
>> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>>
>> > > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning
>> > > > curve as
>> > > > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
>> > >
>> > > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
>> > > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
>> > >
>> > > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
>> >
>> > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
>> > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
>> > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
>> >
>> > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
>> > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
>> > means an intuitive process.
>>
>> It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and
>> placing it
>> in the location where you want it.
>
> It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
> immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
> doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about someone
> who has never seen a Mac before.
>
a DMG file. It's not like this thing came with any manual. Just some cutesy
cool looking 4" book. Arrrgh, Apple needs to get over the looks are more
important than function thing!!!
Wouldn't it make sense to call it Setup, or Install or at least include a
text file that explains what the hell to do with it. Intuitive my ass.
>> The WIndows way is having a guy that comes along with the CD player and
>> asks
>> about question you don't care about or don't know the answer to:
>>
>> - "Are you sure you want me to unpack the CD player?"
>> - "Yes"
>> - "Do you agree to this license agreement?" (hands over 4 pages license
>> paper)
>
> Some OS X apps have licence agreements also, ever downloaded an update
> from Apple?
Agreed, also annoying. As soon as I turned on the Mac it asked for updates.
There were 14 security fixes (thought there were no security holes!!) Before
you can even start downloading you have click 14 AGReements!!!! 14 OF THEM!
DUH
MuahMan
"Timberwoof" <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof-1C480...@typhoon.sonic.net...
I will totally agree with you on that. It's annoying as hell scanning up and
down the list to find the one you want. It's even more annoying when you
have to go to program files to find it if you don't remember the software
manufacturer.
Peter Hayes
> In article <2005100208115616807%capcom@unixsite>,
> Houston CAPCOM <cap...@unix.site> wrote:
>
> > The OP is trolling.
>
> Oh, do you think so? Now what makes you say that? }: ) ;- )
As someone said, we're only here for the discussion...
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h3temr.irq1181pfrrwuN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
> > > Dashboard it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
> >
> > It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
>
> Much like Word or Excel.
Bryce 5 for OS X consumes so much CPU even when it's doing nothing that
the fan comes on in my PowerBook.
It seems to be a relatively common problem with OS X, apps consuming CPU
cycles even when idling.
> > > like a caluclator, and a calender. You can move them around the screen
> > > but once you click on it again it disappears. I guess it's all or
> > > nothing, look at the widgets but you can't do anything else unless you
> > > close it. I keep trying to right click on the weather thing to get it
> > > to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the properties for anything
> > > open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand corner every time?
> >
> > It's the Apple way.
> >
> > Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
> > to stay running in the Dock.
> >
> > I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I
> > don't know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
>
> Try it and see what happens. I bet you can do that without any problems.
>
> Have you tried exploring its Preferences?
The hack I downloaded turned it off in its preferences, if I understand
it correctly.
But that's not the same as ditching it altogether, and the Dock icon is
still there looking like it's still running. It's no big deal, just
untidy.
--
Peter
Steve Hix
> <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
> > In article <2cqdne2Mo_L...@adelphia.com>,
> > "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> >> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> >> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
> >
Only if his minder lost track of him momentarily.
Jim Polaski
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
Maybe you ought to go by a PC for all your carping. You, Nasty and Pratt
might go together and get a volume(sm) discount price.
Geeze...
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Donald McDaniel
<wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/05 5:57 PM, in article hKOdnYoUSd9...@adelphia.com,
> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat won't
> > connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some DMG file.
> > Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when the
> > dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG file to
> > a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I thouoght Safari
> > was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
>
> No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
It's not really that "MuahMan" is stupid. It's more that installing
software in OSX is not exactly "user friendly" as it is under Windows.
When he learns that OSX apps are installed from several different
installer packages, rather than a single installer package, as in
Windows, he will be well on his way to being totally confused, if he is
not already.
After using software under Windows for many years, then changing to the
OSX paradigm, I too was pretty confused at first.
Once I learned that OSX apps are simply installed (usually) by
launching the ".dmg" (or ".sit", or whatever), then following the
directions (sometimes) to move the .app file to my Applications folder,
installing and uninstalling software became much easier.
I had (mostly) kind help from my brother, who has used a Mac for a few
years. It appears that help from many other Mac users is just as
forthcoming as your "help" to a completely confused person ("MuahMan".)
Just let that frustrated ex-Windows person say ANY negative thing about
your "precious" Mac, and wham! you're all are all over him with
zingers, cranky statements, and various other crappy remarks, rather
than simply being helpful persons and instructing him.
You oughta be ashamed of yourselves!
Donald L McDaniel
=====================================================
Donald McDaniel
<cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
>
> It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
This is true. Trying to do things the Windows way will only lead him
to further confusion.
>
> Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
While "things" may make "sense" to you, apparently they don't to the OP.
After all, you've been using Macs for a while, and he's probably been
using Wintels all his life.
Don't you remember the ones who "helped" you at first? I strongly
advise you not to be like them, and instead, be a truly helpful person.
After all, "a little kindness goes a long way", and "you can catch
more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
Telling him over and over how "stupid" Windows users are will only make
him angry. It will not help in the least. In addition, it will
probably turn him off to Macs forever. Of course, that may be what you
actually want (it certainly appears that way with many Mac users I've
run across in these forums.)
Donald L McDaniel
==================================================
Mr. T
"MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's what I'm saying. How the hell am I suppossed to know what to do with
> a DMG file. It's not like this thing came with any manual. Just some cutesy
> cool looking 4" book. Arrrgh, Apple needs to get over the looks are more
> important than function thing!!!
> Wouldn't it make sense to call it Setup, or Install or at least include a
> text file that explains what the hell to do with it. Intuitive my ass.
the functions are all there, and it's actually more powerful than
windows in "depth", dmg's are simply DISK IMAGES, take out what you
want, then throw it away.
you have to think what you would do in the REAL WORLD, if you buy a sack
of groceries, you bring them home and set them on the table, (for
example) then you take out the items and put them in the cupboards, or
refrig, then throw away the "sack". or "dmg". this is the same thing.
Wayne Stuart
> In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > > You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> > > > Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> > >
> > > It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> > > things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> > >
> > > Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> >
> > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense". It's
> > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
> >
> > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> > means an intuitive process.
>
> It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and placing it
> in the location where you want it.
>
Yeah, but this is a point actually. For those making the migration to
Mac, or stone cold newbies, the installation of apps on the Mac is not
initially intuitive. It does not hold your hand for you, like Windows
does. I know a couple of people who have just got their first Macs, and
this issue is one that confused both of them.
Download a DMG, window appears on the desktop, double click the icon
within, app runs... but now what? For a newbie, it's *not* obvious.
Has it installed? Where? What do you do with the two icons on the
desktop? Put *what* in the applications folder? Drag *what* to the
dock?
One of the newbies I know, while he had been told him that applications
should be dragged into the applications folder - which he didn't know
until he was told - I had a bit of a look around his system. It was a
dog's dinner! Apps left on the desktop, apps in the root, DMG and SIT
files in the applications folder - because he assumed they must be a
part of it - plus, several copies of the same applications all over the
place, because he'd put SIT files in the dock, and was clicking them
every time he wanted to run them.
When you know how Mac OS handles this stuff, it's great - usually no
need for those annoying installer wizards, and apps usually in one
single 'file bundle' - but intuitive and obvious for those not in the
know, it ain't.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Donald McDaniel
<mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks man. Wow, these zealots are assholes. All I did was ask some simple
> questions. I was slightly confused because they said "Just turn it on and it
> reads your mind" type stuff. I'm finding myriads more difficult to get
> anything accomplished on the Mac. I hate the no right click thing! At least
> it works for the trash can.
It's not so much that you asked simple questions. It's that you
appeared to them to be badmouthing their precious machines, not asking
for help. And they just can't take such criticism. They are simply
too weak for that.
Start off a little more humbly, and they might be more forthcoming with
help.
I had as much difficulty as you at first, my friend. After using the
OS for awhile it will become second-nature, just as using Windows
became second-nature to you after practice.
Of course, I have my brother to help me (sometimes in a kindly way,
and sometimes not). Sometimes, he can really be a jerk. But then
again, so can I.
By the way, right-clicking does exist in OSX. Some apps use it, while
others don't (older apps, I've found).
Dont' give up, dude. Keep experimenting and trying things out. You
will really learn to appreciate the Mac paradigm, if you don't give up.
Here's something to try: Right-click on the Desktop. You should see a
popup menu appear.
Also, almost all OSX apps have a "Preferences" section, found by
clicking on the App name in the Toolbar.
To configure your machne, click on the System Preferences icon in the
Dock (it looks like a "light-switch next to an Apple").
To shut the machine down, click on the Apple icon in the far-left of
the Toolbar.
You will also learn to really appreciate Finder (the left-most icon in
the Dock).
Also, the best Internet Browser I've found so far for OSX is Firefox
1.5beta.
Donald L McDaniel
====================================================
Donald McDaniel
<mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> MuahMan wrote:
> > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
> > Dashboard
> > it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
> > calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it
> > again
> > it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> > can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> > the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> > properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> > corner every time?
>
> ?? What kind of drunken rambling is this.
Maybe he's just frustrated and confused. Ever been there?
>
> >
> > Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> > downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> > can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> > where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
>
> What, you can't figure out what a virtual disk image is?
How could he? Apparently, he's never used a Mac before. "Virtual Disk
Image" is not a Windows concept.
>
> >
> > There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> > I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> > finding it.
>
> It's pretty obvious.
This is true (after a few days of using the Dock).
>
> >
> > System would be great if it used right clicks.
>
> It does.
Donald McDaniel
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <0mP%e.99684$Ph4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> >> NashtOn <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have to understand that the Mac has as steep of a learning curve as
> >>>Windows, no matter what the resident zealots have to say.
> >>
> >>It's more like an "unlearning" curve, and as long as you try to do
> >>things the Windows way, you'll find it confusing and unpredictable.
> >>
> >>Instead, try to do things in a way that make sense.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense".
>
> What makes sense about "installing" an application? I don't have to
> "install" a document to use it, or "install" a web page to open it.
It makes perfect sense to a Windows user. That't just the way it's
done. When he learns to use OSX, he will find that the Mac way "makes
perfect sense", since "that's just the way it's done (sometimes,
sometime not)".
"Makes perfect sense" is very dependent on the context, not the content.
>
> > It's
> > more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
> > InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
>
> Oh PLEASE. Tried installing RealPlayer recently? If all you do is
> click "Next," you'll have many miserable hours trying to undo what it did.
>
Donald L McDaniel
===========================================================
Richard Ragon
> In article <2cqdne2Mo_L...@adelphia.com>, "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
>>it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
>
>
> You're such a stupid shit for using "gay" as a pejorative, there's no real point
> in addressing any of the rest of what you wrote. Fucktard.
Hey now I'm offended for the use of Fucktard.. Sounds like retard! :)
-Richard
MuahMan
RichardK
> In article <2cqdne2Mo_L...@adelphia.com>, "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
>>it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
>
>
> You're such a stupid shit for using "gay" as a pejorative, there's no real point
> in addressing any of the rest of what you wrote. Fucktard.
Maybe his computer has some interesting new Widgets...
Richard
--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;)
Mr. T
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > yes, but the .dmg file automatically transforms into a "Disk Icon", and
> > not only that, it auto opens and shows you the application,
>
> Not on my machine it doesn't.
>
> I have to double click the .dmg to unstuffit it, then double click on
> the "mounted volume" to open it. It may be self-evident to you and I,
> but it isn't to a newbie.
>
> Maybe my machine is set up differently, but it is as set up by a clean
> install of Tiger.
>
> > with directions to "drag" into your applications folder or hard drive.
>
> Sometimes.
>
> > it's just a little toooo easy, that's all. the major fault has to do with
> > residual files it leaves, the stuffit expander has the incorrect
> > default, since it should "delete" the stuffed, or .bin file from the
> > destktop, most of the confusion stems from that. expander is no longer
> > part of Tiger, so that problem will go away in time.
one little detail, make sure not to use Safari. Camino has this feature.
"open downloads when finished". then everything is automatic. you simply
touch on any of 17,000 apps in Versiontracker, wait a bit, then the DMG
window auto opens on your screen.
Travelinman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Travelinman <now...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3temr.irq1181pfrrwuN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> > not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
> > > > Dashboard it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
> > >
> > > It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
> >
> > Not on my system. No measurable CPU activity.
>
> 1-2%. Not much, but more than if it was off.
Less than 0.1% on mine.
What are you using - 100 MHz G3?
>
> > Even when you activate it, it uses only a few percent.
>
> About 20-25%
Less than 5% on my Powerbook.
>
> It also uses about 20Mb memory per widget.
6 MB per widget on mine. Memory which is reclaimed when you stop using
it.
Again, what are you using it on?
Steve Hix
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Well that, and the fact that Pratt/Muahman/whatever has a *looooooong*
history of cluttering up multiple newsgroups with exceedingly stupid
trolls similar to the one he just started.
> You oughta be ashamed of yourselves!
Why? He asks for it. Repeatedly.
As do a number of chronic tolls here, which accounts for almost all the
posts that of the sort you note.
Steve Hix
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <QfWdnexjivY...@adelphia.com>, MuahMan
> <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks man. Wow, these zealots are assholes. All I did was ask some simple
> > questions. I was slightly confused because they said "Just turn it on and
> > it
> > reads your mind" type stuff. I'm finding myriads more difficult to get
> > anything accomplished on the Mac. I hate the no right click thing! At least
> > it works for the trash can.
>
> It's not so much that you asked simple questions. It's that you
> appeared to them to be badmouthing their precious machines, not asking
> for help. And they just can't take such criticism. They are simply
> too weak for that.
No, it's because a lot of regulars here remember him very well.
He's not here to find out how to do something, to get a question
answered; he's here to make up for some horrible failing in his social
interactions with the rest of civilization.
At least, that's the explanation that best fits the facts.
> Start off a little more humbly, and they might be more forthcoming with
> help.
You must be new to these parts. Any number of people show up here as new
Mac users asking all sorts of questions. Most of them get answers
quickly, without much of any criticism.
Pratt/Muahman/DiaperBoy/etc is not one of those sorts of questioners.
Try checking for some of his earlier posting history. It won't take much
time. He has claimed, at least, for several years to have or use Macs
and MacOS both before and after the introduction of MacOS X.
Perhaps he has a severe memory loss problem.
Juan Hobenaro
<mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
> calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
> it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
> can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
> the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
> properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
> corner every time?
>
> Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
> downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
> can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
> where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
>
> There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
> I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
> finding it.
>
> System would be great if it used right clicks. The fonts are pretty sweet,
> and the progress bars are beautiful I'll give it that. Ichat has no support
> for anythng but AIM and the Isight camera won't work with any window users.
> UGH, sorely dissapointed. You bitches lied to me.
>
>
One of the "OS X -The Missing Manual" books can really help. And yes,
it IS a shame you have to fork out more money for a book about it, but
it will save hours. This is a whole new world compared to Windows (much
better once you get used to it). I had to buy one of those books even
switching from MacOS 9.
Hobenaro
Timberwoof
Richard Ragon <bse...@hananho.com> wrote:
I apologize to the fucktards (and, by implication, retards) whom I've offended
by likening MuahMan to them.
Timberwoof
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3te63.1n25ld6e7tmiaN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> > not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > >
> > > When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> > > into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
> > > means an intuitive process.
> >
> > First, don't confuse "intuitive" with "instinctive." There's no such thing
> > as
> > "instinctive." And things are "intuitive" only after you've learned the
> > rules
> > for interacting with something.
>
> That's my point. A point many Maccies seem to ignore.
Which is why I, a Maccie, bring it up.
Timberwoof
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3temr.irq1181pfrrwuN%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> > not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > MuahMan <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
> > > > Dashboard it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
> > >
> > > It's horrible. It also consumes CPU cycles even when "resting".
> >
> > Much like Word or Excel.
>
> Bryce 5 for OS X consumes so much CPU even when it's doing nothing that the
> fan comes on in my PowerBook.
>
> It seems to be a relatively common problem with OS X, apps consuming CPU
> cycles even when idling.
Monitor them with Activity Monitor and submit bugs. While you're at it, find
that cool developer app that pains regions yellow that the application redraws.
Some apps do amazing numbers of unnecessary redraws after every interaction.
> > > > like a caluclator, and a calender. You can move them around the screen
> > > > but once you click on it again it disappears. I guess it's all or
> > > > nothing, look at the widgets but you can't do anything else unless you
> > > > close it. I keep trying to right click on the weather thing to get it
> > > > to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the properties for anything
> > > > open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand corner every time?
> > >
> > > It's the Apple way.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, it's possible to disable Dashboard, even though it appears
> > > to stay running in the Dock.
> > >
> > > I'd like to remove it from the Applications folder altogether but I don't
> > > know if OS X would throw a wobbler.
> >
> > Try it and see what happens. I bet you can do that without any problems.
> >
> > Have you tried exploring its Preferences?
>
> The hack I downloaded turned it off in its preferences, if I understand it
> correctly.
>
> But that's not the same as ditching it altogether, and the Dock icon is still
> there looking like it's still running. It's no big deal, just untidy.
So ditch it and see what happens.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF65FD54.94E5%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 6:10 AM:
>
>> On 2/10/05 7:37 PM, in article BF651480.31E7C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> BF65E1AD.949E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 4:12 AM:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/05 5:57 PM, in article hKOdnYoUSd9...@adelphia.com,
>>>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat
>>>>> won't connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some
>>>>> DMG
>>>>> file. Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens when
>>>>> the dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG
>>>>> file to a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I
>>>>> thouoght
>>>>> Safari was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
>>>>
>>>> No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
>>>
>>> Have you not read Steve Carroll's posts on how if someone believes the US
>>> should follow treaties *unless* they contradict the Constitution that must
>>> somehow mean the Constitution (according to Steve's straw man) is
>>> subordinate to treaties?
>>
>> I did read what Steve had to say on that subject, which leads me to
>> understand why you would want to engage me on the subject and not him! ;)
>
> Engaging him is like debating with an infant - he has no capacity to
> understand such discussions - he merely repeats the same lies over and over
> (hmmm, that puts him one step below an infant).
Irony is alive and well I see!
>>> What about Steve admitted inability to understand
>>> the very concept of someone breaking the law unless he is able to place it
>>> into some legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, judicial, or logical cubby
>>> hole.
>>
>> I don't find that strange at all actually! What I do /did find strange was
>> when you kept asking me if I found the very act of breaking a law to be
>> immoral, and yet you would never allow me to judge the morality of the law
>> in question,
>
> The question was an abstract one -
An abstract question that you insisted that I should be able to give an all
encompassing answer to!
> there was no single law in question.
That was the problem! you expected me to answer a question based on my
morals and yet you offered me no opportunity to examine the morality of the
law in question....because there wasnšt one single law, but ALL laws, that
was absurd to assume that anybody would consider ALL laws morally equal, you
did consider them equal which is how you were able to answer that
question....I found/find that disturbing! unless of course you would have
altered your answer under differing circumstances, yet another reason why
your original question was absurd!
> This was explained to you repeatedly. There was no "trick" where I would
> jump to the erroneous conclusion that if you did not find the act of law
> breaking in the abstract to be immoral than you must not find any specific
> illegal act immoral.
Of course you wouldnšt! ;=)
> While I believe all things being equal one should follow the law, I do not
> think that that breaking a law is, in the abstract, an immoral thing. This
> does not imply that any specific act of law breaking is not immoral.
Your abstraction in this matter makes no sense to me, especially when
considering morals.
> That is the type of answer I was looking for from you -*not* about any
specific law.
What you were looking for was not my concern, answering an abstract question
in an all encompassing manner was!
> You repeatedly were unable to understand the abstract nature
> of the question and needed a specific law in order to understand it.
Of course I understood the abstract nature of the question, I just don't
consider my morals in an abstract way!
> To
> give a specific law, however, would be to completely change the nature of
> the question!
I know it would! It would allow me to have examined my morals wrt the law in
question and have answered your question honestly!
> You showed no ability nor understanding of the very
> question... so why you would bring it up again is rather odd.
Not odd at all! It shows a history of you being unable to be specific, just
as you are now unable to say in what context you consider JB to be guilty.
>> which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based on my morals,
>> by
>> not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on a/any law put me in
>> the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact was that had I
>> answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could have/would have
>> used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of what moral position
>> I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the need for what you term
>> cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any ambiguity from a
>> proposition!
>
> And again you demonstrate your inability to understand abstractions. That
> is a weakness of yours I hope you overcome.
You seem to associate developed morals with weakness.......I don't!
>>
>>> In other words: I do believe it is possible to be *that* stupid - we see
>>> examples of it in almost every one of Steve's posts.
>>
>> A simple 'yes' would have done nicely!
>
> LOL... OK.... Yes. Yes I believe there are those who are *that* stupid.
Snit
>> The question was an abstract one -
>
> An abstract question that you insisted that I should be able to give an all
> encompassing answer to!
I was looking for an answer to an abstract answer - of the type I have given
you many, many times... including below. You have not shown you have the
capacity to even understand the question. That, Wally, and nothing other,
is the problem here.
Prove me wrong: what do you think I am asking - in your own words. No doubt
you will be wrong.
>
>> there was no single law in question.
>
> That was the problem! you expected me to answer a question based on my
> morals and yet you offered me no opportunity to examine the morality of the
> law in question....because there wasnšt one single law, but ALL laws, that
> was absurd to assume that anybody would consider ALL laws morally equal, you
> did consider them equal which is how you were able to answer that
> question....I found/find that disturbing! unless of course you would have
> altered your answer under differing circumstances, yet another reason why
> your original question was absurd!
Why jump to an absurd straw man that says all laws morally equal? Keep in
mind that is *your* statement, not mine. I disagree with that statement, as
is made clear in the very post you responded to. Again: you do not show you
even understand the question. The abstract nature of it places it beyond
your capacity to understand.
>
>> This was explained to you repeatedly. There was no "trick" where I would
>> jump to the erroneous conclusion that if you did not find the act of law
>> breaking in the abstract to be immoral than you must not find any specific
>> illegal act immoral.
>
> Of course you wouldnšt! ;=)
Why the smiley?
>
>> While I believe all things being equal one should follow the law, I do not
>> think that that breaking a law is, in the abstract, an immoral thing. This
>> does not imply that any specific act of law breaking is not immoral.
>
> Your abstraction in this matter makes no sense to me, especially when
> considering morals.
Here we agree: you were not able to make sense of the abstraction in
question. Keep in mind that this does not imply that the abstraction was a
particularly tough topic... keep in mind all I was asking is if breaking the
law, in the absence of other moral wrongs, is to you immoral.
To me it is not - though if all else is equal I believe you should follow
the law. But if I do an act that is not immoral, if the act goes against a
law that does not make it an immoral act.
See, easy to answer. For me. For you, well, the very question "make no
sense".
>
>> That is the type of answer I was looking for from you -*not* about any
>> specific law.
>
> What you were looking for was not my concern, answering an abstract question
> in an all encompassing manner was!
Not all encompassing - merely in relation to laws. There is much more to
the universe and even to morality that laws!
>
>> You repeatedly were unable to understand the abstract nature of the question
>> and needed a specific law in order to understand it.
>
> Of course I understood the abstract nature of the question, I just don't
> consider my morals in an abstract way!
Above you state: "Your abstraction in this matter makes no sense to me".
Why the flip flop here to pretend you understand "the abstract nature of the
question". At least in this case you clearly do not.
>
>> To give a specific law, however, would be to completely change the nature of
>> the question!
>
> I know it would! It would allow me to have examined my morals wrt the law in
> question and have answered your question honestly!
Good to see that we are now both in agreement that you were not able to
answer the question I asked in an honest way; you wanted me to ask you a
different question so you could "have answered [my] question honestly".
>
>> You showed no ability nor understanding of the very question... so why you
>> would bring it up again is rather odd.
>
> Not odd at all! It shows a history of you being unable to be specific, just
> as you are now unable to say in what context you consider JB to be guilty.
JB? Do you mean *G*eorge Bush? Changing the question to a very different
one would not have gotten me an answer to the question you and I agree you
were unable to answer honestly.
As far as Bush, I have presented a solid argument to show that he has broken
the law. What other context do you need to understand such a simple
concept? I go into more detail here:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my list of "other
arguments" below the main text. You share with Steve the need to push that
laughable argument. I may need to edit that point to include you as someone
who is unable to see why it is laughable. :)
>>> which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based on my morals,
>>> by not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on a/any law put me
>>> in the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact was that had I
>>> answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could have/would have
>>> used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of what moral
>>> position I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the need for what
>>> you term cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any ambiguity from a
>>> proposition!
>>>
>> And again you demonstrate your inability to understand abstractions. That is
>> a weakness of yours I hope you overcome.
>
> You seem to associate developed morals with weakness.......I don't!
I am curious what twisting of words and concepts you used to come to your
observation about me. Care to explain?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
C Lund
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> While "things" may make "sense" to you, apparently they don't to the OP.
> After all, you've been using Macs for a while, and he's probably been
> using Wintels all his life.
> Don't you remember the ones who "helped" you at first? I strongly
> advise you not to be like them, and instead, be a truly helpful person.
> After all, "a little kindness goes a long way", and "you can catch
> more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
> Telling him over and over how "stupid" Windows users are will only make
> him angry. It will not help in the least. In addition, it will
> probably turn him off to Macs forever. Of course, that may be what you
> actually want (it certainly appears that way with many Mac users I've
> run across in these forums.)
The OP is a wintroll. I doubt he has any interest in using macs at all.
> Donald L McDaniel
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> It's not so much that you asked simple questions. It's that you
> appeared to them to be badmouthing their precious machines, not asking
> for help. And they just can't take such criticism. They are simply
> too weak for that.
It's not the criticism. It's the trolling.
> Start off a little more humbly, and they might be more forthcoming with
> help.
Yeah, and he'd also have to somehow wipe the preceding years of
trolling from our minds as well.
You talked about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar?
Muahmah is a fly I'd rather catch with a fly-swatter.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Donald McDaniel <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Just let that frustrated ex-Windows person say ANY negative thing about
> your "precious" Mac, and wham! you're all are all over him with
> zingers, cranky statements, and various other crappy remarks, rather
> than simply being helpful persons and instructing him.
You must be new to these parts. Muahman is getting what he deserves.
> You oughta be ashamed of yourselves!
No, we shouldn't. We occasionally get new mac users in this forum, and
they get the help they need. No zingers, no snide comments, nothing -
except from the likes of Muahman.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF66E04C.9562%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 10:19 PM:
>
>>> The question was an abstract one -
>>
>> An abstract question that you insisted that I should be able to give an all
>> encompassing answer to!
>
> I was looking for an answer to an abstract answer - of the type I have given
> you many, many times... including below.
Yup! as clear as mud "...an answer to an abstract answer..." ;=)
> You have not shown you have the
> capacity to even understand the question.
Not true! my refusal to answer an abstract question with an absolute answer,
and your refusal to modify the question is a good indicator that I
understood your question and the motive for it only too well!
> That, Wally, and nothing other, is the problem here.
Not so!
> Prove me wrong: what do you think I am asking - in your own words. No doubt
> you will be wrong.
Now isn't that a bit silly? If you want me to relate what *you* are asking
surely quoting *your* question would be the best approach, and here it is...
" the question is, was, and will be if you find the very act of breaking a
law to be immoral."-Snit
The question is a very, very, simple one....'would I consider the very act
of breaking a law to be immoral' and my answer has always been just as
simple....that it would depend on the law being broken!
Why is it so hard for you to understand that morally I may consider two
different laws in totally different lights? To the extent that if each were
substituted into your question the answer to one would be 'yes' and the
other 'no', to attempt to give a blanket answer that truthfully reflects
both is ludicrous, IMO.
>>> there was no single law in question.
>>
>> That was the problem! you expected me to answer a question based on my
>> morals and yet you offered me no opportunity to examine the morality of the
>> law in question....because there wasnšt one single law, but ALL laws, that
>> was absurd to assume that anybody would consider ALL laws morally equal, you
>> did consider them equal which is how you were able to answer that
>> question....I found/find that disturbing! unless of course you would have
>> altered your answer under differing circumstances, yet another reason why
>> your original question was absurd!
>
> Why jump to an absurd straw man that says all laws morally equal?
They would have to be, or at least have to be considered so morally for me
to be able to answer a question such as the one you ask in relation to 'a
law' when 'the' law isn't stated!
> Keep in
> mind that is *your* statement, not mine. I disagree with that statement, as
> is made clear in the very post you responded to. Again: you do not show you
> even understand the question. The abstract nature of it places it beyond
> your capacity to understand.
IMO it is your question that assumes all laws are equal morally, which is
why you will never achieve your goal in receiving an answer to it as it
stands.
>>> This was explained to you repeatedly. There was no "trick" where I would
>>> jump to the erroneous conclusion that if you did not find the act of law
>>> breaking in the abstract to be immoral than you must not find any specific
>>> illegal act immoral.
>>
>> Of course you wouldnšt! ;=)
>
> Why the smiley?
Sarca.., Fill in the missing letters, or it could be that I am just a happy
guy!
>>
>>> While I believe all things being equal one should follow the law, I do not
>>> think that that breaking a law is, in the abstract, an immoral thing. This
>>> does not imply that any specific act of law breaking is not immoral.
>>
>> Your abstraction in this matter makes no sense to me, especially when
>> considering morals.
>
> Here we agree: you were not able to make sense of the abstraction in
> question. Keep in mind that this does not imply that the abstraction was a
> particularly tough topic... keep in mind all I was asking is if breaking the
> law, in the absence of other moral wrongs, is to you immoral.
Modify the original question all you wish, the original will still be there!
" the question is, was, and will be if you find the very act of breaking a
law to be immoral."-Snit
Notice how your most recent modification of the question .."in the absence
of other moral wrongs" contradicts your earlier position of "... is, was,
and will be..." you are now assuming, and more importantly indicating to me
that as far as 'the law' being broken is concerned I may consider it not to
be contrary to my morals......Why on earth has it taken you so long to come
round to a reasonable way of thinking, when I have been asking you to modify
the question in such a way since you *first* asked it!
> To me it is not - though if all else is equal I believe you should follow
> the law. But if I do an act that is not immoral,
And how would you know if it is immoral or not, unless you know what the act
is...Oh wait! thatšs right, for you 'breaking the law' is *the* act, how you
break it seems to have no relevance to you morally!
> if the act goes against a
> law that does not make it an immoral act.
>
> See, easy to answer. For me. For you, well, the very question "make no
> sense".
Which question are you referring to ...
The original......"if you find the very act of breaking a law to be
immoral."-Snit
Or the recent modification of it......"... I was asking is if breaking the
law, in the absence of other moral wrongs, is to you immoral." - Snit
Pleeeese get a grip Snit!
>>
>>> That is the type of answer I was looking for from you -*not* about any
>>> specific law.
>>
>> What you were looking for was not my concern, answering an abstract question
>> in an all encompassing manner was!
>
> Not all encompassing - merely in relation to laws. There is much more to
> the universe and even to morality that laws!
"all encompassing manner" in the context of that being discussed Snit...too
difficult for you to understand that?
>>
>>> You repeatedly were unable to understand the abstract nature of the question
>>> and needed a specific law in order to understand it.
>>
>> Of course I understood the abstract nature of the question, I just don't
>> consider my morals in an abstract way!
>
> Above you state: "Your abstraction in this matter makes no sense to me".
> Why the flip flop here to pretend you understand "the abstract nature of the
> question". At least in this case you clearly do not.
"Your abstraction in this matter" as opposed to an abstract question...think
about it!
>>> To give a specific law, however, would be to completely change the nature of
>>> the question!
>>
>> I know it would! It would allow me to have examined my morals wrt the law in
>> question and have answered your question honestly!
>
> Good to see that we are now both in agreement that you were not able to
> answer the question I asked in an honest way; you wanted me to ask you a
> different question so you could "have answered [my] question honestly".
I have asked you repeatedly to modify the question, I now note that you
have, indicating that I have been right all along and that it has taken you
this long to accept that fact!
>>> You showed no ability nor understanding of the very question... so why you
>>> would bring it up again is rather odd.
>>
>> Not odd at all! It shows a history of you being unable to be specific, just
>> as you are now unable to say in what context you consider JB to be guilty.
>
> JB? Do you mean *G*eorge Bush?
Correct my mistake GB.
> Changing the question to a very different
> one would not have gotten me an answer to the question you and I agree you
> were unable to answer honestly.
Stating that I cannot answer a particular question honestly is in fact being
honest! your confusion wrt honesty is well documented, it is disappointing
to see a lack of any improvement from you!
> As far as Bush, I have presented a solid argument to show that he has broken
> the law. What other context do you need to understand such a simple
> concept?
And you have stated that such an act in your view is immoral, is that
correct, ( I am assuming that your recent addition to a previous question
..."in the absence of other moral wrongs " indicates that you consider
Bush's actions to be morally wrong) is this the context of your argument
about Bush's guilt?
> I go into more detail here:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my list of "other
> arguments" below the main text. You share with Steve the need to push that
> laughable argument. I may need to edit that point to include you as someone
> who is unable to see why it is laughable. :)
So Steve was correct when he said.....
"You are arguing your *belief* he broke the law. It's all you can argue."
>>>> which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based on my morals,
>>>> by not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on a/any law put
>>>> me
>>>> in the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact was that had I
>>>> answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could have/would have
>>>> used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of what moral
>>>> position I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the need for
>>>> what
>>>> you term cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any ambiguity from
>>>> a
>>>> proposition!
>>>>
>>> And again you demonstrate your inability to understand abstractions. That
>>> is
>>> a weakness of yours I hope you overcome.
>>
>> You seem to associate developed morals with weakness.......I don't!
>
> I am curious what twisting of words and concepts you used to come to your
> observation about me. Care to explain?
Is there a purpose that that would serve?
Autymn D. C.
> When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the app
> into a location of their choice things become very easy, but it's by no
Autymn D. C.
> I have to double click the .dmg to unstuffit it, then double click on
> the "mounted volume" to open it. It may be self-evident to you and I,
Snit
What we see above:
In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
1) You try to attribute some motive to my actions other than to get you to
answer the question. You fail to state what you think this motive is. You
also push other accusations... none of which you offer any support for.
2) As predicted, you showed no understanding of the question. Sure,
breaking a specific law may very well be immoral, but that does not imply
that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is immoral. That concept is too
abstract for you.
3) Your repeated pushing of the straw man that all laws are equally moral or
that I, or the question, make this silly presumption.
4) Your pushing of a game you and Steve Carroll both play: I ask you a
question, you show you are unable to understand it so I help you with an
explanation. You then pretend that since I did not word it *exactly* the
same way that I must be changing the *concept* of the question - but then
you neglect to answer the question in any form and just focus on your
dishonest games.
5) You engaging in another game you share with Steve Carroll - which is
discussed here: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my
list of "other arguments" below the main text.
6) Our agreement that you are never going to give an honest answer to my
question.
I have left the above untouched so that you cannot not play one of your
other dishonest games of claiming that I have dishonestly snipped some
context. In future responses in this thread it will be trimmed. Really,
though, now that you have admitted that you find yourself unable to be
honest, we have reached agreement.
--
BU__SH__
Autymn D. C.
Computer. MuahMan, remember that if you or anyone else has a complaint
about the MacOS, in most cases it is your fault--but mostly it's Bill
Gates's fault. Write to him.
calender -> calendar
dissapointed -> disappointed
Right-clicks are needless. Use hold-clicks for the Dock and everywhere
else. If those don't work--meaning that some programmers foolishly
left this implementation out, which beats Windows mouses' fluff any
day--then control-click will do.
Download TinkerTool and put the Dock on the left edge of the screen,
hugging the menubar. Then collapse the Finder window tray to show only
icons, dragging the window to hug the Dock. Drag all common
applications to the Dock, and shrink it so its icons match the icons in
the tray (nice!). Then drag your hard drive to the Dock's foot: This
will take the stead of the Finder, which you may shut (quit) by using
TT, for navigating and opening files and folders. Then put the open
Finder window into List view, drag the Date column narrower so that it
shows only what you need or want, click the Kind column to sort
everything neatly and drag it to the rihtmost. After you've learnt
what all the icons mean, you can shrink the Kind column. What pisses
me off is that Finder never remembers other windows' column settings as
mine here, and inexplicably changes them even after I try com.-j.
Bring up root, select all the folders, and see what happens when you
hit the right and left arrows. Remember this, and don't abuse it in
the Library folders [as I had] by changing permissions (access) from
the computer to you, /unless/ you start getting negative error numbers
meaning that an application can't work or works wonkily because it
doesn't have access to its own files. It usually happens after moving
between disks or user folders. Anyway, tip open Users, then tip open
your folder. Do most things hence. Use the keyboard to move about,
arrow keys and command-arrow keys inclusively. Go to System
Preferences, Keyboard & Mouse, Keyboard Shortcuts and add these for the
Finder: System Preferences...: com.-con.-` and Show Character Palette:
com.-op.-`. Use these. Using the Keyboard Viewer in the International
menu, that should've been put in the menubar, memorize where the
important extended characters, such as op.-; for ... or op.-sh.-- for
— (damned servers will not show some extended characters). Make
fun of Wikipedians who don't have Macs.
I've never agreed with Apple's font settings. Use TT to set the
following, using the Change... buttons, that I've fiddled with and
debugged:
System: TimesNewRomanPSMT, 14 pt
System (headlines): Optima-Bold, 12 pt
Application: Futura-CondensedMedium, 12 pt
Fixed-pitch: CourierNewPSMT, 12 pt
Messages: LucidaGrande, 12 pt
Labels: LucidaGrande, 10 pt
Help tags: AmericanTypewriter, 10 pt
Window title bars: Futura-MediumItalic, 14 pt
Utility window title bars: Futura-MediumItalic, 10 pt.
Now read how I hacked a computer lab and overwrote the time and date
settings, and use-ye those:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/cfa3d9dc71d63b22/0e6745bccb10049f#0e6745bccb10049f.
Download Hardware Monitor, turn on the menubar display, shift the items
in order from hot to cold, name the power supply "0: " and
processor/controller "1: ", and put these two in the menubar with the
Futura-CondensedMedium, 14 pt font. I like kelvins.
-Aut
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Would that be the original question, or the recently modified question, the
one that incorporates the changes I suggested when you first produced the
original?
> 1) You try to attribute some motive to my actions other than to get you to
> answer the question. You fail to state what you think this motive is. You
> also push other accusations... none of which you offer any support for.
The specifics wrt your motives are immaterial, the fact that you have
finally altered your original question is all the proof needed to know that
you were working toward your own agenda, sorry to have spoilt your fun!
> 2) As predicted, you showed no understanding of the question. Sure,
> breaking a specific law may very well be immoral, but that does not imply
> that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is immoral. That concept is too
> abstract for you.
So it can be concluded that your definition of immoral does not include...
"violating principles of right and wrong"
"deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"
"not adhering to ethical or moral principles"
"not conforming to accepted standards of morality"
"conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
"not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour"
"not in accordance with established or accepted rules and standards of right
and wrong conduct,"
"Contrary to established moral principles."
"Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct
usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal
and social ethics. "
Thank you for the clarification!
<normal waffle snipped>
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF65FD54.94E5%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 6:10 AM:
>
> > On 2/10/05 7:37 PM, in article BF651480.31E7C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> > "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >> BF65E1AD.949E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/2/05 4:12 AM:
> >>
> >>> On 2/10/05 5:57 PM, in article hKOdnYoUSd9...@adelphia.com,
> >>> "MuahMan" <mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Arrrrrgh, had to download Windows Messenger for this thing since Ichat
> >>>> won't connect to that network (monumentally stupid). It downloaded some
> >>>> DMG
> >>>> file. Where do I put programs? Where do they install to? What happens
> >>>> when
> >>>> the dock is full? Where do I find the program and should I copy the DMG
> >>>> file to a directory and that's the app or is it an install? Also I
> >>>> thouoght
> >>>> Safari was a tabbed browser! WTF. there's no tabs!
> >>>
> >>> No! not buying the act, nobody can be that stupid...............can they?
> >>
> >> Have you not read Steve Carroll's posts on how if someone believes the US
> >> should follow treaties *unless* they contradict the Constitution that must
> >> somehow mean the Constitution (according to Steve's straw man) is
> >> subordinate to treaties?
> >
> > I did read what Steve had to say on that subject, which leads me to
> > understand why you would want to engage me on the subject and not him! ;)
>
> Engaging him is like debating with an infant - he has no capacity to
> understand such discussions - he merely repeats the same lies over and over
> (hmmm, that puts him one step below an infant).
I realize this isn't new ground but it's humorous to take a fresh look
at it each time Snit addresses it with a new poster;)
Regarding Snit's argument that "Bush is guilty", a cola poster wrote to
Snit:
"Somehow I suspect that the presidents legal advisors understand the law
better than you do".
Snit's reply (hypocritically made in a thread replete with appeals to
authorities of Snit's choosing) was:
"Your argument is simply an appeal to authority. You are not denying my
argument based on my argument but because you disagree with who is
making the argument. Is that the best you can do, argue logical
fallacies?"
Once again, as he has in the past, Snit has made it clear that, to him,
an 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy when arguing a "legal
argument". In essence, he is saying that even if the Supreme Court
Justices ruled a particular way on a constitutional legal topic, it
would be a 'logical fallacy' to defer to such an authority when having a
"legal argument" on usenet about it. On a side note, it's interesting to
find Snit referring to his argument in a "logical" sense once again. One
look at what Snit had to say about the evidence he brought forth to
prove his argument tells the story.
I wrote to Snit:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."
*(the assertion being that "Bush is guilty of breaking the law")
Snit's reply:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
So one must 'logically' ask: To WHOM does the "evidence" in Snit's
argument point to the conclusion Snit has reached?
It is the asking of this question wherein the humor lies.
Within the context of trying to settle such a dispute as this, the very
act of asking and attempting to answer my "To WHOM" question above
constitutes an 'appeal to authority'. When Snit brings forth all of his
data that he thinks backs his position, he is 'appealing' to what *he
believes* is 'authority'... in other words, he's committing the "logical
fallacy" he accuses others of when they appeal to what they believe are
authorities. Snit does this whether they be SC Justices or framers of
the Constitution.
Note: Even if Snit limited the 'authority' HE was willing to defer to...
TO himself, thereby, making HIM the authority in question, it would
STILL be an 'appeal to authority. Unquestionably... Snit doesn't
comprehend the subject matter. Like what he has accused me of many times
(he's actually projecting) he's obviously treating this like a "logical"
math problem... all the while calling me an "infant"... who "has no
capacity to understand such discussions".
It doesn't get a whole lot funnier than this... it's the kind of shit
that makes the milk come out your nose;)
> >> What about Steve admitted inability to understand
> >> the very concept of someone breaking the law unless he is able to place it
> >> into some legal, ethical, moral, philosophical, judicial, or logical cubby
> >> hole.
> >
> > I don't find that strange at all actually! What I do /did find strange was
> > when you kept asking me if I found the very act of breaking a law to be
> > immoral, and yet you would never allow me to judge the morality of the law
> > in question,
>
> The question was an abstract one - there was no single law in question.
> This was explained to you repeatedly. There was no "trick" where I would
> jump to the erroneous conclusion that if you did not find the act of law
> breaking in the abstract to be immoral than you must not find any specific
> illegal act immoral.
>
> While I believe all things being equal one should follow the law, I do not
> think that that breaking a law is, in the abstract, an immoral thing. This
> does not imply that any specific act of law breaking is not immoral.
>
> That is the type of answer I was looking for from you - *not* about any
> specific law. You repeatedly were unable to understand the abstract nature
> of the question and needed a specific law in order to understand it. To
> give a specific law, however, would be to completely change the nature of
> the question! You showed no ability nor understanding of the very
> question... so why you would bring it up again is rather odd.
>
> > which would be essential if I were to answer truthfully based on my morals,
> > by
> > not specifying a law and expecting me to answer based on a/any law put me
> > in
> > the same position as you now put Steve, the simple fact was that had I
> > answered based on 'a law' and not a specific law you could have/would have
> > used my answer wrt any law of your choosing regardless of what moral
> > position
> > I had previously stated regarding that law, hence the need for what you
> > term
> > cubby holing, which is in fact simply removing any ambiguity from a
> > proposition!
>
> And again you demonstrate your inability to understand abstractions. That
> is a weakness of yours I hope you overcome.
> >
> >> In other words: I do believe it is possible to be *that* stupid - we see
> >> examples of it in almost every one of Steve's posts.
> >
> > A simple 'yes' would have done nicely!
>
> LOL... OK.... Yes. Yes I believe there are those who are *that* stupid.
It's good that you believe in yourself, Snit.
--
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the
records." - Snit
Donald McDaniel
<cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> You talked about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar?
> Muahmah is a fly I'd rather catch with a fly-swatter.
I do understand your frustration. I will try to be a little less
abrasive toward long-time Mac users from now on, and check out those
the Mac oldies call "trolls" more carefully (they exist in the Windows
world too, and are just as hard to help, sadly).
However, I believe that even the most resolute Republican (or troll)
can be turned more toward the brighter side, with a little kindness
(although I do admit that sometimes it takes a little more than at
other times.)
Even a little change is better than none, and a kind word will always
win in the end.
I do realize that there are a lot of recriminations between Mac users
and Windows users. I also realize that many Windows users are secretly
jealous of Mac owners, and make hurtful statements in forum postings
just to take their frustration with Windows out on them, and a few Mac
owners react negatively toward them rather than respond helpfully.
This is normal human behavior, and is not surprising to me.
I have experienced this recrimination personally in Windows groups
since I've changed over to OSX. Of course, I have also experienced
this recrimination from a few Mac users (mostly my fault, I admit. But
I was pretty frustrated and confused the first few days. Now that the
OS is becoming more familiar, my frustration and confusion has pretty
much cleared up, and I can see with a lot more clarity.)
Donald L McDaniel
=====================================================
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
(snip)
> > Why jump to an absurd straw man that says all laws morally equal?
Because he lacks imagination. Snit's world is obviously smooth or sticky
(black and white). Had he asked you: Do you agree with the morality of a
law that cuts off the hand of a thief?
This would be an easy question to answer... but it's clear he's trying
to put you into a "cubby hole" ... (Snit projects a LOT).
Check this out:
"Sokoto, Nigeria - A little over a year ago, Safiya Huseini's crime
wasn't even on the books. Now, the 35-year-old divorcee from a poor
village in northern Nigeria faces death by stoning.
"Nobody is happy about this," says her blind father, Huseini Danwanzam,
75. "There is no justice."
Huseini's sentence -- she was convicted of adultery because she was
found to be pregnant -- is the harshest and most controversial handed
out in Nigeria's Muslim-dominated north since states there began
adopting a hard line Islamic code in January of 2000. The authorities
have yet to stone anyone, but they have conducted several amputations.
The first execution carried out under Sharia law came last January, with
the hanging of a convicted murderer."
Snit said that the breaking of a law is not immoral:
"I am very clear on my view: the act of breaking a law is not immoral."
So... if we look at just any old law when we take into account what Snit
stated here (and do it the way Snit does... out of context) for
instance, this 'stoning for adultery' law, it appears that Snit is, from
a moral standpoint, OK with the stoning.
I love the part where Snit finished this particular post (to you) with:
"I am not asking if you find a law, or laws in general, to be moral or
immoral."
This, in a thread where the question was:
"The question: Do you find the very act of breaking a law to be immoral?"
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> So Steve was correct when he said.....
> "You are arguing your *belief* he broke the law. It's all you can argue."
>
And Snit won't deny. Even Snit knows it's only his opinion... just
recently, in the cola ng, a poster wrote to Snit:
"The war is legal."
Snit replied:
"In your opinion."
A poster came back with:
"And in your 'opinion' it is not."
Snit's reply (admission that Bush's guilt is only his opinion):
"Correct. And I have posted the ample and strong evidence to support my
opinion..."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a8474764e9bf0cb
6?dmode=source&hl=en
Again, we are back to asking to WHOM is Snit's "evidence" "ample and
strong"?
To Snit: Wanna go another round on the "appeal to authority" "logical
fallacy"? Oops... You screwed the pooch on that one, too;)
Steve Carroll
Snot <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> snotted:
(snip)
> What we see above:
>
> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
His "view of morality" and "the abstract nature of laws"? Put the glue
down, Snit.
>
> 1) You try to attribute some motive to my actions other than to get you to
> answer the question.
If you've no motive other than that of asking the question, why are you
asking it? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound MOST OF THE TIME?
> You fail to state what you think this motive is. You
> also push other accusations... none of which you offer any support for.
>
> 2) As predicted, you showed no understanding of the question. Sure,
> breaking a specific law may very well be immoral, but that does not imply
> that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is immoral. That concept is too
> abstract for you.
No, he gets it... he's just not likely to give you any powder for your
'out of context cannon'.
> 3) Your repeated pushing of the straw man that all laws are equally moral or
> that I, or the question, make this silly presumption.
>
> 4) Your pushing of a game you and Steve Carroll both play: I ask you a
> question, you show you are unable to understand it so I help you with an
> explanation. You then pretend that since I did not word it *exactly* the
> same way that I must be changing the *concept* of the question - but then
> you neglect to answer the question in any form and just focus on your
> dishonest games.
If your game wasn't dishonest, you'd ask a specific question. Show me a
person who hasn't learned to avoid answering your vague questions and
I'll show you a person who has less mental capacity than you do.
(snip Snot's snot)
Nicholas Buenk
"Donald McDaniel" <ortho...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:021020051538460150%ortho...@invalid.invalid...
> In article <4340320f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Nicholas Buenk
> <mo...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>> MuahMan wrote:
>> > I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
>> > Dashboard
>> > calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it
>> > again
>> > it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
>> > can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right
>> > click on
>> > the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are
>> > the
>> > properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left
>> > hand
>> > corner every time?
>>
>
> Maybe he's just frustrated and confused. Ever been there?
Yes, I've forgot were I put a start menu group many times because there's so
many there, it's a damn mess.
>>
>> >
>> > Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
>> > downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive
>> > and
>> > can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using
>> > Windows
>> > where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help
>> > files.
>>
>> What, you can't figure out what a virtual disk image is?
>
> How could he? Apparently, he's never used a Mac before. "Virtual Disk
> Image" is not a Windows concept.
daemon tools anyone? I'd argue it's something that any "capable" windows
user would be aware of. Regardless, it's not a hard concept.
>>
>> >
>> > There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock
>> > mean.
>> > I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
>> > finding it.
>>
>> It's pretty obvious.
>
> This is true (after a few days of using the Dock).
Actually that's something a grasped right away, but then I'm very
comfortable with computers, pretty much a power user.
>>
>> >
>> > System would be great if it used right clicks.
>>
>> It does.
Nicholas Buenk
"Timberwoof" <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof-926BE...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>> I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open
>> Dashboard
>> it takes over the whole computer with gay shit
>
> point
> in addressing any of the rest of what you wrote. Fucktard.
Hey, it's the slang of the time peroid.
Sandman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>>> I would disagree that the OS X way is the "way that make sense".
>>> It's more obscure than Windows as most Windows apps come packaged by
>>> InstallShield. All the user has to do is click "Next".
>>>
>>> When the OS X user discovers that all they have to do is drop the
>>> app into a location of their choice things become very easy, but
>>> it's by no means an intuitive process.
>>
>> It's as intuitive as picking your new CD player out of its box and
>> placing it in the location where you want it.
>
> It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
> immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
> doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about
> someone who has never seen a Mac before.
The process of moving an icon is the same process of moving a CD player. It's
logical and has nothing to do with .dmg files. The problem is that people need
to unlearn the idiocy that is Windows.
> Some OS X apps have licence agreements also, ever downloaded an update
> from Apple?
The bundle installation model does not pop up a license, no.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > > It's not the least bit intuitive. Intuitive means that the user
> > > immediately and instinctively knows what to do. Creating a .dmg file
> > > doesn't tell the user what to do. Remember, we're talking about someone
> > > who has never seen a Mac before.
> >
> > yes, but the .dmg file automatically transforms into a "Disk Icon", and
> > not only that, it auto opens and shows you the application,
>
> Not on my machine it doesn't.
BUt we're not talking about your machine, but rather a machine set to default
settings, where Safari will mount DMG files automatically.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > After the installer left, you find out that if you move the CD player from
> > its position on the table, it won't even work any more. When you get tired
> > of this, you call the uninstaller guy, which asks if you want to have
> > chips removed that you've never heard of and don't know if they are form
> > inside the CD player or not.
>
> Yeah, but this is a point actually. For those making the migration to
> Mac, or stone cold newbies, the installation of apps on the Mac is not
> initially intuitive.
*NOTHING* with regards to computers is intuitive in any way. One thing may be
*more* intuitive than another, but nothing is flat out intuitive since
intuitive means you understand how something works without prior experience.
For someone that has never ever seen a computer in his entire life, a Mac won't
make much sense. The learning curve might be smaller, though.
Concepts like "installing", "application" and "hard drive" are totally
counter-intuitive. There is nothing about those concept that is intuitive. They
are very very abstract concepts for Joe Newbie.
<snip>
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> What we see above:
>>
>> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
>> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
>
> Would that be the original question, or the recently modified question, the
> one that incorporates the changes I suggested when you first produced the
> original?
See #4, below. You silly game is discussed there. Oh, I returned what you
dishonestly snipped.
>
>> 1) You try to attribute some motive to my actions other than to get you to
>> answer the question. You fail to state what you think this motive is. You
>> also push other accusations... none of which you offer any support for.
>
> The specifics wrt your motives are immaterial, the fact that you have
> finally altered your original question is all the proof needed to know that
> you were working toward your own agenda, sorry to have spoilt your fun!
You claim my motives are immaterial but that does not stop you from
attributing motives to me that you cannot support. For the record, I agree
my motives are not relevant to your admitted inability to answer my question
honestly. Your attempt at obfuscation though unrelated and unsupported
accusations is noted.
>
>> 2) As predicted, you showed no understanding of the question. Sure,
>> breaking a specific law may very well be immoral, but that does not imply
>> that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is immoral. That concept is too
>> abstract for you.
>
> So it can be concluded that your definition of immoral does not include...
>
> "violating principles of right and wrong"
> "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"
> "not adhering to ethical or moral principles"
> "not conforming to accepted standards of morality"
> "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
> "not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour"
> "not in accordance with established or accepted rules and standards of right
> and wrong conduct,"
> "Contrary to established moral principles."
> "Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct
> usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal
> and social ethics. "
>
> Thank you for the clarification!
Sure, you can incorrectly conclude that. I have no argument with the fact
that you can make such mistakes.
>
>> 3) Your repeated pushing of the straw man that all laws are equally moral or
>> that I, or the question, make this silly presumption.
No comment by you.
>>
>> 4) Your pushing of a game you and Steve Carroll both play: I ask you a
>> question, you show you are unable to understand it so I help you with an
>> explanation. You then pretend that since I did not word it *exactly* the
>> same way that I must be changing the *concept* of the question - but then you
>> neglect to answer the question in any form and just focus on your dishonest
>> games.
No comment by you, though you did offer more examples.
>>
>> 5) You engaging in another game you share with Steve Carroll - which is
>> discussed here: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my
>> list of "other arguments" below the main text.
No comment by you.
>>
>> 6) Our agreement that you are never going to give an honest answer to my
>> question.
No comment by you - and that, really, is what this is all about. You are
never going to give an honest answer - and that is something we both agree
on.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Wayne Stuart
But even to those with *some* computer experience, and know the basics,
application installation on the Mac could be a lot better explained. As
said, the Windows install wizard is indeed crap when compared to the
Mac's drag and drop, but only when you know that's what's needed.
If you introduce a not so computer literate to the two installation
methods, Windows will hold their hand and tell them what's going on
every step of the way whether they need it or not, which at least gives
them some confirmation that it's working...
But OS X, it tells you nothing. If no-one has pre-explained what's
what, what goes where, and how simple it is, the newbie is left
scratching his/her head thinking, "So what now?"
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Tom Elam
wrote:
>I like the widget weather thing. But for some reason when you open Dashboard
>it takes over the whole computer with gay shit like a caluclator, and a
>calender. You can move them around the screen but once you click on it again
>it disappears. I guess it's all or nothing, look at the widgets but you
>can't do anything else unless you close it. I keep trying to right click on
>the weather thing to get it to remain but no go. Arrrrrgh. Where are the
>properties for anything open. Do I really have to go the upper left hand
>corner every time?
>
>Seriously this thing is so unintuitive. YOU GUYS LIED TO ME!!!!! I
>downloaded something on to my desktop and now it looks like a cd drive and
>can't be deleted?????!!!! Holy crap this is frustrating after using Windows
>where you can pretty much figure stuff out without hitting the help files.
>
>There's no explanation as to what the little black arrows on the dock mean.
>I gather they mean the program is open somewhere somehow, but good luck
>finding it.
>
>System would be great if it used right clicks. The fonts are pretty sweet,
>and the progress bars are beautiful I'll give it that. Ichat has no support
>for anythng but AIM and the Isight camera won't work with any window users.
>UGH, sorely dissapointed. You bitches lied to me.
>
Now you know how I felt about my iMac - basically the same issues, 4
years ago.
George Graves
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
Well, nobody taught you to reach in your fly, pull out your dick and pee
in the toilet either, but that's because its so intuitive that you
figure it out pretty quickly. Same with installing/removing apps on a
Mac. Its just that simple. Problem is that Windows users coming to the
Mac for the first time ASSUME that its just as difficult to install and
uninstall apps on a Mac as it on Windows and when they can't find a
wizard or an "Install New Hardware or Software" item in the Start Menu,
they panic.
George Graves
Tom Elam <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
So, you don't know how to use a Mac either and assumed that it worked
like Windows. Well, IT DOESN'T. Besides, you have already admitted that
you've never actually owned or even used a Mac, so who are you trying to
fool?
GreyCloud
Seeing that you've never owned a mac before... you must be
lying then.
Snit
noone-15C13E....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/3/05 11:13 AM:
> In article <BF66918F.32165%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snot <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> snotted:
>
> (snip)
>
>> What we see above:
>>
>> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
>> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
>
> His "view of morality" and "the abstract nature of laws"? Put the glue
> down, Snit.
Do you not understand the question either, Steve? I bet you do not - you
are *that* stupid.
I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
know that they have done something immoral? For me I do not - there are
times when law breaking is *not* immoral in my view. Wally has admitted
that he is not able to answer this question honestly. I have shown that I
am happy to answer the question honestly? Are you? My guess is you are not
- you will play one of your favorite games where you refuse to answer my
question and then try to obfuscate by asking one of your own. If I answer
you nit pick and play silly semantic games, but if I do not you claim you
have no reason to answer my question since I will not answer yours - as
though that was your initial reason for running from the question. You will
be very proud of yourself and Elizabot and, if they are available, Tim Adams
and - sometimes - Wally will come around to slap you on your back for your
"clever" trolling. And then the whole cretin crew will spend a week or so
yapping and making noise about how much they "got" me... with you spewing
the most and the dumbest BS.
The sad thing is you think your games are clever - like below, where you
play your silly game of snip and run. Gee, how clever of you, Steve, you
must have just thought of this game, eh? LOL.
The sad thing is your whole hatred of me stems from the argument that has
come back around *again* - an argument that you are willing to focus
unlimited time *avoiding* and trying to obfuscate but are completely
unwilling to admit that you have *still* not offered a valid refutation of
my argument. Here it is, again:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/BushCase/>
Since you are not *ever* going to let go of your age old semantic games over
that argument - nor will you cease lying and saying it has changed in ways
it clearly has not - I am working on a "new" <wink wink> argument:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>
It not only looks at the evidence against Bush but also the reasoned
responses and... well... yours which are anything *but* reasoned.
> (snip Snot's snot)
And that is the *best* response you can give. Snip and run as you wave your
white flag. How pathetic. The only thing more pathetic is your repeated
references to your obsession with glue. And, as *you* have made clear, you
accuse others of such things to excuse you own actions:
_________________________________________________________________
| |
| WHEN STEVE CARROLL ACCUSES PEOPLE OF WRONGDOING IT IS HIS CLEAR |
| ADMISSION THAT HE IS DOING (OR WANTS TO DO) THE ACT IN QUESTION |
| http://snipurl.com/trollpsycho |
|_________________________________________________________________|
--
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)
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF677B7A.95B2%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/05 9:21 AM:
>
>>> What we see above:
>>>
>>> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
>>> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
>>
>> Would that be the original question, or the recently modified question, the
>> one that incorporates the changes I suggested when you first produced the
>> original?
>
> See #4, below. You silly game is discussed there. Oh, I returned what you
> dishonestly snipped.
#4 merely shows that the difference between explanation and alteration is
something else to add to the ever growing list of concepts that you have no
clue about!
>>> 1) You try to attribute some motive to my actions other than to get you to
>>> answer the question. You fail to state what you think this motive is. You
>>> also push other accusations... none of which you offer any support for.
>>
>> The specifics wrt your motives are immaterial, the fact that you have
>> finally altered your original question is all the proof needed to know that
>> you were working toward your own agenda, sorry to have spoilt your fun!
>
> You claim my motives are immaterial but that does not stop you from
> attributing motives to me that you cannot support.
I have no intention of supporting your motives!.....thwarting them if far
too much fun!
> For the record, I agree
> my motives are not relevant to your admitted inability to answer my question
> honestly. Your attempt at obfuscation though unrelated and unsupported
> accusations is noted.
Honesty was already on the list...accusations has been added...thank you!
>>> 2) As predicted, you showed no understanding of the question. Sure,
>>> breaking a specific law may very well be immoral, but that does not imply
>>> that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is immoral. That concept is too
>>> abstract for you.
>>
>> So it can be concluded that your definition of immoral does not include...
>>
>> "violating principles of right and wrong"
>> "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"
>> "not adhering to ethical or moral principles"
>> "not conforming to accepted standards of morality"
>> "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
>> "not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour"
>> "not in accordance with established or accepted rules and standards of right
>> and wrong conduct,"
>> "Contrary to established moral principles."
>> "Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct
>> usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal
>> and social ethics. "
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification!
>
> Sure, you can incorrectly conclude that. I have no argument with the fact
> that you can make such mistakes.
"but that does not imply that the idea of law breaking, by itself, is
immoral." -Snit ROTFLMAO!
>>
>>> 3) Your repeated pushing of the straw man that all laws are equally moral or
>>> that I, or the question, make this silly presumption.
>
> No comment by you.
Already dealt with previously.....
"They would have to be, or at least have to be considered so morally for me
to be able to answer a question such as the one you ask in relation to 'a
law' when 'the' law isn't stated!"
You will have to pedal faster if you have any hope of keeping up Snit!
>>>
>>> 4) Your pushing of a game you and Steve Carroll both play: I ask you a
>>> question, you show you are unable to understand it so I help you with an
>>> explanation. You then pretend that since I did not word it *exactly* the
>>> same way that I must be changing the *concept* of the question - but then
>>> you
>>> neglect to answer the question in any form and just focus on your dishonest
>>> games.
>
> No comment by you, though you did offer more examples.
So I didn't comment ......by offering more examples? What a tool you are!
When you said "I was looking for an answer to an abstract answer" I thought
it was merely a mistake on your part.......but no! *that* really does make
sense to you doesnšt it? LOL
>>>
>>> 5) You engaging in another game you share with Steve Carroll - which is
>>> discussed here: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my
>>> list of "other arguments" below the main text.
>
> No comment by you.
Are you sure this time? LOL
>>>
>>> 6) Our agreement that you are never going to give an honest answer to my
>>> question.
>
> No comment by you - and that, really, is what this is all about. You are
> never going to give an honest answer - and that is something we both agree
> on.
"Our agreement" hahahahhahahahaha
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-15C13E....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/3/05 11:13 AM:
>
>> In article <BF66918F.32165%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snot <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> snotted:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> What we see above:
>>>
>>> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
>>> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
>>
>> His "view of morality" and "the abstract nature of laws"? Put the glue
>> down, Snit.
>
> Do you not understand the question either, Steve? I bet you do not - you
> are *that* stupid.
>
> I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
> is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
> know that they have done something immoral? For me I do not - there are
> times when law breaking is *not* immoral in my view.
Explain how law breaking is *not* immoral in your view, remembering of
course that in the context of your original question there should be no
necessity for you to refer to a particular law! ROTFL!
> Wally has admitted
> that he is not able to answer this question honestly.
Thank you for admitting that I answered honestly.
<usual rabid comments snipped>
--
"Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it.
Your logic is faulty". --Snit
Steve Carroll
Snot <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> snotted:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-15C13E....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/3/05 11:13 AM:
>
> > In article <BF66918F.32165%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snot <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> snotted:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >> What we see above:
> >>
> >> In relation to my repeated tries to get you to answer a simple question
> >> about your view of morality as it deals with the abstract nature of laws:
> >
> > His "view of morality" and "the abstract nature of laws"? Put the glue
> > down, Snit.
>
> Do you not understand the question either, Steve?
Tell me about "the abstract nature of laws"... I can't wait to hear it;)
> I bet you do not - you are *that* stupid.
Who gets to decide how stupid I am? You? See your problem YET?
>
> I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
> is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
> know that they have done something immoral?
Let's see... in Fairbanks, Alaska there is a law on the books saying
that it's illegal for moose to have sex on the city sidewalks. If we
plug this law into your 'abstract' we must ask the following questions
when addressing the particular set(s) of moose that may be involved: Are
they married? if not, are they of consenting age? Did they use a condom?
Did they commit the act in full public view or were they covered? Were
they "actually" on the sidewalk itself... requiring passerby to walk
around them or where they merely touching a portion of it? Is the
sidewalk in question "actually" within the city limits? Are other
animals prohibited from this activity? Why are these poor creatures
being singled out? Lot of stuff to think about...
Snit
LOL... I have no desire, in regards to your back peddling, to try to "keep
up".
>
>>>>
>>>> 4) Your pushing of a game you and Steve Carroll both play: I ask you a
>>>> question, you show you are unable to understand it so I help you with an
>>>> explanation. You then pretend that since I did not word it *exactly* the
>>>> same way that I must be changing the *concept* of the question - but then
>>>> you
>>>> neglect to answer the question in any form and just focus on your dishonest
>>>> games.
>>
>> No comment by you, though you did offer more examples.
>
> So I didn't comment ......by offering more examples? What a tool you are!
> When you said "I was looking for an answer to an abstract answer" I thought
> it was merely a mistake on your part.......but no! *that* really does make
> sense to you doesnšt it? LOL
>
>>>>
>>>> 5) You engaging in another game you share with Steve Carroll - which is
>>>> discussed here: <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/iraq/>. See number 5 in my
>>>> list of "other arguments" below the main text.
>>
>> No comment by you.
>
> Are you sure this time? LOL
>
>>>>
>>>> 6) Our agreement that you are never going to give an honest answer to my
>>>> question.
>>
>> No comment by you - and that, really, is what this is all about. You are
>> never going to give an honest answer - and that is something we both agree
>> on.
>
> "Our agreement" hahahahhahahahaha
>
Yes, Wally. We both agree that you are not able to answer my question
honestly. And, it is clear, you cannot deal with the whole topic honestly
either.
The question is still a very simple one - but one that goes far over your
head. Do you believe that law breaking is immoral... not any specific law,
but the abstract concept of law breaking.
You still keep creating all sorts of stories around your admitted inability
to understand or answer the question in an honest way. So be it.
You have made it clear that abstractions are beyond your understanding -
and, even worse, you have made it clear how you react to obfuscate your own
ignorance: you lash out at others. Does it make you feel better?
Oh, maybe Steve jumping in to help you makes you feel better. I am back to
not even reading his posts but I have no doubt he is trying to "help" you.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
>> I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
>> is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
>> know that they have done something immoral? For me I do not - there are
>> times when law breaking is *not* immoral in my view.
>
> Explain how law breaking is *not* immoral in your view, remembering of
> course that in the context of your original question there should be no
> necessity for you to refer to a particular law! ROTFL!
Who said your answer could not use examples? Not I - that is your absurd
limitation.
But it is still easy to do. If you do act A and act A is against the law,
that does not necessitate - to me - that act A is immoral. It does not, of
course, imply that act A is *moral* either. Law breaking is not, in the
abstract, something I find immoral - though, of course, there are many acts
which are both immoral *and* against the law. Quite a bit of overlap,
actually.
Funny how you thought you were being so amazingly clever with your absurd
stipulation to not mention specific laws - a stipulation I did not put onto
you - and yet the question is *still* very easy to answer. Do you see why
it is so clear you do not even understand the question (other than your own
admission, that is)?
>> Wally has admitted that he is not able to answer this question honestly.
>
> Thank you for admitting that I answered honestly.
Re-read what you just responded to and see if you can understand it. :)
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Timberwoof
wrote:
> In article <1h3tuvo.1km19jm1gsrne8N%m...@privacy.net>,
> m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
>
> > > After the installer left, you find out that if you move the CD player
> > > from
> > > its position on the table, it won't even work any more. When you get
> > > tired
> > > of this, you call the uninstaller guy, which asks if you want to have
> > > chips removed that you've never heard of and don't know if they are form
> > > inside the CD player or not.
> >
> > Yeah, but this is a point actually. For those making the migration to
> > Mac, or stone cold newbies, the installation of apps on the Mac is not
> > initially intuitive.
>
> *NOTHING* with regards to computers is intuitive in any way. One thing may be
> *more* intuitive than another, but nothing is flat out intuitive since
> intuitive means you understand how something works without prior experience.
No, that's "instinctive."
"Intuitive" means that, having knowledge of the basic rules of interaction, you
make the right guesses about how something should behave.
> For someone that has never ever seen a computer in his entire life, a Mac
> won't
> make much sense. The learning curve might be smaller, though.
>
> Concepts like "installing", "application" and "hard drive" are totally
> counter-intuitive. There is nothing about those concept that is intuitive.
> They
> are very very abstract concepts for Joe Newbie.
>
> <snip>
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Snit
>> Do you not understand the question either, Steve?
>
> Tell me about "the abstract nature of laws"... I can't wait to hear it;)
When talking about laws as a whole and not any specific one the topic is
abstract... for example, the question I asked of Wally... the one that
neither he nor you understand.
>
>> I bet you do not - you are *that* stupid.
>
> Who gets to decide how stupid I am?
No. And while I do not know if you actually decided to be as stupid as you
are it is certainly more in your control than mine.
> You?
What a victim mentality you have - trying to blame *me* for your stupidity.
> See your problem YET?
Sure, I am again reading and responding to your posts - and infants have a
greater capacity to understand concepts than you do.
>>
>> I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
>> is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
>> know that they have done something immoral?
>
> Let's see... in Fairbanks, Alaska there is a law on the books saying
> that it's illegal for moose to have sex on the city sidewalks. If we
> plug this law into your 'abstract' we must ask the following questions
> when addressing the particular set(s) of moose that may be involved: Are
> they married? if not, are they of consenting age? Did they use a condom?
> Did they commit the act in full public view or were they covered? Were
> they "actually" on the sidewalk itself... requiring passerby to walk
> around them or where they merely touching a portion of it? Is the
> sidewalk in question "actually" within the city limits? Are other
> animals prohibited from this activity? Why are these poor creatures
> being singled out? Lot of stuff to think about...
And again you show you have no understanding of the question. What you have
done is simply support my answer to the question. Funny being that you
*thought* you were somehow belittling the question itself. You are, Steve,
*that* stupid.
And I see you have gone back to your dishonest snipping - meaning that there
is no use talking to you white flag. Good bye again for a while. When you
stop waving your white flag and can at least try to defend your trolling you
may be amusing again.
Now go find another way to try to kiss Elizabot's ass.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF6825D3.9647%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/05 9:28 PM:
>
<snip>
>> "Our agreement" hahahahhahahahaha
>>
> Yes, Wally. We both agree that you are not able to answer my question
> honestly.
No! I have stated that the original question cannot be answered honestly,
the fact that you did answer it is all the proof needed to see that I was
right.....I am glad we have agreed on that!
> And, it is clear, you cannot deal with the whole topic honestly
> either.
I have done! by your own admission I stated that I could not honestly answer
your question as it stood........*That* Snit is honesty! make a note for
future reference, one day you may learn to recognize it all on your own!
> The question is still a very simple one - but one that goes far over your
> head. Do you believe that law breaking is immoral... not any specific law,
> but the abstract concept of law breaking.
Anybody with an ounce of common sense would be able to work out my answer
from my previous comment of.....
"OK! so if we remove any moral questions wrt any particular law being
broken, it is your position that none of the following definitions apply to
breaking the law ..........
"violating principles of right and wrong"
"deviating from what is considered right or proper or good"
"not adhering to ethical or moral principles"
"not conforming to accepted standards of morality"
"conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"
"not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour"
"not in accordance with established or accepted rules and standards of right
and wrong conduct,"
"Contrary to established moral principles."
"Violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct
usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal
and social ethics. "
All the above relate to morality, and yet when I concluded that ...
"it is your position that none of the following definitions apply to
breaking the law"
you responded with ...
"Sure, you can incorrectly conclude that"
So on one hand you claim that breaking the law is not immoral, but then you
say that the definitions of immoral also apply to breaking the law!
Snit you have a problem! .....AGAIN!
> You still keep creating all sorts of stories around your admitted inability
> to understand or answer the question in an honest way. So be it.
I have answered in an honest way...you admitted that! if you cannot
understand a simple concept such as honesty, then you have no business
delving into abstractions! and you wonder why your motives are suspect!
> You have made it clear that abstractions are beyond your understanding -
> and, even worse, you have made it clear how you react to obfuscate your own
> ignorance: you lash out at others. Does it make you feel better?
If you are referring to how I respond to YOU, then it is true, laughter is
the best medicine, and better yet you're a never ending cheap supply.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> BF6827CA.9649%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/05 9:36 PM:
>
>>> I have been asking Wally if he believes that breaking laws (in the abstract)
>>> is immoral. In other words, if you know that someone broke a law do you
>>> know that they have done something immoral? For me I do not - there are
>>> times when law breaking is *not* immoral in my view.
>>
>> Explain how law breaking is *not* immoral in your view, remembering of
>> course that in the context of your original question there should be no
>> necessity for you to refer to a particular law! ROTFL!
>
> Who said your answer could not use examples? Not I - that is your absurd
> limitation.
Who was it said...
"When the question is if you think the very concept of breaking a law is
immoral, no, I can not be more specific. To be more specific would not be
accurate."
Snit! I am shocked do you now wish to be inaccurate?
> But it is still easy to do. If you do act A and act A is against the law,
> that does not necessitate - to me - that act A is immoral.
> It does not, of
> course, imply that act A is *moral* either.
Which is why your original question was nonsense .....
" the question is, was, and will be if you find the very act of breaking a
law to be immoral."-Snit
Even in your example above you refer to act A, a specific act! which is what
I asked you to supply originally but you claimed to do so would not be
accurate!
Why are you now dealing a specific act, when you have stated previously that
breaking the law is not immoral, surely you are not backing away from your
previous generalization?
> Law breaking is not, in the
> abstract, something I find immoral - though, of course, there are many acts
> which are both immoral *and* against the law. Quite a bit of overlap,
> actually.
Then how, given this overlap of yours did you expect a specific answer to a
question that you would not be specific on?
Let me guess..your answer will revolve around the 'abstract' that being so,
simply treat my honest answer in the same way!
> Funny how you thought you were being so amazingly clever with your absurd
> stipulation to not mention specific laws - a stipulation I did not put onto
> you -
Then who said that your question was in relation to "no specific law"
Or that it was about the "breaking of law, in and of itself,"
Or "I am very clear on my view: the act of breaking a law is not immoral."
Or who was it said that "To be more specific would not be accurate." when I
asked for a specific law?
Funny how you can stipulate that wrt your question, and yet you need to
ignore it when you try to answer it.
<customary slippages>
Sandman
Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>> *NOTHING* with regards to computers is intuitive in any way. One
>> thing may be *more* intuitive than another, but nothing is flat out
>> intuitive since intuitive means you understand how something works
>> without prior experience.
>
> No, that's "instinctive."
"Instinctive" and "Intuitive" are pretty much synonyms.
intuitive
using or based on what one feels to be true even without
conscious reasoning; instinctive
^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Intuitive" means that, having knowledge of the basic rules of
> interaction, you make the right guesses about how something should
> behave.
Actually, no it doesn't. See above.
--
Sandman[.net]