All-in-One PCs

On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said:

Le Snip

You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you
lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated,
but it is still only a claim, not a lie.

The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say
folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the
typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim
the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that
is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never
ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim.

Silly isn't it?

Le Snip

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016022608522017253-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you
lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is
unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie.

Absolutely true. A claim can be incorrect without it being a lie, also known as
a mistake. However, when one and the same person makes explicit incorrect
statements over and over again, even when all of them always is corrected, that
one person will soon find himself without the benefit of a doubt in these
circumstances.

I think you americans refer to it as a "three strike rule" or something like
that. Soon enough he'll find that he's lost all credibility and there is no
leeway in terms of making small or large "mistakes".

--
Sandman

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:28:37 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 20:29:40 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 03:13:46 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 23:07:27 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:29:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

Nah I'd say impossible.


Well, I'm not. At this level the whole thing is a mares-nest.

Not for most of us.
You see some of us know what an Apple computer is, because we've owned them some of us have owned more than one, so we know what they are.
OTOH you see an apple sticker on my kitchen tiles and think my kitchen was designed by Apple or is Apple branded.

Have you authority to apply Apple's brand on this equipment?

No more so than you can take a PC mother board and claim it's an Apple board.

Avoiding a direct answer?

I can pretend though, I can have an apple case sitting on the desk with an acer insoie and I can tell people I have a Mac computer and point to the case.
That isn't breaking Apple EULA.
If your son installs OS X on an acer mother board inside the Apple case, fine
it's against the apple EULA when he claims it's an Apple computer.

It all comes back to the question of 'what is an Apple-branded
computer?'. This introduces the broader question of 'how does Apple
brand it's computers?' You don't seem to know exactly what the term
means and neither do I. The difference between us is that you seem to
be certain that one particular interpretation will be upheld, while I
am not.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:45:08 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 20:31:23 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:46:30 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


Apple might feel they wanted to enforce their EULA if my son decided
to run OS X. That's what all this argument has been about.

your son can run whatever he likes on an apple case. The EULA
doesn't mention any restrictions on using Apple cases.
he can even stick an Aple CD in his mouth and claim he is an apple disc
drive
apple won't mind until he starts selling his services as an apple disc
drive.
What he can't do is run OS X on an acer board and sell it claiming it's
an apple product.

You are nearly as bad as nospam. You have to distort the situation to
enable you to mount an argument against it.


I'm not the one distoring it you are. You;ve not even answered teh Q as to
why your son is spending money on a 15 year-old Aple case when there's plenty
of PC cases on the market. If you can't work it out ask your son he seems to know.

he explained that already, because unlike pc cases, it easily pops open.

That's one factor. Another is it's cheaper than buying a new case
which he likes.

So Apple are cheaper than a PC equivalent or is it just better value ?

On this occasion it is cheaper.

Why aren't there any 15 year old or younger PC cases that are good enough for what he wants?.

You will have to know what he wants before you can even begin to
answer that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:16:49 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 14:46:34 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


Apple might feel they wanted to enforce their EULA if my son decided
to run OS X. That's what all this argument has been about.

your son can run whatever he likes on an apple case. The EULA
doesn't mention any restrictions on using Apple cases.
he can even stick an Aple CD in his mouth and claim he is an apple disc
drive
apple won't mind until he starts selling his services as an apple disc
drive.
What he can't do is run OS X on an acer board and sell it claiming it's
an apple product.

You are nearly as bad as nospam. You have to distort the situation to
enable you to mount an argument against it.


I'm not the one distoring it you are. You;ve not even answered teh Q as to
why your son is spending money on a 15 year-old Aple case when there's plenty
of PC cases on the market. If you can't work it out ask your son he seems to know.

he explained that already, because unlike pc cases, it easily pops open.

Thanks for spoiling it, I was waiting for him to admit that Mac cases were better than PC cases that's why his son is spending money on an Apple branded case rather than a PC one.

I've known for several posts that you were angling for that. But the
question is entirely irrelevant to the point at issue.

Because AFAIK he's never understood why some prefer Macs to PCs.

"he's" referring to whom? Are you referring to me?

Of course I understand. I also understand why some people prefer Dell
while others want Sony. But once again it's irrelevant to the point at
issue.

of course there's many resons but for a lot of people aesthetics is important and I would have thought someone that has an interesting in photography would appreciated that.

Of course I do.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:31:29 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 20:30:21 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:34:49 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 21:20:04 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:

Apple might feel they wanted to enforce their EULA if my son decided
to run OS X. That's what all this argument has been about.

your son can run whatever he likes on an apple case. The EULA
doesn't mention any restrictions on using Apple cases.
he can even stick an Aple CD in his mouth and claim he is an apple disc drive
apple won't mind until he starts selling his services as an apple disc drive.
What he can't do is run OS X on an acer board and sell it claiming it's an apple product.

You are nearly as bad as nospam. You have to distort the situation to
enable you to mount an argument against it.
--


I'm not the one distoring it you are. You;ve not even answered teh Q as to why your son is spending money on a 15 year-old Aple case when there's plenty of PC cases on the market. If you can't work it out ask your son he seems to know.

I think I have told you three times now.

You;ve claimed that Macs are more expensive than PCS ...

I most definitely have not.

... far more than 3 times so remind me why your som is willing to spend more on a Mac than on a PC equivalent .

He likes the case (but he likes other cases too) and it's cheaper than
any of the cases he likes that he can buy over the counter.

It seems memeber of yuor family want Apple products, so if yuo want to kn ow why peolpe are willing to spend more money on Macs than on a PC ask your family.

What makes you think I don't already know? In fact I have written
about this already, in another thread.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26 Feb 2016 16:12:56 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you quoted but one short
sentence.

Sandman:
I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be
required to do so for me to not be a liar.

Eric Stevens:
Bull**** and you are bluffing.

Sandman:
I don't think you know what the word "bluffing" means. What I said
above was 100% correct.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and
from which you quoted but one short sentence.

For what purpose? The snipped text being in ur out doesn't change the fact
that what I wrote was true.

The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth.

You claimed I "misquoted", that was a lie.

You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Sandman:
I often snip the parts of a post that I do not
respond to, and keep the parts I do respond to. That is
neither dishonest, misquoting or lying.

Eric Stevens:
It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said.

Sandman:
Are you, with a straight face, claiming that you never wrote this:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

Because then you would again be lying.

Weasily turd, aren't you? Put back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you have quoted but one short
sentence.

Why can't you answer the question, Eric? Why are you falling back on personal
attacks and insults?

You said above:

"It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said."

That is you claiming that *I* changed the meaning of your sentence, of what
you wrote - that it was something *you never said*. I then asked you if you
with a straight face can say you never said this:

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth.

Which you dodged, you were unable to answer that question, because you KNOW
you said it, you KNOW that was the complete unedited sentence you wrote to
which I replied to.

You know I did not edit that sentence, you know it was fully represented in
my followup and you know that if you admit to this, you are exposed to being
a liar when you said that I (1) misquoted and (2) lied.

The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth.

Sandman:
Dishonest would be if I snipped something that
changed the apparent meaning of what you wrote, but I did no
such thing. Even so, it wouldn't be "lying".

Eric Stevens:
But you did do such a thing as is evidenced by your repeated
snipping of what I did actually write and your reluctance to
reinstate your deletion of my text.

Sandman:
Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

The rest of your post did not change the meaning of that sentence,
unless you claim the next sentence was "Just kidding, I am arguing
a definition".

Then confirm that point by putting back _all_ of the paragraph which
I originally wrote and from which you have quoted but the one short
sentence.

They are still in the original post, what would my purpose be for "putting
back" something in a followup some five posts down the thread?

The truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the truth.

I see you did not argue the *fact* that the quoted part of your posts was NOT
changed by whatever else you wrote in that post, and thus I did NOT misquote
you nor did I lie.

Sandman:
Again you create an argument based on a lie of yours that you will
drag on for days and days while the evidence of your lie is still
right there.

And you keep trying to hide the evidence of your deliberate lie. I

What supposed "evidence"? YOU lied when you said I misquoted you. YOU lied
when you claimed I lied. Those are your two latest lies in a long line of
lies. All 100% proven and shown.

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition. All along I have been saying that
there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with
the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a
legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand
practices".

I think you should go away and hide your head in shame.

Indeed you should.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said:

Le Snip

You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you
lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated,
but it is still only a claim, not a lie.

It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am
surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the
significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*,
and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with
people like Jonas who lie with partial truths.

The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say
folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the
typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim
the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that
is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never
ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim.

Silly isn't it?

Le Snip

Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he
will do it again if we let him.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck:
On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said:

Sandman:
You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Savageduck:
Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that
you lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is
unsubstantiated, but it is still only a claim, not a lie.

Sandman:
Absolutely true. A claim can be incorrect without it being a lie,
also known as a mistake. However, when one and the same person
makes explicit incorrect statements over and over again, even when
all of them always is corrected, that one person will soon find
himself without the benefit of a doubt in these circumstances.

I think you americans refer to it as a "three strike rule" or
something like that.

The "three strike rule", outside of baseball, refers to sentencing
guidelines for criminals previously convicted of two prior criminal
offenses. The third offense, in some states, can result in a longer
prison term than the crime would normally carry.

Incorrect claims in a newsgroup are not criminal offenses.

I wonder what it's like inside Andreas' head here. He sees me use a term, feels
the urge to explain it somewhat in detail that outlines just how the term was a
perfect analogy of my point. Supposedly half-way through he realized this and
had to finish off with a semantical twist to invalidate it all.

I'm imagining his hands just typing away while an old man inside his mind is
squinting out through his eyes trying to make out what those darn hands are
typing really... After a while the man realizes what is being done here and as
quick as possible tries to reach the "be an asshat" lever, but he's too slow,
the hands has already written most of the post and the lever only manages to
blurt out something akin to "...NOT!".

--
Sandman

On 2016-02-26 20:24:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:52:20 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-02-26 16:12:56 +0000, Sandman said:

Le Snip

You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Actually it was not a lie, it was as you indicated, a claim that you
lied. Now the claim might be on shakey ground and is unsubstantiated,
but it is still only a claim, not a lie.

It is a lie when it comes to citing what I actually said. I am
surprised that with your experience you would not recognise the
significance of the old oath to "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*,
and nothing but the truth." Our acestors long ago learned to deal with
people like Jonas who lie with partial truths.

I was a cop, not a courtroom warrior. I have had to sort out truth,
imagined truth, not quite the truth, fabricated alibis, obvious lies,
pathological lies, white lies, and pure obstructionist lies. I
collected all sorts of statements and evidence, as to whether that is
used for testimony in court is up to the D.A. and the defense.

As far as "tell the truth, the *whole-truth*, and nothing but the
truth" goes, I will leave that to the lawyers to impeach lying
testimony, and for the trial judge to suggest to the D.A. to file
perjury charges.

News Groups are not courtrooms and nobody here is under oath. Perjury
is not a factor here, and ultimately, in the Usenet, as on the
battlefield all is fair.


The problem with "NG flamewar speak" is its hyperbolic nature. We say
folks lie, when all they are doing is arguing. Unfortunately one of the
typical defenses/attacks/counter-attacks in our flame wars is to claim
the opponent is lying, often without proof. The only rebuttal to that
is to counter-claim that the opponent was lying, leaving us in a never
ending cycle of unsubstantiated claim-counter-claim.

Silly isn't it?

Le Snip

Jonas tried to introduce a lie. He's done it this way before and he
will do it again if we let him.

There are several regulars in this NG who use the accusation of lying
as a weapon in flamewars, even if there was never a lie to start with.

--
Regards,

Savageduck