"Photoshop" alternatives

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Yes, it was, and thank you. I could have Googled for the term if all
I wanted was information about the term. However, we don't always all
have the same idea of what a particular term means, and I wanted to
know what *your* definition is.

except when you want to argue, then you make up your own meaning rather
than ask and go on a rant.

On 5/17/2015 4:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Yes, it was, and thank you. I could have Googled for the term if all
I wanted was information about the term. However, we don't always all
have the same idea of what a particular term means, and I wanted to
know what *your* definition is.

except when you want to argue, then you make up your own meaning rather
than ask and go on a rant.


You must have some magnet in your writing. Everybody who does not agree
with everything you literally say, is arguing just to argue. Hmmmn.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Yes, it was, and thank you. I could have Googled for the term if all
I wanted was information about the term. However, we don't always all
have the same idea of what a particular term means, and I wanted to
know what *your* definition is.

except when you want to argue, then you make up your own meaning rather
than ask and go on a rant.


You must have some magnet in your writing. Everybody who does not agree
with everything you literally say, is arguing just to argue. Hmmmn.

not the case at all. disagreement is fine. twisting in order to argue
is not.

On 5/17/2015 7:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Yes, it was, and thank you. I could have Googled for the term if all
I wanted was information about the term. However, we don't always all
have the same idea of what a particular term means, and I wanted to
know what *your* definition is.

except when you want to argue, then you make up your own meaning rather
than ask and go on a rant.


You must have some magnet in your writing. Everybody who does not agree
with everything you literally say, is arguing just to argue. Hmmmn.

not the case at all. disagreement is fine. twisting in order to argue
is not.

It would be neat if you followed you own words.


--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

However, I clearly wanted Android's input and not anyone else's. There
was no reason for you to jump in, and even less reason to make it an
argument.

it's a public newsgroup, which means that anyone can join in at any
time for any reason, including you, unfortunately.

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 20:20:01 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Sun, 17 May 2015 11:56:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

My question was directed specifically at android. I asked what *he*
meant, not what the term meant. I wrote:

what the term means is what matters.

"I'm not interested in starting a fight over this, but I don't
understand what you mean by Continuous Offline Operation in this
context."

nospam jumped in - uninvited -

it's a public newsgroup and anyone can reply. there are no invitations.

and provided an answer, but not the
answer to my question.

it was the answer to your question.

No, the answer to my question was what *android* thinks it means.

And that was sorted last week, IIRC...

Yes, it was, and thank you. I could have Googled for the term if all
I wanted was information about the term. However, we don't always all
have the same idea of what a particular term means, and I wanted to
know what *your* definition is.

Prego!

All you have to do to understand that we all don't use the same
definition for terms is to follow that DPI/PPI discussion in that
other thread.

sure... if you don't wanna you don't wanna...
--
teleportation kills

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
nospam is a running joke here because of his oft-used "argue
just to argue" inclusion when he is patently arguing just for
the sake of arguing. Well, he's a running joke for that, and
other things.

Sandman:
So this started with Nospam answering a question of yours, not
arguing with a claim of yours,\

Why are you lying?

I never lie.

And why are you snipping the actual question in
order to cover up your lie?

I trimmed the post. I dislike lengthy posts with multiple quote levels.

My question was directed specifically at android. I asked what *he*
meant, not what the term meant. I wrote:

I never said you asked what the term meant. I correctly pointed out that you
asked a question and I correctly pointed out that nospam answered it. This was
in contrast to your claim that nospam is "patently arguing just for the sake of
arguing", which for obvious reasons was not the case in this instance.

"I'm not interested in starting a fight over this, but I don't
understand what you mean by Continuous Offline Operation in this
context."

nospam jumped in - uninvited - and provided an answer, but not the
answer to my question.

I missed the "invitation". As you usually say - usenet is an open forum, and
your question is readable to anyone that subscribes to the group, as such,
anyone can partake in the discussion. It is true that some trolls use this to
hijack threads and rekindle their agenda, but in this case - nospam answered a
question posted in a public group. Not to start an argument, just to answer the
question.

Sandman:
or an opinion of yours. You replied that you didn't think he was
authorized to answer the question

Another lie.

I never lie.

I didn't say nospam was not authorized to answer the
question. I said he wasn't asked the question.

"That's what *you* may think it means, but I'm asking android
what he means."

My interpretation of that is that you meant that only Android can supply an
authoritative answer to your question.

Sandman:
In the end, he was correct so you had to troll his sentence
structure, like you always do when your pride has been hurt.

Nor did I attack nospam's grammar. His wording was
incomprehensible. He wrote "you're as usual, argue just to argue".
That's different from a rammer error.

Claiming that a sentence is incomprehensible is either a spelling flame or a
grammar flame. Since his spelling was fine, it only leaves grammar.

Now, you've jumped in - uninvited - and lied about the exchange.

Incorrect, I never lie. Nor does participation in a public forum require an
invitation.

--
Sandman

On 5/17/15 PDT 7:34 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2015 21:03:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

However, I clearly wanted Android's input and not anyone else's. There
was no reason for you to jump in, and even less reason to make it an
argument.

it's a public newsgroup, which means that anyone can join in at any
time for any reason, including you, unfortunately.

You always have an argument, don't you?

Must you so frequently respond with rhetorical questions??

--

Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on
doggy."7:21:24 AM

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
nospam is a running joke here because of
his oft-used "argue just to argue" inclusion when he is
patently arguing just for the sake of arguing. Well, he's a
running joke for that, and other things.

Sandman:
So this started with Nospam answering a question of
yours, not arguing with a claim of yours,\

Andreas Skitsnack:
Why are you lying?

Sandman:
I never lie.

Andreas Skitsnack:
And why are you snipping the actual question in order to cover
up your lie?

Sandman:
I trimmed the post. I dislike lengthy posts with multiple quote
levels.

What a liar you are!

Again, I never lie.

You frequently respond with multiple
interleaved comments, so it must not be something you dislike.

Incorrect, I always trim my posts when there are lengthy blocks of multiple
quote levels. I usually keep the last two or three quote levels to keep the
context of the current discussion.

You just happened to snip the question, and the question was *not*
what does Continuous Offline Operation mean, but a question
specifically asking for a certain person's understanding of the
term.

No it wasn't. It was you expressing lack of familiarity of a term. There was no
question in your post (in spite of me calling it that in my "summary",
apologies)

Sure, right, just accident.

No accident, deliberate trimming of lengthy posts. As always.

A liar and a cheat.

Pleased to me you.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Nor did I attack nospam's grammar. His wording was
incomprehensible. He wrote "you're as usual, argue just to
argue". That's different from a grammer error.

Sandman:
Claiming that a sentence is incomprehensible is either a spelling
flame or a grammar flame. Since his spelling was fine, it only
leaves grammar.

It leaves garbled incomprehensibility.

I find it hilarious that you're all upset about me trimming a chunk of old text
from my followup when you snip away large chunks of my post in your followup
that you can't deal with.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
nospam is a running joke here because
of his oft-used "argue just to argue" inclusion when he
is patently arguing just for the sake of arguing. Well,
he's a running joke for that, and other things.

Sandman:
So this started with Nospam answering a question
of yours, not arguing with a claim of yours,\

Andreas Skitsnack:
Why are you lying?

Sandman:
I never lie.

Andreas Skitsnack:
And why are you snipping the actual
question in order to cover up your lie?

Sandman:
I trimmed the post. I dislike lengthy posts with
multiple quote levels.

Andreas Skitsnack:
What a liar you are!

Sandman:
Again, I never lie.

Only a liar would say that.

Incorrect.

--
Sandman