Sony closes 2/3 of its stores in the U.S.

In article , PeterN wrote:

Very adult, not argumentative, no animosity, no ad hominems.

And it was a reply to Eric, you then jumped in to the discussion.
The first thing you wrote - an ad hominem. And you claim I don't
act like an adult? That's rich.

I apologize.

Apology accepted.

I didn't know a conversation on Usenet was private,
especially since I didn't see you as an original party.

Privacy was not the concern, the maturity of your post directed at someone
that wasn't talking to you, is. You didn't respond in kind to me, you
started the antagonizing, again. I wasn't saying anything about you, or
even anyting special about Eric, but you had to reply just to troll me
nevertheless.

In order to prevent me from doing it again, please give us the
etiquette that permits you to comment on a conversation between two
people, while making it ill mannered for me to do so. I do not want
to violate your sense of fairness.

If you evr see me respond to someone in this group that isn't talking to me
just to add an ad hominem, feel free to call me on it. I'm sure it may have
happened, and may happen yet again.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
And it was a reply to Eric, you then jumped in to the
discussion. The first thing you wrote - an ad hominem. And you
claim I don't act like an adult? That's rich.

PeterN:
I apologize. I didn't know a conversation on Usenet was private,
especially since I didn't see you as an original party.

In order to prevent me from doing it again, please give us the
etiquette that permits you to comment on a conversation between
two people, while making it ill mannered for me to do so. I do not
want to violate your sense of fairness.

Jonas has an odd understanding about Usenet. He evidently thinks
that he's participating in an email exchange, not an open forum.

Only if one were to equate "you then jumped in" to mean "the conversation
was private". Which of course would be quite a silly conclusion to make.

The point, as I'm sure you actually know, is that I was posting
non-argumentative, non-antagonizing material to Eric, just a normal post,
nothing provocative about it at all. Then Peter "Jumped in" just to add an
ad hominem.

He is free to "jump in" to any discussion he wants, I am commenting on the
content of his post, not that he made a post.

Peter is the guy that walks up to two guys by the water cooler having a
conversation and calls one of them an asshole. He's free to join the
discussion if he wants to, but he doesn't want to, he just want to spew
insults.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Hehe, Tony snipped away all the arguments and reasoned examples and ran
away...

Sandman:
BUt are still two seperate things. Checking your car
in for maintenance does not mean anything get repaired.

Tony Cooper:
It's difficult to tell if you are just being contentious, or if
you are actually this unaware of how our language is used.

When you try to exclude a meaning of a word because a specific
reference to that meaning is not included some definition you've
found, but that meaning is generally attributable to that word,
you show that you do not understand how language is used.

Sandman:
Not at all. I am fully aware that many people associate the
concept of "maintenance" with "repairs", or even associate the
word of "janitor" with "repairs", but just because two words are
closely related due to how they are used, that doesn't mean that
one can be used to imply the other.

OK, Jonas. You think that you can teach me English usage.

I'm not here to teach you anything. I am just pointing out where you're
ignorant. If you learn something in the process, then that's good I
suppose, but it's not my intention.

This, despite the facts that I minored in Journalism as a university
undergraduate, completed a case study graduate MBA program, was on the
editorial staff of two university newspapers, worked for two major daily
newspapers, wrote a newspaper column, served as an editor of a magazine,
wrote numerous state-approved continuing education modules for surgical
nurses, prepared training manuals for highly technical medical devices,
and have managed to communicate effectively in English for over seven
decades.

ANd you still don't know the meaning of "maintenance"? That's pretty
embarassing.

Yep, you'll teach me about the language and how to use it...from the
back of a pig taking off in flight. Maybe you can take nospam along
for the flight so he can do one of his market surveys.

Tony, the post you responded to had tons of actual examples, reasoned
arguments, well thought out responses and was filled with support for my
position of the argument. Your response here is basically "I won't listen,
lalalalalala".

The saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" springs to mind. You're
an old man and set in your ways, your pride doesn't allow for you to see
things differently.

But I don't think that's all of the story. You dislike me and your grudge
and stubbornness towards me doesn't allow you to ever agree with me even if
I'm correct. That's the reason you snipped my entire post, because you
can't actually *argue* against any of the points. You know full well that
just because someone with the job title "maintenance staff" that also does
occasional repairs doesn't mean that the english word "Maintenance"
encompasses "repairs", and you know full well that your arguments fell flat
due to it, so you ignore the counter evidence since you can't actually
argue your original stance.

So you get all high and mighty, trying to drag up your CV as if that gives
credence to your earlier, incorrect, arguments. It doesn't.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
That's the reason you snipped my entire post, because you can't
actually *argue* against any of the points.

No, the reason I snipped the entire post is that your arguments were
so transparently specious that they didn't rise to the level of
needing rebuttal.

Keep telling yourself that, Andreas.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 3/6/2014 7:25 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:18:04 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/5/2014 3:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens

snip


In fact, some organisations, to their shame, practice what is known as
'breakdown maintenance' (you only maintain it when it breaks down).

a lot of people do that and they're morons.

Not if cash flow is an issue. Yes it can be a high risk gamble, but if
cash flow is too low they may have no other choice.
There are also other reasons why such a policy might be adopted. Don't
be so quick to judge.

Breakdown maintenance is rarely the cheapest option when the cost of
ancillary damage, interruption to production, loss of good will etc is
taken into account.

I agree. but if ther is insufficient cash flow, there may be a choice
between bad options.
Postpone paying employees,
Postpone paying suppliers
Postpone paying taxes;
Postpone prudent maintenance.
Fqctor receivables, unless crdit limits have been exceeeded.
Tak in partners;








however, it does confirm that there is a difference between the two.

Nothing of the sort. Repairs are often a subset of maintenance.

Using your own definition, is blowing the dust off a sensor maintenance
a repair?
If a keyboard suffers from CFIK, is the fix a repair, and why.


--
PeterN

On 3/6/2014 8:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Crumb Farm In Keyboard. I forgot, I learned about that while a Microsoft
partner.

very easily avoided, but if it ****s up your keyboard, it's a repair.

shaking out the keyboard or vacuuming it is a maintenance task.

Jerry Pournelle used to take his keyboards with him into the shower to
clean them.

some people suggest putting it in a dishwasher, without soap.

i say it's easier to avoid it.


**** happens.
I know few really productive people who don't eat at their keyboard.
You sound as if you never had a cold eggroll or pizza shift.


--
PeterN

On 3/7/2014 1:03 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Very adult, not argumentative, no animosity, no ad hominems.

And it was a reply to Eric, you then jumped in to the discussion.
The first thing you wrote - an ad hominem. And you claim I don't
act like an adult? That's rich.

I apologize.

Apology accepted.

I didn't know a conversation on Usenet was private,
especially since I didn't see you as an original party.

Privacy was not the concern, the maturity of your post directed at someone
that wasn't talking to you, is. You didn't respond in kind to me, you
started the antagonizing, again. I wasn't saying anything about you, or
even anyting special about Eric, but you had to reply just to troll me
nevertheless.

In order to prevent me from doing it again, please give us the
etiquette that permits you to comment on a conversation between two
people, while making it ill mannered for me to do so. I do not want
to violate your sense of fairness.

If you evr see me respond to someone in this group that isn't talking to me
just to add an ad hominem, feel free to call me on it. I'm sure it may have
happened, and may happen yet again.



I have no reason to bother. Very few of your postings are important.
Perhaps the pigeon Gullah pronunciation of "important" is a more
accurate word.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
I apologize.

Sandman:
Apology accepted.

PeterN:
I didn't know a conversation on Usenet was private, especially
since I didn't see you as an original party.

Sandman:
Privacy was not the concern, the maturity of your post directed at
someone that wasn't talking to you, is. You didn't respond in kind
to me, you started the antagonizing, again. I wasn't saying
anything about you, or even anyting special about Eric, but you
had to reply just to troll me nevertheless.

PeterN:
In order to prevent me from doing it again, please give us the
etiquette that permits you to comment on a conversation between
two people, while making it ill mannered for me to do so. I do
not want to violate your sense of fairness.

Sandman:
If you evr see me respond to someone in this group that isn't
talking to me just to add an ad hominem, feel free to call me on
it. I'm sure it may have happened, and may happen yet again.

I have no reason to bother. Very few of your postings are
important.

One wonders why you keep following me around to respond to my posts over
and ovr just to add a personal attack, then?



--
Sandman[.net]

On 3/7/2014 3:39 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
I apologize.

Sandman:
Apology accepted.

PeterN:
I didn't know a conversation on Usenet was private, especially
since I didn't see you as an original party.

Sandman:
Privacy was not the concern, the maturity of your post directed at
someone that wasn't talking to you, is. You didn't respond in kind
to me, you started the antagonizing, again. I wasn't saying
anything about you, or even anyting special about Eric, but you
had to reply just to troll me nevertheless.

PeterN:
In order to prevent me from doing it again, please give us the
etiquette that permits you to comment on a conversation between
two people, while making it ill mannered for me to do so. I do
not want to violate your sense of fairness.

Sandman:
If you evr see me respond to someone in this group that isn't
talking to me just to add an ad hominem, feel free to call me on
it. I'm sure it may have happened, and may happen yet again.

I have no reason to bother. Very few of your postings are
important.

One wonders why you keep following me around to respond to my posts over
and ovr just to add a personal attack, then?




Don.t flatter yourself.
If you really think you are being followed, I suggest you get some
professional help, and postpone your next large penis purchase.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I know few really productive people who don't eat at their keyboard.
You sound as if you never had a cold eggroll or pizza shift.

i frequently eat at the keyboard, except i know how to not get crap in
it.