If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On 28 Mar 2014 18:51:48 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: Tony Cooper: For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you seemed to have in mind. Sandman: Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught". onslaught noun - a fierce or destructive attack: a series of onslaughts on the citadel. - a large quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with Note, particularly, example number 2. If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed "substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first thought. 1. I've never used it in relation to a "few" substantiations. 2. You have never been able to cope with any substantiation. You're welcome. And to get back to the topic you're frantically trying to igno When are we going to see substantiation from you with regards to this claim from you: Tony Cooper 03/25/2014 "What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available." Certainly no onslaught there! More like a complete drought in terms of substantiations! You can always falsify Tony's claim by telling us of sites where sales help is available on line. Now snip it away and run away again, little Tony. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:18:47 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the points he posted above are just basic facts. The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very truthful statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors, just look at Apple. Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with anyone; nonsense. apple competes with every other company making similar products, including computers, phones, tablets, mp3 players and numerous accessories. He's not talking about Apple. He's talking about Apple sales outlets. same thing in this case. the stores compete with non-apple stores selling non-apple products (and even apple products). no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products. so what? So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores. nonsense. of course there is. You don't get much competition when no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:17:55 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't know the meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or what a "Photoshop Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such as: Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM 'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"' And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'. once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies do. Ever heard of protecting a trademark? there is approval for adobe to showcase a plug-in on their website but that's *completely* separate and not at all required. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Tony Cooper: Consider the situation where you are sitting there eating your breakfast and your wife loosens a tirade of charges that you don't pick up your dirty laundry from the floor, don't help out around the house, and spend too much time on the computer. You sit there in stony silence and continue to eat your Croonchy Stars. You offer no response. Are you not ignoring her? Sandman: Of course. But if I have my headset on at the time and didn't hear her, then I'm not. Umm. While you may not be deliberately ignoring her, you are still ignoring her. ignore verb refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally -- Sandman[.net] |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Sandman: Someone buying a Rolex doesn't do it because he needs it or "percieves" he needs it, it's because he wants it, and it's a status symbol. It's easy to discern the difference - because purchases you make that you *need* may also be things you do not *want*. Tony Cooper: What, then, do you think "perceives" means? A perceived need is simply a need we think we have, and that equates to a want; we want it because we think we need it. Sandman: Man, you've totally lost it. We do not *want* things because we *think* we need them. We don't *want* things because we *need* them either. If we're lucky, we may very well want the smae things that are also needed, but the words are not synonymous. You are so far off track here that there's no possibility at all of getting you to understand. Perceived needs and perceived values have been established terms almost forever. Well, "forever" in the history of studying human behavior. I was reading case studies on this when I getting my MBA from Northwestern University. I am not claiming the term doesn't exist, I am correctly pointing out that "perceived need" has nothing to do with "want". Your claim above: "we want it because we think we need it" Is incorrect. I posted four examples to illustrate this, which is why you cowardly snipped them out instead of trying to show how the examples didn't illustrate scenarios where there was a percieved need but lack of "want". Tony Cooper: Who decides, in your mind, what the customer needs or should buy? The sales clerk? Sandman: I think a more pressing question is - who will teach you what the word "need" means? Apparently you're saying that someone taking photos to post to facebook needs a 12 core Mac Pro and Photoshop CC. I'm assumign you either have a 12 core Mac Pro and PS/CC or you've never posted an image to Facebook. I don't have a Mac, and I've never posted to Facebook. However, anyone can convince themselves that they need a particular item regardless of whether or not they actually do need it. So there *IS* a "actually do need it", then? In spite of you questioning that claim from me above with who decides that? Funny, ey? That's perceived need. The perception is in the mind of the person. This is a correct statement from you. Only because it is based on ignorance. Tony Cooper: So you bought a lens out of ignorance? Sandman: Only if I had ever said I needed it. Which of course I didn't. I bought it because I wanted it, not because I needed it. You didn't need to say it. You convinced yourself that you needed to have it, though. No I didn't. I just told you the exact opposite of this above, why are you lying about my motives? You created a perceived need. No I didn't. Why are you making these incorrect claims about my actions about which I have already made my motives clear? I did NOT buy the Petzval due to a requirement (=need) that needed to be fulfilled. I bought it solely based on a desire (=want) to own it for the "cool" effect of it. I had no clients that had asked for it. "Want" and "need" are not synonymous words, but how we justify our "wants" by convincing ourselves that they are "needs" is well understood by marketers. That can happen, but that need is more likely to be externally influenced by those marketers rather than created by ourselves. I.e. we may have a desire to create stunning photographs, and that may lead to us thinking that we need a good DSLR camera. That's percieved need since it is born out of ignorance - we think we need it because we don't know better. The marketers may use this perceived need in order to amplify this and point us to the largest high-end DSLR they have available and pamper to our percieved need to make us spend more. In the end - the customer doesn't want to buy a Nikon D4, or even a D610 which may be what he thought from the beginning. It turns out that in order to satisfy his desire, a Fuji X-Pro1 would have been more than sufficient. See how the percieved need has absolutely no relation to the persons wants? Tony Cooper: But, according to your best buddy, that doesn't make for a "smooth" transaction. Sandman: I'll give you one million dollar if you can quote me saying that. Tony Cooper: I guess you meant something entirely different when you said: "Many people do - that doesn't make it a smooth buyer experience, just like I said. It's an added step you have to add before you go to the store." Sandman: I meant what I wrote, which as you can see didn't correlate to what you claimed I wrote. See why you have no credibility yet? Oh, God. Another misunderstood word snip diversion Again, I'll give you one million dollars if you can quote me saying what you claimed I said. Please be a man here and retract your claim about what I have said. If for no other reason to make it clear that you understand that you made a mistake - perhaps it will make you think twice in the future. -- Sandman[.net] |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Savageduck: Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood, or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described so? Sandman: Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually has happened everytime I've used the word. PeterN: Only the times when you use an inappropriate word. Sandman: You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and why it was inappropriate. Isn't that what the present argument is about? No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I had used the word "onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to show how, and I have since substantiated that I was using it correctly - which is when he quietly left the thread to lick his wounds. -- Sandman[.net] |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
--- snip --- Tony Cooper: If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored". Sandman: No, this is incorrect. It could be any of these: 1. Forgotten 2. Overlooked 3. Ignored 4. Missed I would address the point in only a slightly different way. It could be any one of these: 1. Forgotten 2. Overlooked 3. Deliberately ignored. 4. Missed. In any case, If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored". As the list indicates, that does not require that the aspect has been deliberately ignored. ignore verb refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally -- Sandman[.net] |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Tony Cooper: And, I do catch my errors the first time. Sandman: Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't know the meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or what a "Photoshop Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such as: Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM 'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"' And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'. Haha! Tony Cooper: But, no, I don't think your error was "unforgiving"[sic]. Nor is it unforgivable. (Funny how "Ironic" comes and bites you in the ass.) Sandman: How so? I am not posting spelling and grammar flames, and I am fully aware that I make such mistakes, You could have fooled me. :-) By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric? -- Sandman[.net] |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Tony Cooper: If you found that definition, and still feel that "onslaught" is the right word choice to describe a few cites of supposed "substantiation", then your case is more hopeless than I first thought. Sandman: 1. I've never used it in relation to a "few" substantiations. 2. You have never been able to cope with any substantiation. You're welcome. And to get back to the topic you're frantically trying to igno When are we going to see substantiation from you with regards to this claim from you: Tony Cooper 03/25/2014 "What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available." Certainly no onslaught there! More like a complete drought in terms of substantiations! You can always falsify Tony's claim by telling us of sites where sales help is available on line. Because... it is your position that there are none? I just want to make this perfectly clear that Eric Stevens want me to substantiate the existence of online sales help because it is YOUR counter-claim that no such service exists anywhere? Is this correct? I mean, there would be no need for me to substantiate this if you don't actually think none exists, so I just want to be sure that your position is that none exists and it is my job to susbstantiate its existence (which I'm more than happy to do, of course). -- Sandman[.net] |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"' And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'. once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies do. Ever heard of protecting a trademark? calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored by adobe. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ritz Camera Chapter 11 | Nomen Nescio | Digital Photography | 13 | February 24th 09 10:24 PM |
Ritz Camera Chapter 11 | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 24th 09 03:06 AM |
Ritz Camera Chapter 11 | Nomen Nescio | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 23rd 09 09:53 PM |
Photography Is Not Art, Chapter XXXVII | fabio | Large Format Photography Equipment | 40 | March 11th 06 08:40 PM |
CF cards: Fit, finish, and ERRORS - Final Chapter | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 1 | February 19th 05 09:38 PM |