Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
You were the one who made it a topic

Sandman:
Incorrect, Tony was the one who brought up "Apple batteries"

Still doing your best to argue on and on and on about the smallest
details you can find? Good job, troll boy.

Small details can be important in writing.

*Apple Batteries* is not the same as "if the topic is *Apple
Batteries*" which is not the same as "the topic is *Apple
Batteries*". You can also make Apple Batteries the topic by writing
about them, which you did.

Incorrect - Tony is the one who brought up "Apple batteries", not me. Your
trolling about "topic" or not is totally irrelevant. I didn't start to talk
about Apple batteries, nor did I bring it up, make it a "topic" or
anything.

Just stop arguing about everything you can argue about. You were wrong,
stop making a fool out of yourself.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

So why do you do it?

Facts:

Sandman
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/27/2013

"Yeah, it's pretty freaking awesome. Why anyone would choose
a 4-5 hour PC laptop over a Mac laptop is beyond me."

PeterN
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/28/2013

"Last time I checked Lenovo is a PC machine and 17 15
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1712."



Peter was the one who introdcued Lenovo laptops into the discussion. Stop
arguing for once in your life!

Why should I stop when you won't?

I am not *arguing* with you, Eric. I am plainly telling you the actual
facts. There is no argument here, I'm not claiming that "I" am correct,
because I have stated no opinion. I have only told you the facts that you
continue to argue against.

Lenovo laptops are sprinkled through the thread. I still think you
were the one who dragged Lenovo batteries out into the bublic arena.

Facts be damned, right? Stop just "thinking" stuff and start substantiating
- you know, like I do when I make a claim.

The first time the word "Lenovo" was ever mentioned in this thread:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105489

Author: PeterN

The first time it was mentioned in relation to its batteries:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105904

Author: PeterN


But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you quoted from a URL
provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the first.

1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned post. it
comes AFTER that post.
2. That post is not from me.

See, not even when you actually try can you get anything right. You really
should just stop making claims, period.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.ifixit.com/MacBook-Parts/...kpad/IF123-020

But see: Condition: Used, fully tested
Warranty: 6 month warranty

It's not a new one.

I never claimed it was, Eric.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

In the part you snipped you wrote (as I have arrowed):

------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the prices I listed where cheap.
None came from the "grey market" as you call it
All were for new parts SEE!
All were for Apple original parts.
All were to licensed Apple resellers.

Here is the post:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=111827

You will note (maybe not) that the claims that concerned the PAST (which
you quoted above) precede the link that is found later in the post.

The word "were" is in reference to things that has occured in the past,
Eric. It does not include things that is happening in the post I was
currently writing, things that I had yet to write.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 4 Nov 2013 08:36:47 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

So why do you do it?

Facts:

Sandman
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/27/2013

"Yeah, it's pretty freaking awesome. Why anyone would choose
a 4-5 hour PC laptop over a Mac laptop is beyond me."

PeterN
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/28/2013

"Last time I checked Lenovo is a PC machine and 17 15
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1712."



Peter was the one who introdcued Lenovo laptops into the discussion. Stop
arguing for once in your life!

Why should I stop when you won't?

At this point I had said "In this case, you are correct. Peter was the
first" but you chop it out without giving any evidence of the fact an
then keep on arguing. Are you sick or something?

I am not *arguing* with you, Eric. I am plainly telling you the actual
facts. There is no argument here, I'm not claiming that "I" am correct,
because I have stated no opinion. I have only told you the facts that you
continue to argue against.

Lenovo laptops are sprinkled through the thread. I still think you
were the one who dragged Lenovo batteries out into the bublic arena.

Facts be damned, right? Stop just "thinking" stuff and start substantiating
- you know, like I do when I make a claim.

The first time the word "Lenovo" was ever mentioned in this thread:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105489

Author: PeterN

The first time it was mentioned in relation to its batteries:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105904

Author: PeterN


But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you quoted from a URL
provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the first.

1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned post. it
comes AFTER that post.

I now see that the 20th can't be right as I didn't start the thread
until the 26th. My news server has had a hissy fit from a new indexing
system and twice now it has downloaded to me some 780,000 newsgroup
headers. My newsreaders index system has been throwing wobblies from
both the quantity and the need to reindex everything. I won't say any
more on this subject until I get things straightened out.

2. That post is not from me.

I agree.

See, not even when you actually try can you get anything right. You really
should just stop making claims, period.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Why should I stop when you won't?

At this point I had said "In this case, you are correct. Peter was
the first" but you chop it out without giving any evidence of the
fact an then keep on arguing. Are you sick or something?

Stop lying, Eric - I am *correcting* you below, not arguing with you.

Sandman:
I am not *arguing* with you, Eric. I am plainly telling you the
actual facts. There is no argument here, I'm not claiming that "I"
am correct, because I have stated no opinion. I have only told you
the facts that you continue to argue against.

Eric Stevens:
But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you quoted from a
URL provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the
first.

Sandman:
1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned
post. it comes AFTER that post.

I now see that the 20th can't be right as I didn't start the thread
until the 26th. My news server has had a hissy fit from a new
indexing system and twice now it has downloaded to me some 780,000
newsgroup headers. My newsreaders index system has been throwing
wobblies from both the quantity and the need to reindex everything.
I won't say any more on this subject until I get things straightened
out.

So,, knowing this, you should double-check your claims.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 4 Nov 2013 08:40:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.ifixit.com/MacBook-Parts/...kpad/IF123-020

But see: Condition: Used, fully tested
Warranty: 6 month warranty

It's not a new one.

I never claimed it was, Eric.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

In the part you snipped you wrote (as I have arrowed):

------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the prices I listed where cheap.
None came from the "grey market" as you call it
All were for new parts SEE!
All were for Apple original parts.
All were to licensed Apple resellers.

Here is the post:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=111827

You will note (maybe not) that the claims that concerned the PAST (which
you quoted above) precede the link that is found later in the post.

The word "were" is in reference to things that has occured in the past,
Eric. It does not include things that is happening in the post I was
currently writing, things that I had yet to write.

But the reference to being ablle to obtain parts from Amazon was in
the past also. If you had done more than glance at that you would
realise that it was being sold by BulkBuys4Buildings who are not well
known Apple agents. Their main line of business is plumbing supplies
and trade tools. Outside of Amazon they seem to deal with
organisaions like Mr Chip Parts. A source of new and authorised Apple
parts they are not.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Nov 2013 08:36:47 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

So why do you do it?

Facts:

Sandman
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/27/2013

"Yeah, it's pretty freaking awesome. Why anyone would choose
a 4-5 hour PC laptop over a Mac laptop is beyond me."

PeterN
Apple gives a new meaning to solid state.
10/28/2013

"Last time I checked Lenovo is a PC machine and 17 15
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1712."



Peter was the one who introdcued Lenovo laptops into the discussion. Stop
arguing for once in your life!

Why should I stop when you won't?

I am not *arguing* with you, Eric. I am plainly telling you the actual
facts. There is no argument here, I'm not claiming that "I" am correct,
because I have stated no opinion. I have only told you the facts that you
continue to argue against.

Lenovo laptops are sprinkled through the thread. I still think you
were the one who dragged Lenovo batteries out into the bublic arena.

Facts be damned, right? Stop just "thinking" stuff and start substantiating
- you know, like I do when I make a claim.

The first time the word "Lenovo" was ever mentioned in this thread:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105489

Author: PeterN

The first time it was mentioned in relation to its batteries:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105904

Author: PeterN


But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you ...

This was a mistake. It was "nospam" who ...

.... quoted from a URL
provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the first.

This too was a mistake. The date of the article was 27 Oct.


1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned post. it
comes AFTER that post.
2. That post is not from me.

See, not even when you actually try can you get anything right. You really
should just stop making claims, period.

I made two mistakes and you missed both of them. What are things
coming to?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you ...

This was a mistake. It was "nospam" who ...
... quoted from a URL

provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the
first.

This too was a mistake. The date of the article was 27 Oct.

No, 28th.

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105912

Sandman:
1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned
post. it comes AFTER that post.
2. That post is not from me.

See, not even when you actually try can you get anything right.
You really should just stop making claims, period.

I made two mistakes and you missed both of them. What are things
coming to?

Huh? You are replying to a post of mine where I am pointing to two of your
errors and then you say I missed those errors? What are you on about?

You have already replied to this post once again - this was your second
reply, this was your first:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=112346

Where you already admitted to your mistake - without trying to make it seem
like I had "missed" something.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 5 Nov 2013 06:36:21 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
But on 20 Oct ,in Message-ID:
, you ...

This was a mistake. It was "nospam" who ...
... quoted from a URL

provided by PeterN on the subject of Lenovo battery life.
According to my calendar 20 Oct precedes 27 Oct: you were the
first.

This too was a mistake. The date of the article was 27 Oct.

No, 28th.

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=105912

Sandman:
1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above mentioned
post. it comes AFTER that post.
2. That post is not from me.

See, not even when you actually try can you get anything right.
You really should just stop making claims, period.

I made two mistakes and you missed both of them. What are things
coming to?

Huh? You are replying to a post of mine where I am pointing to two of your
errors and then you say I missed those errors? What are you on about?

Two different errors ...

You have already replied to this post once again - this was your second
reply, this was your first:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=112346

Where you already admitted to your mistake - without trying to make it seem
like I had "missed" something.

I told you my news group files were in a mess.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

1. That post is from 28 october, as a reply to the above
mentioned post. it comes AFTER that post.

2. That post is not from me.


This was a mistake. It was "nospam" who ... ... quoted from a
URL

This too was a mistake. The date of the article was 27 Oct.



Sandman:
Huh? You are replying to a post of mine where I am pointing to two
of your errors and then you say I missed those errors? What are
you on about?

Two different errors ...

So you made four errors? I don't see the difference, quoted above. Mine are
labeled 1 and 2, they concern who wrote the post and the date of the
post.

Below are your stated errors, which apart from containing another error (it
was the 28th, not the 27th) are in relation to the same two errors you
made. I just don't understand why you would reply to my post and outline
the same errors again?

Where you already admitted to your mistake - without trying to
make it seem like I had "missed" something.

I told you my news group files were in a mess.

BUt you still replied to the same post twice. And you still repeated the
summary of the errors in the post you were replying to. Something is in a
mess here...


--
Sandman[.net]