Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:20:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.


Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?

In his original reply Tevor was responding directly to the OP.
There was nothing in his original reply to indicate that
he'd even read your post.

Nonsense.


Yeah well. Trevor was responding to Alan Brown's remark
in response to the OP. But that's as far as that concession
goes.


Did you not read my article Message-ID:
in which I set out the
IDs of the chain of articles which make up this thread?

Nope.

As I said before, on UseNet nobody has a right of audience
so if you want people to read your posts you need to make
your point as succinctly as possible. Not expect them to
wade through mases of material which you aren't willing
to summarise.

I've just noticed that your first "contribution" to this
thread, was in fact a blind link. Nothing more.

A "blind" link is one in which the poster can't even be
bothered to summarise, even by way of a single sentence
the general gist of the link,

But if you can't even be bothered to take the trouble to
summarise that link even in just one sentence - so that readers
can decide whether to click on it or not, how can you expect
anyone else to open it and read it ?

The whole beauty of UseNet, unlike web forums which don't easily
accomodate quoting is that the casual reader can see
at a glance who is responding to who. And what exactly they
are responding to.

So that even at first glance - to anyone reading Trevor's first
contribution to this thread -

--------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:54:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.09.05[36] 14:40 , Bruce wrote:
Corel has announced PaintShop Pro X5, the latest version of its photo

It's X6 in the Corel Draw Graphics Suite.


Gimp is better.

You're kidding right? Have you actually compared both? While I don't use PS
pro normally, I have used both, and as much as I wish Gimp was better than
Corel, and even half as good as Photoshop (since it's free), it still isn't
yet. (unless it's improved drastically in the month or two since I looked at
it last.)
Great value for money of course :-)

Trevor.

--------------------------------------------------


it's immediately obvious, to whom and to what, Trevor is
responding.

i.e. Alan Brown's Gimp remark.

And please note that unlike you with your blind link,
Bruce the OP, took the trouble to summarise or quote at
length, the gist of the link he posted.

Two posters, the OP and Alan Browne with posting headers
and arrows to match.

Now the fact that as a result of some "clever sleuthing"
i.e checking the reference headers you've discovered that
Trevor actuallly snipped your blind link, is really neither
here nor there.

Nobody else cares about that.

All you've succeeeded in doing there, is shown how really
upset you are - over this supposed sleight on Tevor's part
which nobody else is even aware of. Or even cares about.
The three posts above are perfectly consistent and speak
for themselves.

As I said previously not only is there no right of audience
on Usenet, but in anyone leaving blind links is asking to
be ignored.



Did you understand it?

Probably not. I see you are another user of Outlook Express.

Nope. I'm a user of Outlook Express who has better things with
their time than open blind links left by posters who are seemingly
incapable of summarising their thoughts in their own words.

rest sniped


michael adams

....


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:28:02 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:20:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.


Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?

In his original reply Tevor was responding directly to the OP.
There was nothing in his original reply to indicate that
he'd even read your post.

Nonsense.


Yeah well. Trevor was responding to Alan Brown's remark
in response to the OP. But that's as far as that concession
goes.


Did you not read my article Message-ID:
in which I set out the
IDs of the chain of articles which make up this thread?

Nope.

In that case you are labouring at a considerable disadvantage.

In any case you must have read the article to which you are
responding, in which I summarised it and repeated it entirely for your
benefit. I don't know what you made of it but I note that not only
have you failed to give any sign of understanding it, but you have
deleted any evidence of it from your response without giving any
indication of the fact.

As I said before, on UseNet nobody has a right of audience
so if you want people to read your posts you need to make
your point as succinctly as possible. Not expect them to
wade through mases of material which you aren't willing
to summarise.

I don't think either of us know what you are talking about. I wasn't
complaining that nobody had read my post. I was complaining that after
I had written an article Trevor had written (apparently in response to
it) "You're kidding right? Have you actually compared both?" and
carried on in similar vein. Trevor's article had a mangled attribution
and mangled quotes and mangled levels of quotes. In the sequence of
articles which Usenet maintains Trevor's article was in reponse to
mine.

I wasn't complaining about nobody having read my article. I was
complaining about Trevor inappropriately directing his comments to me.

I've just noticed that your first "contribution" to this
thread, was in fact a blind link. Nothing more.

A "blind" link is one in which the poster can't even be
bothered to summarise, even by way of a single sentence
the general gist of the link,

There is nothing wrong with that. You can read it or ignore it as you
see fit.

But if you can't even be bothered to take the trouble to
summarise that link even in just one sentence - so that readers
can decide whether to click on it or not, how can you expect
anyone else to open it and read it ?

That is not what I was complaining about.

The whole beauty of UseNet, unlike web forums which don't easily
accomodate quoting is that the casual reader can see
at a glance who is responding to who. And what exactly they
are responding to.

They can if their reader enables threading. If it doesn't then they
are left to struggle through a swamp of dates and arrival times. The
idea of sequential lists of message IDs arose to avoid the kind of
confusion in which you are now becoming lost.

So that even at first glance - to anyone reading Trevor's first
contribution to this thread -

--------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:54:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012.09.05[36] 14:40 , Bruce wrote:
Corel has announced PaintShop Pro X5, the latest version of its photo

It's X6 in the Corel Draw Graphics Suite.


Gimp is better.

You're kidding right? Have you actually compared both? While I don't use PS
pro normally, I have used both, and as much as I wish Gimp was better than
Corel, and even half as good as Photoshop (since it's free), it still isn't
yet. (unless it's improved drastically in the month or two since I looked at
it last.)
Great value for money of course :-)

Trevor.

--------------------------------------------------


it's immediately obvious, to whom and to what, Trevor is
responding.

No it's not. First of all the attribution to Alan Browne is given as a
quote, so it clearly came from the article to which he is responding.
There is not attribution to identify the author of the article to
which he was responding. Second, if you have threading turned on you
will see that Trevor's article comes after mine which in turn was
after Alan Browne's. Examination of the headers shows beyond all doubt
that in spite of his attempts to disguise the fact, Trevor was
responding to my article.

i.e. Alan Brown's Gimp remark.

And please note that unlike you with your blind link,
Bruce the OP, took the trouble to summarise or quote at
length, the gist of the link he posted.

Two posters, the OP and Alan Browne with posting headers
and arrows to match.

Go back and have another look. In Trevor's article he shows Bruce's
line "Corel has announced PaintShop Pro X5, ..." as having the same
level of quotes '' as Alan Browne's remark "Gimp is better". Alan
Browne's remark comes from a later article and should have a lower
level of quotes.

Now the fact that as a result of some "clever sleuthing"
i.e checking the reference headers you've discovered that
Trevor actuallly snipped your blind link, is really neither
here nor there.

That's not the point. As I explained above, he effectively directed
comments to me to which I objected.

Nobody else cares about that.

All you've succeeeded in doing there, is shown how really
upset you are - over this supposed sleight on Tevor's part
which nobody else is even aware of. Or even cares about.
The three posts above are perfectly consistent and speak
for themselves.

They do, especially if you read them carefully.

As I said previously not only is there no right of audience
on Usenet, but in anyone leaving blind links is asking to
be ignored.



Did you understand it?

Probably not. I see you are another user of Outlook Express.

Nope. I'm a user of Outlook Express who has better things with
their time than open blind links left by posters who are seemingly
incapable of summarising their thoughts in their own words.

You also seem incapable of reading those parts of an article which
confirm you as shooting off on a tangent.

rest sniped

'snipped' is what you mean. The 'sniping' applies to what you left
above.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:28:02 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:20:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.


Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?

In his original reply Tevor was responding directly to the OP.
There was nothing in his original reply to indicate that
he'd even read your post.

Nonsense.


Yeah well. Trevor was responding to Alan Brown's remark
in response to the OP. But that's as far as that concession
goes.


Did you not read my article Message-ID:
in which I set out the
IDs of the chain of articles which make up this thread?

Nope.

In that case you are labouring at a considerable disadvantage.

In any case you must have read the article to which you are
responding, in which I summarised it and repeated it entirely for your
benefit. I don't know what you made of it but I note that not only
have you failed to give any sign of understanding it, but you have
deleted any evidence of it from your response without giving any
indication of the fact.

As I said before, on UseNet nobody has a right of audience
so if you want people to read your posts you need to make
your point as succinctly as possible. Not expect them to
wade through mases of material which you aren't willing
to summarise.

I don't think either of us know what you are talking about. I wasn't
complaining that nobody had read my post. I was complaining that after
I had written an article

At the time Eric posted you hadn't written any article.

Eric's post was timed at 06.04

Your only contribution at that stage was a post made
19 minutes earlier

...

containing a link to the Coral Product page

http://www.corel.com/corel/product/i...oreKey=nz#tab5

There was no other content to that post. Just a blind link.

This was the post ID - consisting just of the blind link which
you claimed showed that Eric must at least have been aware of your
post before he snipped your link and your posting header.

Eric's post contained just the three reference headers

Bruce OP
Alan Brown gimp anyone
Eric Stevens (Your) blind link post


So where is the refrence header for this article you're claiming
Eric has ignored ?





--

Trevor had written (apparently in response to
it)

No it was written clearly and solely in response to Alan Brown's mischevious
suggestion of Gimp's being a viable alternative. You seem to labouring
under the delusion that it was necessary for Trevor or anyone
else to follow your link to the Corel product page before
reaching such a conclusion independently.

"You're kidding right? Have you actually compared both?" and
carried on in similar vein. Trevor's article had a mangled attribution
and mangled quotes and mangled levels of quotes. In the sequence of
articles which Usenet maintains Trevor's article was in reponse to
mine.


That's correct. He thought Alan Brown was being serious.

And what pray has any of this to do with this non-existent article
of yours - as evidenced by its complete absence from the reference
headers in Trevors's post - which you still accuse Trevor of
ignoring ?

BTW there were no "mangled quotes" in OE. Another common failing
among some posters on UseNet, is to discount the possibility
that any inconsistencies and difficulties they encounter may be
the result of deficiencoes in their own choice of NewsReader.



I wasn't complaining about nobody having read my article.

What article ?

As I said before, all I can find is your blind link.



which it turns out is to the Coral Priduct page.


I was
complaining about Trevor inappropriately directing his comments to me.

As your name didn't figure in the posting headers in Eric's post,
how can "anyone" have concluded that he directed "any" comment at you,
at all ?


rest snipped


michael adams

....




Regards,

Eric Stevens