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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.