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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: 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. To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe product. other than you, but you backpedaled on that. What has been said is that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is a misleading term. It implies that the plug-in is something Adobe has provided. It should be called "a plug-in for Photoshop". nonsense. the two terms are interchangeable. there is *no* implication that a 'photoshop plug-in' is authored by adobe. you made that up. I know you'll be quick to say "Nobody does that". That doesn't negate that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is wrong. It just shows that there are many people - including you - who have no respect for the proprietary rights to the word "Photoshop". it's not wrong, and in both cases, the word photoshop is used. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
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. plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and walmart, two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other stores in other countries that sell apple products. heck there are even vending machines that sell apple products. as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include other stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to spice up the deal. and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold. there is *plenty* of competition. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On 2014-04-04 11:03:15 +0000, nospam said:
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. How the Hell did we manage to come back to this stupid Photoshop plug-in argument for, at least the forth time in multiple threads? They are ****in' plug-ins, and they are developed by all sorts of folks to work in Photoshop!! Some of them (with a change from .plugin to .lrplugin & whatever Aperture uses) will work in Lightroom and some will work in Aperture, and some will even work as standalone apps, but remain referred to simply as *plug-ins* by many I won't use *most* because that will open another can of worms) users of PS, PSE, LR, &/or Aperture. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens Sandman: 'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"' Eric Stevens: 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'. nospam: 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. Eric Stevens: 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. Unless, of course, we ask Tony: Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM "Only Adobe can call a plug-in a 'Photoshop Plug-in'" Surely that claim is based on well-grounded research on the matter. Of course, he hasn't shared that research with us... yet. -- Sandman[.net] |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
nospam: 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. To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe product. Only to "use with" Photoshop: Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM "they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop." Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop. You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored by Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they approve the plugins "for use with Photoshop". -- Sandman[.net] |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
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, Eric Stevens: You could have fooled me. :-) Sandman: By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric? Eric's meaning is clear, and not at all what you took from it. He is questioning whether or you are aware of your mistakes, not that you are posting spelling and grammar flames. I know, he was trolling. I tried to keep him relevant. -- Sandman[.net] |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Sandman: 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. You used the word in a way that is not idiomatic in English. This is an incorrect claim from you, as I have shown. The usage would not have been written by anyone who understands how the word is used. Incorrect. And ironic to be coming from you. There is a difference that you don't seem to grasp between "inappropriate" and "incorrect". This is part of the reason you come out with these clangers in usage. Ironic. An inappropriate usage can be a usage where the word just doesn't fit. It's wrong for the application. An incorrect usage is when the word is not just wrong for the application, but wrong enough to make the usage not understandable or misleading. Luckily, I used the word appropriately, which I showed in my substantiation, which you snipped and ignored since you can't counter it. It's a subtle difference, but one that people who seek to improve their language skills take heed of. An ironic claim to come from you. I left the thread because I recognized that you have no interest in improving your English in this area. You would rather insist that your usage was appropriate than learn. I am very interested in improving my English. Your mistake is thinking you're proficient enough to teach anyone anything. You're the one that has made such hilarious comment such as: Tony Cooper 11/27/2013 04:03:26 PM "A requirement is what you want to do." You're not seriously considering yourself in a position to teach anyone something about the usage of English words, now are you? This is just your attempt at being funny, right? I am not wounded by your intractability. I'm not even mildly distressed. If it's OK with you to continue to look foolish by insisting that the inappropriate is appropriate, that's your choice. Again, I am not the one looking foolish when I can support my argument and you can only snip it. But I understand your need for this to be the case, given the humiliation you've endured. -- Sandman[.net] |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
nospam: 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. Tony Cooper: To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe product. Sandman: Only to "use with" Photoshop: Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM "they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop." Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop. You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored by Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they approve the plugins "for use with Photoshop". I offer expert testimony: nospam, your midget tag team buddy. He's posted several times that Adobe has approved certain plug-ins for the "showcase". As opposed to "for use with Photoshop", which was your explicit and incorrect claim. Case closed? You made a mistake and you're now admitting to it? Would be the first time. Does he dare or will he just ignore this post? Nah, he may snip some embarrassing parts of it though. -- Sandman[.net] |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On 2014-04-04 15:02:30 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 05:51:26 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-04-04 11:03:15 +0000, nospam said: 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. How the Hell did we manage to come back to this stupid Photoshop plug-in argument for, at least the forth time in multiple threads? They are ****in' plug-ins, and they are developed by all sorts of folks to work in Photoshop!! Some of them (with a change from .plugin to .lrplugin & whatever Aperture uses) will work in Lightroom and some will work in Aperture, and some will even work as standalone apps, but remain referred to simply as *plug-ins* by many I won't use *most* because that will open another can of worms) users of PS, PSE, LR, &/or Aperture. No one has questioned whether or not they are plug-ins, will work with Adobe products, or anything except how they are described. ....but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the issue has been beaten to death several times? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Calumet files Chapter 7
On 4/3/2014 5:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:09:48 -0400, PeterN wrote: As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it. Yup! Except that there is clear Constitutional authority. Indeed the prime reason for a government is to provide for the welfare of the people. The prime reason for a government is to defend the realm. All else is icing on the cake. Defending against what? Illness. Natural disasters Economic issues. thieves and scoundrels, Or is it only to fight when someone, not a native dares to step on the sacred soil. -- PeterN |
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 |