Calumet files Chapter 7

On 4/3/2014 7:18 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

When I bought my iPad, no one at the Apple store tried to tell me
that an $89 tablet would be a better buy for my needs. I would not
expect them to, and I would not want them to.

That's only because the Apple Store is not a reseller of tablets,

Oh, then, your defense of nospam's contention is that a store will
only tell you need something less expensive because they don't think
you need the expensive item *if* they also carry less expensive items?

why would a store tell you you need something they don't sell? then you
will go buy somewhere else.


Because the store manager is looking for along term relationship?

While I was still in college I was interviewed for a sales position. The
interviewer asked me to sell him a pencil. I answered "not if you don't
need one.
I was offered the job, on the spot.




--
PeterN

On 4/4/2014 1:40 AM, Sandman wrote:
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


Oh! I get it. As in ignore propositions that you don't agree with.
understood/

--
PeterN

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:11:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

More the latter, especially when the non-native arrives heavily armed
with the intention of slaughtering you and your fellow inhabitants to
enable him to take over your land.

You should read ancient history. There is always a leader of someone
or other with the intention of driving you out of your land.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:03:18 -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.

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.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Apr 2014 05:44:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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).

I am merely giving you advice as to the best way to support your
argument, by falsifying the opposing argument. Whether or not you
choose to do it is up to you. Of course you may not be able to falsify
Tony's argument.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Apr 2014 05:40:35 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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

Can you give a reference to your source of this definition?

In any case, we should get back to the beginning of your argument in
Message-ID:

"Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something
isn't. There are millions of things you didn't state in your post
here, but you're not actually ignoring all of them; like floods in
malaysia, the price of IKEA furniture and the mating calls of sea
lions. You didn't state any of those items, and according to you,
that means you ignored them. Well, according to the English
language, you didn't.

Ignoring something is deliberate, and one cannot prove the
existence of a deliberate action (ignoring something) solely by
noting the absence of another deliberate action (i.e. stating
something)."

Taking that apart:

1. "Ignoring something is an active action, not stating something
isn't."

It depends upon whether or not the speaker knows of the
'something'. If the speaker knows, not stating the something is
a result of a deliberate decision by the speaker - to not state.

2. "There are millions of things you didn't state in your post
here, but you're not actually ignoring all of them; like floods
in malaysia, the price of IKEA furniture and the mating calls
of sea lions."

There is the test of relevance. Even if the speaker knew all
these things, I would expect the speaker to ignore them on the
grounds that they were not relevant to the subject under
discussion.

3. " You didn't state any of those items, and according to you, that
means you ignored them. Well, according to the English
language, you didn't."

Of course he did. They are utterly irrelevant to the subject
under discussion, which (in case you had forgotten) was "What
he [nospam] ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is
no sales help available." I would like to know what you think
Tony did with these things if he did not ignore them.

Are you aware that the significant difference between Newtonian
mechanics and Einsteinian mechanics is that Newtonian mechanics
ignores relativistic effects?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN
wrote:

When I bought my iPad, no one at the Apple store tried to tell me
that an $89 tablet would be a better buy for my needs. I would not
expect them to, and I would not want them to.

That's only because the Apple Store is not a reseller of tablets,

Oh, then, your defense of nospam's contention is that a store will
only tell you need something less expensive because they don't think
you need the expensive item *if* they also carry less expensive items?

why would a store tell you you need something they don't sell? then you
will go buy somewhere else.

Because the store manager is looking for along term relationship?

not many of them do that.

While I was still in college I was interviewed for a sales position. The
interviewer asked me to sell him a pencil. I answered "not if you don't
need one.
I was offered the job, on the spot.

a completely meaningless anecdote.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.

apple is subject to a ****load of competition.

On 2014-04-05 01:52:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:39:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


...but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the issue
has been beaten to death several times?

Because there's no talk of photography. Here, I'll get the ball
rolling with some recent shots.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...-02-051-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-121-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-122-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-123-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...3-16-12-XL.jpg

Nice

stuff.

How do you like your D300?
It should have a different heft to your D60, and the burst-CL/CH mode
can be useful for action shots. Also for those action shots using CL/CH
it is worth setting the focus mode from "S" to "C".
I have my D300S set up with the Custom Shooting & Setting banks set for
"Standard/normal", "Landscape", "Action", & "B&W". For B&W I shoot
RAW+JPEG with the RAW going to the CF card and the JPEGs going to the
SDHC.


For "Action" my shooting bank is set as follows:
Primary Slot: CF
Secondary slot function: overflow
RAW
WB: Auto
Set picture control: NL
High ISO NR: Normal
Auto ISO: On; Max 1600, Min shutter speed 1/320. This is one I tweak
depending on event and lighting situation, and will sometimes turn off.
It works for me for motor sports where there are lighting variations
due to movement in and out of shadows.

My Actions setting bank:
a1: Release & Focus
a2: Focus
a3: 51 point(3D-tracking)
a8: AF51
c1: off
d5: Whatever you are comfortable with I have the MB-D10 so I use &


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4 Apr 2014 13:09:25 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

See https://www.adobeexchange.com/producer

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 think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens