Buying Adobe Elements?

On 2013.05.28 02:16 , David Taylor wrote:
On 27/05/2013 21:50, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
I'm not hung up on it all.

It's starting to come across like that.

On the content of a manual? Not at all.

Regrettably I was foolish to engage a troll.


This was all part of demonstrating that
manuals contain advertising / marketing materials from the company
making the product.

Nikon would be neglectful not to!

So any manuals for the iPad containing the word "Apple" have these
marketing materials?

There are the various marketing stamps all over Apple materials. I
haven't seen the iPad manual (is there one?) so I can't comment.

Enough already on manuals!

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.05.27 16:56 , PeterN wrote:
On 5/27/2013 4:51 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.05.27 10:39 , Tony Cooper wrote:

You may consider classifying your comments as being absurd as
an insult, but I see it as a factual representation.

I've pretty much concluded it's a troll.



What took you so long VBG


My general, occasionally misguided, faith in the goodness of mankind.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013-05-28 16:08:36 -0700, Alan Browne
said:


We don't currently have a snitch program though either the provincial
or federal government is proposing one for snitching on fraud over
$100K. IIRC the 'reward' is 10%.

Never underestimate the value of a good snitch, even if he is only good
for the entertainment value. It is always good to remember, the
compulsive snitch has to snitch. If he doesn't snitch, he is just a guy
with a bad story.
Naturally there is a big difference in classes of snitch; the career
snitch, the guilt ridden snitch, the plea bargain snitch, the revenge
seeking snitch, the manipulative snitch, the proud snitch, and the
guess the truth snitch.

I have had four regular snitches over the years, all of them gang
members, two black, two hispanic. One "Hoover Crip", one "Blood", one
"Fresno Bulldog" and the most interesting survivor of the bunch, an
older guy who was a drop out from the "Texas Mafia" who led young
hispanics to believe he was a Southern mexican affiliated with the
"Eme" or "Mexican Mafia".
Each of them had ulterior motives, three of them I could trust to give
good useful information. I would have to analyze what the fourth told
me, as 25% was good, 50% misdirection, and 25% pure BS.
Most snitches are just trying to save their own skin, and have little
to nothing of value to say.

No IRS snitches in my former line of business.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/28/2013 7:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-28 16:08:36 -0700, Alan Browne
said:


We don't currently have a snitch program though either the provincial
or federal government is proposing one for snitching on fraud over
$100K. IIRC the 'reward' is 10%.

Never underestimate the value of a good snitch, even if he is only good
for the entertainment value. It is always good to remember, the
compulsive snitch has to snitch. If he doesn't snitch, he is just a guy
with a bad story.
Naturally there is a big difference in classes of snitch; the career
snitch, the guilt ridden snitch, the plea bargain snitch, the revenge
seeking snitch, the manipulative snitch, the proud snitch, and the guess
the truth snitch.

I have had four regular snitches over the years, all of them gang
members, two black, two hispanic. One "Hoover Crip", one "Blood", one
"Fresno Bulldog" and the most interesting survivor of the bunch, an
older guy who was a drop out from the "Texas Mafia" who led young
hispanics to believe he was a Southern mexican affiliated with the "Eme"
or "Mexican Mafia".
Each of them had ulterior motives, three of them I could trust to give
good useful information. I would have to analyze what the fourth told
me, as 25% was good, 50% misdirection, and 25% pure BS.
Most snitches are just trying to save their own skin, and have little to
nothing of value to say.

No IRS snitches in my former line of business.

I had a client who was the victim of a professional snitch. the snitch
was an accountant who gave his clients bad advice, and then turn them in
for the reward. A friend of mine heard him bragging about this in a bar.
She mentioned it to me. Shortly thereafter, his career as a snitch and
an accountant was over. And the pending criminal investigation against
my client was discontinued.


--
PeterN

On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:45:45 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

For adherence to graphical guidelines and company image, yes. Not for
marketing purposes (i.e. selling or promoting accessories or the device
it is a manual for).

You are fixated on the idea that the marketing function is the same as
the sales function.

Incorrect.

That's the only reason I can see that you won't recognise the
presence of marketing if it's not directly trying to sell
something.

How do you reconcile that conclusion with this quote from me as a
response to PeterN's first claim:

Sandman


the only reason they would ever ask to see it is to see if
it follows the company's graphical guidelines, which they
MAY be in charge of (which isn't a given).

I can't see how anyone can read that and come away with the conclusion
that I can't see the presence of marketing if it's not directly trying
to sell something. The quote is in direct opposition to that.

In fact, the paragraph you *just replied to* is in direct opposition
of that, where I clearly say that marketing CAN be involved for
reasons where they're not trying to sell something.

You have continuously misrepresented my claims and/or my position on
the borderline of outright lying about it. Are *you* a troll? Should I
ignore you?

'I have already suggested you may have problems shifting concepts from
one language to another. The fact that XX is the commonly given
English translation of the Swedish YY does not mean that the meaning
in English is identical to the meaning of the word in Swedish. You
have already hit problems with this in your discussions of
accounting.

I've never tried to lie to you and in fact what I have been saying has
been back up by others. The most likely explanation is that the
meaning you are extracting from my writing is subtly different from
what I intended when I wrote whatever it was you have been reading.

I have the weight of numbers on my side while you are on your own.
Perhaps it is you that is lying? That has already been suggested when
someone said you were a Troll. I don't believe you are lying. I think
the problem is, at least in part, that you are stubbornly sticking to
a view of the world which might make sense in the semantics of Swedish
but is subtly wrong when using the semantics of English. Shift your
view point and the argument goes away.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

How do you reconcile that conclusion with this quote from me as a
response to PeterN's first claim:

Sandman


the only reason they would ever ask to see it is to see if
it follows the company's graphical guidelines, which they
MAY be in charge of (which isn't a given).

I can't see how anyone can read that and come away with the conclusion
that I can't see the presence of marketing if it's not directly trying
to sell something. The quote is in direct opposition to that.

In fact, the paragraph you *just replied to* is in direct opposition
of that, where I clearly say that marketing CAN be involved for
reasons where they're not trying to sell something.

You have continuously misrepresented my claims and/or my position on
the borderline of outright lying about it. Are *you* a troll? Should I
ignore you?

I have already suggested you may have problems shifting concepts from
one language to another.

What does that irrelevant, incorrect and insulting suggestion have to
do with what I wrote?

The fact that XX is the commonly given English translation of the
Swedish YY does not mean that the meaning in English is identical
to the meaning of the word in Swedish. You have already hit
problems with this in your discussions of accounting.

In fact I have not. I have had English-speaking people suggest that I
don't know what Swedish word is the translation of a specific English
word. That was not any problems of *mine*, really.

And stop making claims you can't support. You are now saying that I
don't know the meaning of the word "sponsor" based on me being
swedish. Instead of just *claiming* that this is true - prove it.
Should be easy enough, right?

You spend a lot of words making claims and none backing them up.
Perhaps you should consider not actually to make claims you can't
support?

I've never tried to lie to you and in fact what I have been saying has
been back up by others.

This is a false claim.

The most likely explanation is that the
meaning you are extracting from my writing is subtly different from
what I intended when I wrote whatever it was you have been reading.

How could it be? You just made this explicit claim about me:

Eric Stevens


you won't recognise the presence of marketing if it's not
directly trying to sell something.

How could that be misinterpreted?

I have the weight of numbers on my side while you are on your own.

What "weight"? The only "weight" that can be on your "side" would be
substantiations for your claims, of which you have none. So you're in
zero G.

Perhaps it is you that is lying? That has already been suggested when
someone said you were a Troll. I don't believe you are lying. I think
the problem is, at least in part, that you are stubbornly sticking to
a view of the world which might make sense in the semantics of Swedish
but is subtly wrong when using the semantics of English. Shift your
view point and the argument goes away.

My view point is based on the onslaught of substantiation I have
provided. You are free to provide countering support of your own, at
which point I will be more than willing to change my viewpoint in the
light of more data.

Up until now. You have provided exactly zero.

And, your continued insults in the place of reasonable arguments has
me concluding that you indeed are a troll. Good bye.

*plonk*




--
Sandman[.net]

On 29/05/2013 00:09, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
Enough already on manuals!

Agreed!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman, I'm curious, are you a senior executive in the marketing
department of a major Japanese manufacturer of photo equipment?

Not, by any stretch of the imagination can he be. He's someone who
has evidently worked with some company or companies with Marketing
departments, but never *in* one of those company's Marketing
Department. He's making assumptions of what they do without the
foggiest idea of what really goes on.

Hehe, as opposed to you, I presume?

Yes, actually. My undergraduate degree was in Marketing. My MBA
included Marketing. I worked as a Product Manager for two years with
a division of American Hospital Corporation, but that was decades ago
and I was never involved with a Owner's Manual.

So, basically, I get more exposure to real markering departments than
you do, since I deal with them pretty much on a daily basis?

Thanks for clearing that up. Now, please stop posting insults towards
me. I have never insulted you, nor have I ever been rude to you. Stop
making claims about me, my knowledge, my experience and my profession
that you - as you say haven't got the "foggiest idea" about.

Trolls, they're everywhere.... :/


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 07:44:05 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

How do you reconcile that conclusion with this quote from me as a
response to PeterN's first claim:

Sandman


the only reason they would ever ask to see it is to see if
it follows the company's graphical guidelines, which they
MAY be in charge of (which isn't a given).

I can't see how anyone can read that and come away with the conclusion
that I can't see the presence of marketing if it's not directly trying
to sell something. The quote is in direct opposition to that.

In fact, the paragraph you *just replied to* is in direct opposition
of that, where I clearly say that marketing CAN be involved for
reasons where they're not trying to sell something.

You have continuously misrepresented my claims and/or my position on
the borderline of outright lying about it. Are *you* a troll? Should I
ignore you?

I have already suggested you may have problems shifting concepts from
one language to another.

What does that irrelevant, incorrect and insulting suggestion have to
do with what I wrote?

That has quite a lot to do with what each of us have written. Whether
or not it is "irrelevant, incorrect and insulting" is another matter.

The fact that XX is the commonly given English translation of the
Swedish YY does not mean that the meaning in English is identical
to the meaning of the word in Swedish. You have already hit
problems with this in your discussions of accounting.

In fact I have not. I have had English-speaking people suggest that I
don't know what Swedish word is the translation of a specific English
word. That was not any problems of *mine*, really.

I am suggesting that you may not be exactly aware of the differences
in message content - semantics.

And stop making claims you can't support. You are now saying that I
don't know the meaning of the word "sponsor" based on me being
swedish.

Nonsense. I've stayed right out of that argument.

Instead of just *claiming* that this is true - prove it.
Should be easy enough, right?

You spend a lot of words making claims and none backing them up.
Perhaps you should consider not actually to make claims you can't
support?

I've never tried to lie to you and in fact what I have been saying has
been backed up by others.

This is a false claim.

Not so.

The most likely explanation is that the
meaning you are extracting from my writing is subtly different from
what I intended when I wrote whatever it was you have been reading.

How could it be? You just made this explicit claim about me:

Eric Stevens


you won't recognise the presence of marketing if it's not
directly trying to sell something.

How could that be misinterpreted?

It could easily be misinterpreted if you don't quote what I wrote in
it's entirety. The full text is:

Sandman
------------
"For adherence to graphical guidelines and company image, yes. Not
for marketing purposes (i.e. selling or promoting accessories or
the device it is a manual for).

Eric Stevens
--------------
You are fixated on the idea that the marketing function is the same
as the sales function. That's the only reason I can see that you
won't recognise the presence of marketing if it's not directly
trying to sell something."


I have the weight of numbers on my side while you are on your own.

What "weight"? The only "weight" that can be on your "side" would be
substantiations for your claims, of which you have none. So you're in
zero G.

Perhaps it is you that is lying? That has already been suggested when
someone said you were a Troll. I don't believe you are lying. I think
the problem is, at least in part, that you are stubbornly sticking to
a view of the world which might make sense in the semantics of Swedish
but is subtly wrong when using the semantics of English. Shift your
view point and the argument goes away.

My view point is based on the onslaught of substantiation I have
provided. You are free to provide countering support of your own, at
which point I will be more than willing to change my viewpoint in the
light of more data.

Up until now. You have provided exactly zero.

And, your continued insults in the place of reasonable arguments has
me concluding that you indeed are a troll. Good bye.

*plonk*

Well that saves me doing it. :-|
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
David Taylor wrote:

Enough already on manuals!

Agreed!

Me too!


--
Sandman[.net]