All-in-One PCs

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact
that you wrote even more doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted"
nor that I am a liar.

Eric Stevens:
Tell the truth, **the whole truth**, and nothing but the truth.
The English courts had experience of people like you a l o n g
time ago.

Sandman:
What I said above was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

Bull****.

Incorrect.

And to compound your lying you have _again_ concealed what I
actually wrote by deleting the text which I had restored. You are a
nasty piece of work.

Deleting your text grin *my* post does *NOT* constitute "lying". Indeed -
making that claim twice in a row is indeed twice the same lie.

"...by misquoting"

Eric Stevens:
That's not a lie either.

Sandman:
Incorrect. I did no misquoting, and you claimed I did. It is true
that you could merely be mistaken, but you have lost the benefit
of a doubt many years ago.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and
from which you quoted but one short sentence.

I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be required to do so for me to
not be a liar.

I often snip the parts of a post that I do not respond to, and keep the parts I
do respond to. That is neither dishonest, misquoting or lying.

Dishonest would be if I snipped something that changed the apparent meaning of
what you wrote, but I did no such thing. Even so, it wouldn't be "lying".

--
Sandman

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:17:50 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As for the two Dell screens being 'low-res' - I don't know. I'm
primarily concerned with printed output and don't expect to get
any
real advantage out of the higher res 4k screen.

there is a huge advantage with hi-dpi displays.

What does it matter, if I can't print them?

of course you can print it.

Don't be more silly than is necessary.

I can't print in a resolution to suit a 4k screen unless I want to
print to a large size.

nonsense.

the point of 4k/5k display is its high resolution so that everything
looks sharper.

And I have to print more than 14" wide to match a 5k pixel for pixel.

nope.

Yep.

If you disagree, prove it.

there's nothing to prove.

you can print at whatever size you want, regardless of the resolution
of the display or the image itself.

a lower resolution display just means more zooming and panning while
you edit the image and a lower resolution image means the quality of
the print will be lower.

You obviously don't get down to 100% when checking noise, sharpness
etc.

you obviously didn't understand what i wrote.

Because you weren't understanding what I had previously written.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 25 Feb 2016 22:04:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact
that you wrote even more doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted"
nor that I am a liar.

Eric Stevens:
Tell the truth, **the whole truth**, and nothing but the truth.
The English courts had experience of people like you a l o n g
time ago.

Sandman:
What I said above was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth.

Bull****.

Incorrect.

And to compound your lying you have _again_ concealed what I
actually wrote by deleting the text which I had restored. You are a
nasty piece of work.

Deleting your text grin *my* post does *NOT* constitute "lying". Indeed -
making that claim twice in a row is indeed twice the same lie.

"...by misquoting"

Eric Stevens:
That's not a lie either.

Sandman:
Incorrect. I did no misquoting, and you claimed I did. It is true
that you could merely be mistaken, but you have lost the benefit
of a doubt many years ago.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and
from which you quoted but one short sentence.

I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be required to do so for me to
not be a liar.

Bull**** and you are bluffing.

I often snip the parts of a post that I do not respond to, and keep the parts I
do respond to. That is neither dishonest, misquoting or lying.

It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I never
said.

Dishonest would be if I snipped something that changed the apparent meaning of
what you wrote, but I did no such thing. Even so, it wouldn't be "lying".

But you did do such a thing as is evidenced by your repeated snipping
of what I did actually write and your reluctance to reinstate your
deletion of my text.

There are times when it is worth entering into a discussion with you
but this is not one of them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

As for the two Dell screens being 'low-res' - I don't know.
I'm
primarily concerned with printed output and don't expect to
get
any
real advantage out of the higher res 4k screen.

there is a huge advantage with hi-dpi displays.

What does it matter, if I can't print them?

of course you can print it.

Don't be more silly than is necessary.

I can't print in a resolution to suit a 4k screen unless I want to
print to a large size.

nonsense.

the point of 4k/5k display is its high resolution so that
everything
looks sharper.

And I have to print more than 14" wide to match a 5k pixel for pixel.

nope.

Yep.

If you disagree, prove it.

there's nothing to prove.

you can print at whatever size you want, regardless of the resolution
of the display or the image itself.

a lower resolution display just means more zooming and panning while
you edit the image and a lower resolution image means the quality of
the print will be lower.

You obviously don't get down to 100% when checking noise, sharpness
etc.

you obviously didn't understand what i wrote.

Because you weren't understanding what I had previously written.

i understand it quite well.

you do not.

if you have a retina display, you can work at 100% with *less* zooming
and panning, exactly as i said.

On 2/25/2016 11:41 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Nor were they selling Apple branded
computers. Further, what Psystar were doing was
arguably in breach of the Apple EULA.

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They
wanted to interpret the EULA in their own way, which
was obviously not what Apple had in mind when they
wrote it. The court sided with Apple, for obvious
reasons.

PeterN:
Not obvious at all, unless you know "ALL" of the
facts, and the applicable law of the jurisdiction. Apple
uses multiple agreements, some of which may not be
EULAs.

Sandman:
Irrelevant, the Psystar case was in reference to
the EULA.

PeterN:
Nice try. You are assuming only one EULA. Without at
least knowing which one, no rational conclusion can be
drawn. Some jurisdictions have some of the finest judges
money can buy.

Sandman:
If you have an actual point, state it. As of now, you're only
lowering the signal to noise ratio.

PeterN:
I did.

Sandman:
Nothing that related to anything I've said, no.

Let's see. You mention a case being about a EULA. I point out that
Apple has multiple EULAs, and you claim that statement is unrelated.

Correct, since the case in question, and the topic being discussed up to that
case was introduced only concerned one EULA. Not only that, an earlier version
of that EUAL has also been linked to in this very thread, making it very clear
just what EULA the discussion is about. So any talk about other EULA's are,
indeed, irrelevant.


Join the twisters.


EOD







--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote
and from which you quoted but one short sentence.

Sandman:
I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be required to do
so for me to not be a liar.

Bull**** and you are bluffing.

I don't think you know what the word "bluffing" means. What I said above was
100% correct.

Sandman:
I often snip the parts of a post that I do not respond to, and
keep the parts I do respond to. That is neither dishonest,
misquoting or lying.

It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said.

Are you, with a straight face, claiming that you never wrote this:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

Because then you would again be lying.

Sandman:
Dishonest would be if I snipped something that changed the
apparent meaning of what you wrote, but I did no such thing. Even
so, it wouldn't be "lying".

But you did do such a thing as is evidenced by your repeated
snipping of what I did actually write and your reluctance to
reinstate your deletion of my text.

Now you are lying again. This is what I quoted and what you wrote:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

The rest of your post did not change the meaning of that sentence, unless you
claim the next sentence was "Just kidding, I am arguing a definition".

Again you create an argument based on a lie of yours that you will drag on for
days and days while the evidence of your lie is still right there.

--
Sandman

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Nothing that related to anything I've said, no.

PeterN:
Let's see. You mention a case being about a EULA. I point out
that Apple has multiple EULAs, and you claim that statement is
unrelated.

Sandman:
Correct, since the case in question, and the topic being discussed
up to that case was introduced only concerned one EULA. Not only
that, an earlier version of that EUAL has also been linked to in
this very thread, making it very clear just what EULA the
discussion is about. So any talk about other EULA's are, indeed,
irrelevant.

Join the twisters.

EOD

You know what, you should lead with that "EOD" instead of making irrelevant
comments, asking for clarification and when you realize you were mistaken run
away with your tail between your legs with a knee-jerk response and "EOD".

Just assume from the start that you're incorrect and just post "EOD" so we know
there won't be any inane comments from you in that particular thread.

--
Sandman

On 26 Feb 2016 06:34:27 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
Nothing that related to anything I've said, no.

PeterN:
Let's see. You mention a case being about a EULA. I point out
that Apple has multiple EULAs, and you claim that statement is
unrelated.

Sandman:
Correct, since the case in question, and the topic being discussed
up to that case was introduced only concerned one EULA. Not only
that, an earlier version of that EUAL has also been linked to in
this very thread, making it very clear just what EULA the
discussion is about. So any talk about other EULA's are, indeed,
irrelevant.

Join the twisters.

EOD

You know what, you should lead with that "EOD" instead of making irrelevant
comments, asking for clarification and when you realize you were mistaken run
away with your tail between your legs with a knee-jerk response and "EOD".

Just assume from the start that you're incorrect and just post "EOD" so we know
there won't be any inane comments from you in that particular thread.

The discussion started with a quote from one EULA as an example. As no
version of OS X has yet been installed on this hypothetical Windows
machine in a G4 it is entirely premature to claim that the discussion
is about any particular EULA. Everyone is entirely free to introduce
their favourite OS X EULA into the discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26 Feb 2016 06:32:43 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote
and from which you quoted but one short sentence.

Sandman:
I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be required to do
so for me to not be a liar.

Bull**** and you are bluffing.

I don't think you know what the word "bluffing" means. What I said above was
100% correct.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and from
which you quoted but one short sentence.

Sandman:
I often snip the parts of a post that I do not respond to, and
keep the parts I do respond to. That is neither dishonest,
misquoting or lying.

It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said.

Are you, with a straight face, claiming that you never wrote this:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

Because then you would again be lying.

Weasily turd, aren't you? Put back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you have quoted but one short
sentence.

Sandman:
Dishonest would be if I snipped something that changed the
apparent meaning of what you wrote, but I did no such thing. Even
so, it wouldn't be "lying".

But you did do such a thing as is evidenced by your repeated
snipping of what I did actually write and your reluctance to
reinstate your deletion of my text.

Now you are lying again. This is what I quoted and what you wrote:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

The rest of your post did not change the meaning of that sentence, unless you
claim the next sentence was "Just kidding, I am arguing a definition".

Then confirm that point by putting back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you have quoted but the one short
sentence.

Again you create an argument based on a lie of yours that you will drag on for
days and days while the evidence of your lie is still right there.

And you keep trying to hide the evidence of your deliberate lie. I
will put it back for you. I originally wrote:

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition. All along I have been saying that
there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts
with the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the
day. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's
a legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's
brand practices".

I think you should go away and hide your head in shame.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you quoted but one short
sentence.

Sandman:
I have no need or desire to do that, nor would I be
required to do so for me to not be a liar.

Eric Stevens:
Bull**** and you are bluffing.

Sandman:
I don't think you know what the word "bluffing" means. What I said
above was 100% correct.

Then put back _all_ of the paragraph which I originally wrote and
from which you quoted but one short sentence.

For what purpose? The snipped text being in ur out doesn't change the fact
that what I wrote was true.

You claimed I "misquoted", that was a lie.

You claim I lied, that was a lie.

Sandman:
I often snip the parts of a post that I do not
respond to, and keep the parts I do respond to. That is
neither dishonest, misquoting or lying.

Eric Stevens:
It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said.

Sandman:
Are you, with a straight face, claiming that you never wrote this:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

Because then you would again be lying.

Weasily turd, aren't you? Put back _all_ of the paragraph which I
originally wrote and from which you have quoted but one short
sentence.

Why can't you answer the question, Eric? Why are you falling back on personal
attacks and insults?

You said above:

"It is when it enables you to respond on the basis of something I
never said."

That is you claiming that *I* changed the meaning of your sentence, of what
you wrote - that it was something *you never said*. I then asked you if you
with a straight face can say you never said this:

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

Which you dodged, you were unable to answer that question, because you KNOW
you said it, you KNOW that was the complete unedited sentence you wrote to
which I replied to.

You know I did not edit that sentence, you know it was fully represented in
my followup and you know that if you admit to this, you are exposed to being
a liar when you said that I (1) misquoted and (2) lied.

Sandman:
Dishonest would be if I snipped something that
changed the apparent meaning of what you wrote, but I did no
such thing. Even so, it wouldn't be "lying".

Eric Stevens:
But you did do such a thing as is evidenced by your repeated
snipping of what I did actually write and your reluctance to
reinstate your deletion of my text.

Sandman:
Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/24/2016

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition."

The rest of your post did not change the meaning of that sentence,
unless you claim the next sentence was "Just kidding, I am arguing
a definition".

Then confirm that point by putting back _all_ of the paragraph which
I originally wrote and from which you have quoted but the one short
sentence.

They are still in the original post, what would my purpose be for "putting
back" something in a followup some five posts down the thread?

I see you did not argue the *fact* that the quoted part of your posts was NOT
changed by whatever else you wrote in that post, and thus I did NOT misquote
you nor did I lie.

Sandman:
Again you create an argument based on a lie of yours that you will
drag on for days and days while the evidence of your lie is still
right there.

And you keep trying to hide the evidence of your deliberate lie. I

What supposed "evidence"? YOU lied when you said I misquoted you. YOU lied
when you claimed I lied. Those are your two latest lies in a long line of
lies. All 100% proven and shown.

"Me? I'm not arguing a definition. All along I have been saying that
there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with
the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a
legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand
practices".

I think you should go away and hide your head in shame.

Indeed you should.

--
Sandman