Calumet files Chapter 7

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Usenet Account, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. Usenet Account

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/3/2014 9:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
    Fortunately, there are still a few independent drug stores left. I don't
    mind paying several hundred dollars more a year for the service they give.
     
    PeterN, Apr 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I think the problem with arguing with Jonas is that the two of you are
    coming from two different directions.

    You are genuinely trying to teach him something about the usage of the
    English language based on you lifetime's experience of seriously using
    it.

    Jonas is fighting it like a lawyer, using selective quotes from what
    are generally fairly mundane on-line English dictionaries. He must
    know that languages are not constructed in this Lego-like fashion and
    the question must be why he is doing it this way. The answer may be in
    Message-ID: <> wherein his final line
    is :
    "In short - you lose. Again."

    Jonas has finished other articles in a similar fashion. It seems he
    sees this as some kind of competition in which he desparately
    struggles to avoid a loss. If it was a game, he would be good at it,
    but you are not playing a game. The two of you will never agree and
    Jonas will never admit to learning from you.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Sorry. Except for the lack of capitalization I can't tell you two
    apart.

    Do I reply to you or do I wait to reply to Popinjay who follows you
    like a midget tag team wrestler?

    Evidently, he doesn't think you can handle things by yourself.
     
    Tony Cooper, Apr 4, 2014
  4. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I dunno. Ask Popinjay. He's the one who said "only because the Apple
    Store is not a reseller of tablets". He thinks that's the only
    reason.

    But, wait. Aren't you the one who said an "honest" store would not
    try to sell you something you don't need. What if I only needed an
    $89 tablet? Many people get by with one. Are the Apple people not
    honest enough to say a tablet is all that is needed?
    Really? Who would have thought? Did you think this up by yourself?
     
    Tony Cooper, Apr 4, 2014
  5. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    i never said most people live close to new york. stop lying.

    since you do, you will get stuff within a day once the order is
    processed and it ships.
    reread what i wrote. the answers were given.
     
    Guest, Apr 4, 2014
  6. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    learn to read.

    there's a field in every post that says who authored it.
     
    Guest, Apr 4, 2014
  7. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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'.
    You could have fooled me. :)
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 4, 2014
  8. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    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.

    there is approval for adobe to showcase a plug-in on their website but
    that's *completely* separate and not at all required.
     
    Guest, Apr 4, 2014
  9. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You can always falsify Tony's claim by telling us of sites where sales
    help is available on line.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 4, 2014
  10. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    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.

    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".

    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".

    Was it you, or your tag team buddy Popinjay, who said that state sales
    tax should be paid to the state by a purchaser of an online product
    when the seller did not charge tax, but nobody does that? At least
    you recognize that this circumvents the law.

    You wouldn't have any trouble recognizing that someone advertising
    "Ford tires" is not selling tires made by Ford and that what they are
    advertising are "tires for a Ford". Why you don't see "Photoshop
    Plug-in" as the same is beyond me.
     
    Tony Cooper, Apr 4, 2014
  11. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 4, 2014
  12. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Ever heard of protecting a trademark?
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 4, 2014
  13. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    ignore
    verb
    refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally
     
    Sandman, Apr 4, 2014
  14. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    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".
    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?
    This is a correct statement from you.
    No I didn't. I just told you the exact opposite of this above, why are you
    lying about my motives?
    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.
    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?
    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, Apr 4, 2014
  15. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    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, Apr 4, 2014
  16. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    ignore
    verb
    refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally
     
    Sandman, Apr 4, 2014
  17. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric?
     
    Sandman, Apr 4, 2014
  18. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    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, Apr 4, 2014
  19. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 4, 2014
  20. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    other than you, but you backpedaled on that.
    nonsense. the two terms are interchangeable. there is *no* implication
    that a 'photoshop plug-in' is authored by adobe. you made that up.
    it's not wrong, and in both cases, the word photoshop is used.
     
    Guest, Apr 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.