Calumet files Chapter 7

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

  1. Usenet Account

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Not to me it isn't.
    Eric Stevens, Apr 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    I'm going to snip the rest of your reply since you don't have the integrity
    to respond to logical arguments.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Sure, why not? One can certainly intentionally disregard a proposition that
    one does not agree with.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  4. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Exactly - which is why I asked Tony to substantiate this supposed knowledge
    of nospam.

    You may note, however, that the claim is this:

    "in *all* purchases online, there is no sales help available."

    And Tony is claiming that nospam is ignoring this supposed "fact". So the
    assumption is that nospam is aware of, and agree with, that there is no
    online sales help available.

    At the time of the claim, and as far as I know, nospam had yet to give any
    information about his knowledge, or opinion on the matter. As it turns out,
    he has since done that, and his reply to this was:

    04/01/2014 <010420141735494666%>

    "false. some online sellers have a *lot* of sales help on
    their site"

    So since the original claim it is clear that nospam did *not* ignore this,
    since he is of the opinion that the claim being made is incorrect.

    So, how could nospam be deliberately ignoring something he doesn't even
    agree exists?

    And again, for the record, I agree that the supposed fact that Tony is
    claiming isn't in fact even true, and thus not even something that CAN be
    ignored. I.e. Tony could just as easily have said "You're ignoring the fact
    that elephants can fly".

    Hope that helps, Eric! And have a great day!

    (Tonight I'll be going to Arlanda and then to USA) :)
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  5. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Sorry, that's not a link to Adobe's supposed approval process for plugins
    to be "used with Photoshop".
    No, sorry, that's the Adobe's Term of Use for end users and not related to
    plug-in development at all.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  6. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    According to whom?

    And where is the approval process "for use with Photoshop", Tony?

    And regarding the name of the software, maybe we can go on what others have
    called their plug-ins? - "Photoshop plugin" - "Photoshop plugin" - "Photoshop Plugin" - "Photoshop plugin" - "PS plugin" - "Photoshop plugin" - "Photoshop plugin" - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

    All made by Adobe? Or Approved by Adobe? According to what approval
    process? But no, they can't be approved by Adobe, they need to have all
    been made by Adobe:

    Tony Cooper
    Re: post processing
    03/17/2014 <>

    "Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  7. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    How is that a mistake? In this very thread I made several and been very
    upfront about them, Eric.

    03/31/2014 <>

    "What was that you said about "juvenile style", Andreas? As I
    said, I make errors and I admit to errors. I have no pride
    invested in my spelling or grammar, so I can freely admit to
    making errors, like I did here."

    Or a multitude of other occurances. Here you're correcting me when I
    misused a word:

    12/07/2013 <>

    "Agreed, my mistake."

    See how I used the word "fired" and you suggested that the word "laid off"
    was more appropriate? If I were Tony, I would have argued for weeks that I
    coulnd't possibly have used the wrong word! Words bend to my will!

    But no, I accepted the correction, agreed with it and admitted to the

    Or other occasions where I've admitted to using the wrong word or phrase:

    Sandman <>
    08/02/2013 <> fonts

    "Ooops, I meant "textbook example". My mistake. This was
    a mistake I made by in my head translating the swedish
    expression "skolboksexempel" which literally becomes "school
    book example", but the real translation is "textbook example".
    Sorry about that."

    Or even:

    Sandman <>
    06/28/2013 <> fonts

    "Oh? That may very well be! I freely admit not to know
    the exact origin of "begs the question", and apologize
    for any confusion."

    I'm sure I can find more, if you're interested :)
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  8. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Well, whether or not I convince anyone isn't all that relevant. I've
    substantiated my position fully and completely, while no opposing position
    has submitted any substantiation.

    Here is my substantiation, for reference:

    And this was related to the word "onslaught" in the meaning of "a large
    quantity of people or things that is difficult to cope with"

    There is no doubt that Tony, at the time and now, had some severe
    difficulties to cope with the sheer amount of substantiation I provided for
    my position (as outlined in the above link). Thus - I have provided support
    for my position that the word "onslaught" was used correctly. As of yet, no
    substantiations have been provided that contradict this.

    Hope that helps, Eric.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  9. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    No, in this group.
    No doubt.
    I bet.

    Not sure if you have a point here or not.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  10. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Oooh, interesting. "onslaught" ey? May I be so bold as to ask what you mean
    by "onslaught" here? Just so you're prepared when Tony will question your
    usage of the word. :)
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  11. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  12. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    It does, and it's not the same plugins, they are all different actual
    binaries (that sometimes, in turn, launch the same external binary).

    I.e. the plugin *file* installed into the applications are not the same.
    You can't take a Photoshop plugin file and put it in the PSP plugin
    directory and it will work. Tony once thought so (as did Savageduck) with
    regards to Lightroom, but after some research it turned out not to be true.

    It's an important disctinction, since otherwise people might think the
    plugins are interchangeable. Many plugins are available for different
    applications, but they're not the same plugin.
    I couldn't find anything in this non-Adobe document that tells the
    developer what naming restrictions Adobe poses on the plugins. Maybe I just
    missed it, it's a big document. Would you please be so kind as to quote
    and/or direct me to the salient parts?

    Thanks in advance.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  13. Usenet Account

    Guest Guest

    some non-adobe apps pretend to be photoshop so they can claim to run
    actual photoshop plug-ins (same binary), usually not very well because
    they do an incomplete job of pretending to be photoshop.
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
  14. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Ok, that is news to me, so I retract the statement where this scenario
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  15. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Evidently "satirical reference" is another concept Popinjay does not
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
  16. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    No one, as far as I can tell, has taken the position that plug-ins
    must be approved by Adobe unless they are to be featured in Adobe's
    Marketplace showroom.

    Quite the opposite, in fact. It's agreed that anyone can write a
    plug-in that works with an Adobe product and offer for free or for
    sale. No approval from Adobe is necessary.
    You see, that's the question that the writers above prompt, and why
    it's wrong for them to call their product a "Photoshop plugin". Some
    might assume that "Photoshop plugin" means a plug-in authored by, or
    approved by, Adobe. That may not be the case at all, and probably

    It doesn't make any difference how many wrong uses you find. All that
    shows is that people do it wrong.
    Approval is not at question.
    True, and I stand by it.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 2014
  17. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    Except, of course, from you, who said that the plugins are "approved" for
    "use with Photoshop" - as opposed to "featured in Adobe's Marketplace
    Unless you want it "for use with Photoshop", that is?
    But it is your claim that only Adobe *can* call it a "Photoshop plugin"
    (with "can" interpreted as "allowed" rather than "have the ability")
    We have to first see some support for the claim that it is wrong, must we
    Yet you can't support it. It's yet another one of your unsupported claims.
    I should probably make a list.

    You are asserting that only Adobe can (as in "is allowed", because we have
    shown that it's not can as in "has the ability") call something an
    Photoshop Plugin.

    You have provided no support for this claim.

    I have provided counter-support, by:

    1. Listing a multitude of developers that call their software a Photoshop
    2. Showing a link to an Adobe page where Adobe themselve refer to
    third-party plugins as "Photoshop Plugins".

    I'm a bit unsure whether or not you mean that only the company Adobe have
    legal right to call third party plugins "Photoshop plugins", where the
    third party plugin developers musyt change the order of the words and add a
    "for" to be legally valid.

    And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this but
    meaningless words.
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  18. Usenet Account

    Sandman Guest

    It seems Andreas is busy ascribing motives to another poster yet again.
    While it may be true that it was a humorous reference, it doesn't change
    the fact that you are known to question correctly used instances of the
    word in question - so either Eric used the word incorrect and thus you have
    no problem with it, or he used it correctly and you should object loudly
    (and for weeks, if not months).
    Sandman, Apr 5, 2014
  19. Usenet Account

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Apr 5, 2014
  20. Usenet Account

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You shouldn't be unsure. "Photoshop" is a registered trademark of
    Adobe. That's legal protection. How that registered trademark is
    used is up to Adobe to enforce.

    Adobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements. The availability of
    plug-ins are beneficial to Adobe because it makes Photoshop a more
    useful program and more desired. It would be costly for Adobe to
    crack down. That doesn't mean that they don't have the legal right to
    do so.

    If you develop a flavoring that can be added to Coca Cola, and call it
    a "Coca Cola Flavoring", Cocoa Cola would most probably take legal
    action. They've shown that they make an effort to protect their
    trademarked name by forcing restaurants in the US to say "We serve
    (name of beverage)" if the customer orders a "Coke" or a "Coca Cola"
    and the restaurant only serves Pepsi or some other beverage.

    Apple attempted a "get tough" policy with "App Store", but abandoned

    The reason that firms take action to protect their trademark is to
    prevent that trademark from becoming a generic term as happened to the
    makers of aspirin, escalator, thermos, and many other products. Adobe
    does not want "Photoshop" to become a generic term for "image
    processing software", but they have to balance their need to protect
    with the benefits of allowing the erroneous usage to continue.

    In your opinion, but then we know that understanding words is not your
    forte. nospam also argues with the premise, but his defense is
    "everybody does it" or something like that.
    Tony Cooper, Apr 5, 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.