Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 217 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:32 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 21:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 23:58 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:59 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:55 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 18:14 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 01:41 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:17 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-17 17:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 00:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 03:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:39 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:32 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:27 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:06 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 01:34 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:30 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:39 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 15:57 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 19:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-20 19:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:53 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 09:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 14:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 19:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:57 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:37 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:54 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:09 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:46 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:01 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:15 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:18 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 21:48 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:22 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-25 06:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 10:57 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 10:36 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 08:26 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 11:50 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 09:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:24 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:48 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 16:29 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 18:54 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-27 12:39 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 13:11 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-26 11:46 -0600
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-26 14:25 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-26 11:40 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-26 08:28 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 17:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:14 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:36 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 08:56 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 16:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 09:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:44 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:53 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-08-25 08:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-22 17:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:00 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 10:18 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 17:44 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:54 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:23 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 12:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 19:59 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 14:49 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 22:03 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 15:30 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:51 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:27 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 09:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 14:32 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:58 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 09:21 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 10:10 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 14:43 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Incubus <incubus9536612@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 00:58 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 07:12 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-18 13:43 +0100
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 15:49 +0000
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 07:18 -0500
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-19 07:41 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-08-21 06:35 -0700
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-21 10:55 -0400
Re: Less Is More: The Problem with Having Too Many Choices DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 18:56 -0400
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <npdaci$tgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #366193 |
On 8/21/2016 3:57 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 8/21/2016 12:36 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/21/2016 9:58 AM, -hh wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:29:20 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because he >>>>>> cannot afford a 911. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >>>> >>>> >>>> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >>>> but refuses to say what he drives. >>>> >>>> Ask him. Watch him run. >>>> >>>> >>>> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >>>> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >>>> >>>> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ >>>> >>> >>> LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >>> are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >> >> >> "Watch him run" >> > > I need to see your man card. "Watch him run"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hugisd893.at@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366205 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: > On 8/21/2016 3:57 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>> On 8/21/2016 12:36 PM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/21/2016 9:58 AM, -hh wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 12:29:20 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because he >>>>>>> cannot afford a 911. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >>>>> but refuses to say what he drives. >>>>> >>>>> Ask him. Watch him run. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >>>>> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >>>> are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >>> >>> >>> "Watch him run" >>> >> >> I need to see your man card. > > > "Watch him run" > I'm watching you run right now. Answer the question. <quote> I need to see your man card. Right now. So which would you rather have: 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance. 2. 2017 Macan (any version) </quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <007b83e3-cf83-4f1c-b359-2dc15826deda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366190 |
DFS wrote: > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > > DFS wrote: > >> -hh wrote: > >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> > >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because > >>>> he cannot afford a 911. > >>> > >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. > >> > >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, > >> but refuses to say what he drives. > >> > >> Ask him. Watch him run. I'd have to actually care first. > >> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. > >> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. > >> > >> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. > > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you > > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." > > "Watch him run" Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DF6E73.79C74%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366202 |
On 8/21/16, 2:31 PM, in article 007b83e3-cf83-4f1c-b359-2dc15826deda@googlegroups.com, "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > DFS wrote: >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>>> -hh wrote: >>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because >>>>>> he cannot afford a 911. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >>>> >>>> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >>>> but refuses to say what he drives. >>>> >>>> Ask him. Watch him run. > > I'd have to actually care first. > >>>> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >>>> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >>>> >>>> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ > > Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. > >>> LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >>> are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >> >> "Watch him run" > > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: > > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." > > > -hh Ah, science. I am sure Owl will accept it quickly! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdoo.e8893@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366202 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > DFS wrote: >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> > DFS wrote: >> >> -hh wrote: >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911. >> >>> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >> >> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >> >> but refuses to say what he drives. >> >> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run. > > I'd have to actually care first. > >> >> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >> >> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >> >> >> >> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ > > Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. > That's racist. >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >> >> "Watch him run" > > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: > > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." > > You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DF82D9.79C81%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366209 |
On 8/21/16, 4:00 PM, in article ghjdoo.e8893@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> DFS wrote: >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>> DFS wrote: >>>>> -hh wrote: >>>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because >>>>>>> he cannot afford a 911. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >>>>> >>>>> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >>>>> but refuses to say what he drives. >>>>> >>>>> Ask him. Watch him run. >> >> I'd have to actually care first. >> >>>>> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >>>>> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ >> >> Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. >> > > That's racist. > >>>> LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >>>> are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >>> >>> "Watch him run" >> >> Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: >> >> "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... >> that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." >> >> > > You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had > your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like > a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. > You sometimes pretend to push for science... but when it comes to the effect of choice you ignore all science and go with your feelings. Interesting. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hg1ue388.px47@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366212 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/21/16, 4:00 PM, in article ghjdoo.e8893@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>> DFS wrote: >>>>>> -hh wrote: >>>>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because >>>>>>>> he cannot afford a 911. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >>>>>> but refuses to say what he drives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ask him. Watch him run. >>> >>> I'd have to actually care first. >>> >>>>>> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >>>>>> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ >>> >>> Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. >>> >> >> That's racist. >> >>>>> LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >>>>> are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >>>> >>>> "Watch him run" >>> >>> Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: >>> >>> "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... >>> that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." >>> >>> >> >> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had >> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like >> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. >> > You sometimes pretend to push for science... but when it comes to the effect > of choice you ignore all science and go with your feelings. Interesting. > I already presented you with a thought experiment that destroyed your argument. Next...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DF92F8.79C8C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366215 |
On 8/21/16, 4:40 PM, in article hg1ue388.px47@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had >>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like >>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. >>> >> You sometimes pretend to push for science... but when it comes to the effect >> of choice you ignore all science and go with your feelings. Interesting. >> > > I already presented you with a thought experiment that destroyed > your argument. Next... So you had thoughts you think trump science. LOL! You contradict yourself a lot... first science is THE standard for you... unless you disagree. Then the rule of law is awesome unless you happen to disagree with someone, and that mere disagreement is reason enough for you to not only wish them dead but to call for people to kill them. Quite amusing to watch. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 00:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhgie824.ug8@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366217 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/21/16, 4:40 PM, in article hg1ue388.px47@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had >>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like >>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. >>>> >>> You sometimes pretend to push for science... but when it comes to the effect >>> of choice you ignore all science and go with your feelings. Interesting. >>> >> >> I already presented you with a thought experiment that destroyed >> your argument. Next... > > So you had thoughts you think trump science. LOL! > A thought experiment that can actually be performed in real life with sufficient resources, but that needn't be for testing the "what if" here: "What if I gave you these choices, what would you do?" can be answered by you without actually constructing an experimental apparatus. (Well, for a non-Assburger who is capable of thinking in the abstract it can be answered). > You contradict yourself a lot... first science is THE standard for you... > unless you disagree. Then the rule of law is awesome unless you happen to > disagree with someone, and that mere disagreement is reason enough for you > to not only wish them dead but to call for people to kill them. > > Quite amusing to watch. > Keep lying your ass off, Lyin Ted. It is amusing to watch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3DF9F5A.79C98%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366221 |
On 8/21/16, 5:49 PM, in article fhgie824.ug8@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/21/16, 4:40 PM, in article hg1ue388.px47@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had
>>>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like
>>>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
>>>>>
>>>> You sometimes pretend to push for science... but when it comes to the
>>>> effect
>>>> of choice you ignore all science and go with your feelings. Interesting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already presented you with a thought experiment that destroyed
>>> your argument. Next...
>>
>> So you had thoughts you think trump science. LOL!
>
> A thought experiment that can actually be performed in real life
> with sufficient resources, but that needn't be for testing the
> "what if" here: "What if I gave you these choices, what would
> you do?" can be answered by you without actually constructing
> an experimental apparatus. (Well, for a non-Assburger who is
> capable of thinking in the abstract it can be answered).
You reject science based on your interpretation of your thoughts. Remember,
I showed your "thought experiment" was not exactly a positive view for
Linux.
-----
Overwhelm? Why would it, esp. for the first few. Realistically,
depending on how hard it was to get to rooms, how big the reward,
and other factors I may have given up after X number of rooms. As
would most. Not sure I would say that was "overwhelming" - more
just boring and not worth it.
Sort of like 700 Linux distros... though with those after you look
at a few you know the pattern: the ecosystem is very limiting and
reduces choice of how you can get actual tasks done. It provides
you with the illusion of choice but in terms of actual task
completion there is actually LESS choice. This is mostly true for
the GUI, which is what most use, when you look at the CLI Linux is
as good as any... no complaints there.
The lack of real choice is one reason why desktop Linux does
poorly. The illusion of a lot of choice when those choices are
mostly meaningless is another. Systems which allow for but do not
force many choices are generally better... that is what I show
with the print / edit PDF task I show... OS X gives me more
choices. I can do it as I would on Windows and Linux of saving to
PDF and then editing and printing, or I can use different choices
depending on how I am thinking at the moment. The extra choices
are not forced on you, and someone coming from Linux or Windows
might not even know of them, but they are easy to discover without
being disruptive, and they are relatively consistent from program
to program, allowing users to put these choices to great use.
Compare that with desktop Linux where these types of choices are
less common, and when they do exist they exist more often in
isolation where their usefulness is heavily reduced.
-----
Yeah, once you were faced with that you snipped almost all context and
dropped your "thought experiment," until you decided to bring it up again
and pretend it is more important than actual experiments.
Comes down to you reject science.
>> You contradict yourself a lot... first science is THE standard for you...
>> unless you disagree. Then the rule of law is awesome unless you happen to
>> disagree with someone, and that mere disagreement is reason enough for you
>> to not only wish them dead but to call for people to kill them.
>>
>> Quite amusing to watch.
>
> Keep lying your ass off, Lyin Ted. It is amusing to watch.
See: you lash out when you know you have backed yourself into a corner...
but you do not even try to defend yourself about how you have pissed on the
rule of law and and even moderately reasonable morality.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9e993d8-b9c3-4266-b6d0-42b1f19e9228@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366209 |
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > DFS wrote: > >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> > DFS wrote: > >> >> -hh wrote: > >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because > >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911. > >> >>> > >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. > >> >> > >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, > >> >> but refuses to say what he drives. > >> >> > >> >> Ask him. Watch him run. > > > > I'd have to actually care first. > > > >> >> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. > >> >> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. > >> >> > >> >> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ > > > > Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. > > That's racist. Its quite well known that cars painted black show dirt much more readily. > >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you > >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." > >> > >> "Watch him run" > > > > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: > > > > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... > > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." > > You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had > your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like > a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser' who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees. Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with: <quote> I need to see your man card. Right now. So which would you rather have: 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance. 2. 2017 Macan (any version) </quote> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one, as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993... -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgasdie98093.a@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366213 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > DFS wrote: >> >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> > DFS wrote: >> >> >> -hh wrote: >> >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because >> >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out. >> >> >> >> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile, >> >> >> but refuses to say what he drives. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run. >> > >> > I'd have to actually care first. >> > >> >> >> For a long time I thought the best-looking Porsche was the 968. >> >> >> Nowadays I like the Cayman Black Edition. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayman/cayman-black-edition/ >> > >> > Sorry, but the 'all black' stuff just isn't my thing...PITA to keep clean. >> >> That's racist. > > Its quite well known that cars painted black show dirt much more readily. > >> >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you >> >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911." >> >> >> >> "Watch him run" >> > >> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic: >> > >> > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ... >> > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." >> >> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had >> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like >> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are. > > That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser' > who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees. > Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the Eurofags have allowed them to swarm all over the (previously) civilized world. > Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with: > > <quote> > I need to see your man card. Right now. > So which would you rather have: > 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance. > 2. 2017 Macan (any version) > </quote> > > ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one, > as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993... > It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan. Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's. Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a01d0af-fc7e-4544-83cb-cf3e6f7f7d7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366214 |
Octavian wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>> > DFS wrote:
>>> >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> >> > DFS wrote:
>>> >> >> -hh wrote:
>>> >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because
>>> >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile,
>>> >> >> but refuses to say what he drives.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run.
>>> >
>> > I'd have to actually care first.
>>>> > >
>>> >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you
>>> >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911."
>>> >>
>>> >> "Watch him run"
>>> >
>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic:
>>> >
>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ...
>>> > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions."
>>>
>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had
>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like
>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
>>
>> That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser'
>> who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees.
>
> Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the Eurofags have
> allowed them to swarm all over the (previously) civilized world.
Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years before they even showed up? Suuuuure.
>> Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with:
>>
>> <quote>
>> I need to see your man card. Right now.
>> So which would you rather have:
>> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance.
>> 2. 2017 Macan (any version)
>> </quote>
>>
>> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one,
>> as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993...
>
> It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan.
Depends on what one needs ("right tool for the job"), doesn't it?
For example, if one already has a 911 and needs a utilitarian
hauler, what's it going to be? A Jeep is good for off-road, but if
you don't need that, there's better choices. Feel free to offer up
a few such candidates.
> Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's.
"$30K? What's wrong with it?"
Clean examples with the IMS fixed and with low mileage = expect ~$50K.
> Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
*I* bought ... what? Cite please!
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 00:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjcv.skfi8@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366218 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Octavian wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> > DFS wrote:
>>>> >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> >> > DFS wrote:
>>>> >> >> -hh wrote:
>>>> >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because
>>>> >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile,
>>>> >> >> but refuses to say what he drives.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run.
>>>> >
>>> > I'd have to actually care first.
>>>>> > >
>>>> >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you
>>>> >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Watch him run"
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic:
>>>> >
>>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ...
>>>> > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions."
>>>>
>>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had
>>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like
>>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
>>>
>>> That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser'
>>> who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees.
>>
>> Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the Eurofags have
>> allowed them to swarm all over the (previously) civilized world.
>
> Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years before they even showed up? Suuuuure.
>
>>> Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> I need to see your man card. Right now.
>>> So which would you rather have:
>>> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance.
>>> 2. 2017 Macan (any version)
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one,
>>> as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993...
>>
>> It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan.
>
> Depends on what one needs ("right tool for the job"), doesn't it?
>
Well the "right tool for the job" in your case apparently meant
"anything with a Porsche badge." I mean, why else would anybody
buy such an ugly piece of crap as the Macan, which along with
the Cayman is sold to the riff-raff so that Porsche can stay
in business serving worthy customers on the high end.
> For example, if one already has a 911 and needs a utilitarian
> hauler, what's it going to be?
Not a Porsche. Most likely a pickup.
> A Jeep is good for off-road, but if
> you don't need that, there's better choices. Feel free to offer up
> a few such candidates.
>
>> Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's.
>
> "$30K? What's wrong with it?"
>
Don't know. It was a cabriolet, so that's a big X for starters.
> Clean examples with the IMS fixed and with low mileage = expect ~$50K.
>
True, but that's still in the low-end Macan range. No extra leftover
for maintenance, but if you can't afford to maintain it, you shouldn't
be buying it.
>> Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
>
> *I* bought ... what? Cite please!
>
You mean those Macan photos that you posted a while back and stated
were photos of your car were actually photos of somebody else's car?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42f04ca4-760d-4d0b-bdb9-3e19399c7cb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366219 |
Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >>>> -hh wrote:
> >>>> > DFS wrote:
> >>>> >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >>>> >> > DFS wrote:
> >>>> >> >> -hh wrote:
> >>>> >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >>>> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because
> >>>> >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911.
> >>>> >> >>>
> >>>> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile,
> >>>> >> >> but refuses to say what he drives.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run.
> >>>> >
> >>> > I'd have to actually care first.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>> >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you
> >>>> >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911."
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> "Watch him run"
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ...
> >>>> > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions."
> >>>>
> >>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had
> >>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like
> >>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
> >>>
> >>> That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser'
> >>> who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees.
> >>
> >> Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the Eurofags have
> >> allowed them to swarm all over the (previously) civilized world.
> >
> > Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years before they even showed up? Suuuuure.
Silence noted.
> >>> Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with:
> >>>
> >>> <quote>
> >>> I need to see your man card. Right now.
> >>> So which would you rather have:
> >>> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance.
> >>> 2. 2017 Macan (any version)
> >>> </quote>
> >>>
> >>> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one,
> >>> as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993...
> >>
> >> It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan.
> >
> > Depends on what one needs ("right tool for the job"), doesn't it?
>
> Well the "right tool for the job" in your case apparently meant
> "anything with a Porsche badge." I mean, why else would anybody
> buy such an ugly piece of crap as the Macan, which along with
> the Cayman is sold to the riff-raff so that Porsche can stay
> in business serving worthy customers on the high end.
Translation: "apparently" = Mr. Lagrange has still failed to substantiate his claim.
>
> > For example, if one already has a 911 and needs a utilitarian
> > hauler, what's it going to be?
>
> Not a Porsche. Most likely a pickup.
Higher need for secure cargo more than "hose it out". And a pickup
is just like a Chevy Tahoe: almost as bad as a Jeep for its highway
manners.
> > A Jeep is good for off-road, but if
> > you don't need that, there's better choices. Feel free to offer up
> > a few such candidates.
> >
> >> Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's.
> >
> > "$30K? What's wrong with it?"
>
> Don't know. It was a cabriolet, so that's a big X for starters.
Precisely.
> > Clean examples with the IMS fixed and with low mileage = expect ~$50K.
>
> True, but that's still in the low-end Macan range. No extra leftover
> for maintenance, but if you can't afford to maintain it, you shouldn't
> be buying it.
Point is that your price points are ~4 years out of date.
> >> Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
> >
> > *I* bought ... what? Cite please!
>
> You mean those Macan photos that you posted a while back and stated
> were photos of your car were actually photos of somebody else's car?
That's not a citation.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjcus0.3x113@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366226 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >> -hh wrote:
>> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >>>> -hh wrote:
>> >>>> > DFS wrote:
>> >>>> >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >>>> >> > DFS wrote:
>> >>>> >> >> -hh wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >>>> >> >>>> Says the man who drives the ugliest Porsche ever made because
>> >>>> >> >>>> he cannot afford a 911.
>> >>>> >> >>>
>> >>>> >> >>> Oh, look, a lame lash-out.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> Octavian does this from time to time: makes fun of someone's automobile,
>> >>>> >> >> but refuses to say what he drives.
>> >>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >> >> Ask him. Watch him run.
>> >>>> >
>> >>> > I'd have to actually care first.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>> >> > LOL. If you drive a Porsche, and it's not a 911, the only message you
>> >>>> >> > are sending is, "Could not afford a 911."
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> "Watch him run"
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed to dispute the OP topic:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ... with statistical significance ...
>> >>>> > that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You brought up the issue of personal resources, and now that you've had
>> >>>> your ass handed to you in that regard, you curl up in a ball and cry like
>> >>>> a little girl. What an insecure snowflake you are.
>> >>>
>> >>> That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from an anonymous 'bruiser'
>> >>> who first claimed that they're terrified of some moslem refugees.
>> >>
>> >> Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the Eurofags have
>> >> allowed them to swarm all over the (previously) civilized world.
>> >
>> > Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years before they even showed up? Suuuuure.
>
> Silence noted.
>
OMG. I missed a line!
I had thought of possibly visiting Europe in retirement. Going there
has never been something that was important to me, but when thinking
of things to do in retirement, that was a possibility. There is no
way I would consider going to that cesspool now that the moslems
have destroyed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3FwTtBVjk
>
>> >>> Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with:
>> >>>
>> >>> <quote>
>> >>> I need to see your man card. Right now.
>> >>> So which would you rather have:
>> >>> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance.
>> >>> 2. 2017 Macan (any version)
>> >>> </quote>
>> >>>
>> >>> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that the choice is a fake one,
>> >>> as a 2009 would be a 997, not a 993...
>> >>
>> >> It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan.
>> >
>> > Depends on what one needs ("right tool for the job"), doesn't it?
>>
>> Well the "right tool for the job" in your case apparently meant
>> "anything with a Porsche badge." I mean, why else would anybody
>> buy such an ugly piece of crap as the Macan, which along with
>> the Cayman is sold to the riff-raff so that Porsche can stay
>> in business serving worthy customers on the high end.
>
> Translation: "apparently" = Mr. Lagrange has still failed to substantiate his claim.
>
Which claim?
>>
>> > For example, if one already has a 911 and needs a utilitarian
>> > hauler, what's it going to be?
>>
>> Not a Porsche. Most likely a pickup.
>
> Higher need for secure cargo more than "hose it out". And a pickup
> is just like a Chevy Tahoe: almost as bad as a Jeep for its highway
> manners.
>
Well, practically any mid-size sedan will have more trunk space alone,
without even considering the rear passenger area, than you have total
cargo space in that Macan.
>
>> > A Jeep is good for off-road, but if
>> > you don't need that, there's better choices. Feel free to offer up
>> > a few such candidates.
>> >
>> >> Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's.
>> >
>> > "$30K? What's wrong with it?"
>>
>> Don't know. It was a cabriolet, so that's a big X for starters.
>
> Precisely.
>
Well, Porsche currently lists a price range for new Macans in the range
of 47,500 - 76,000. You can find 993's all day long in that range.
Sure there's the occasionaly jewel asking astronomical amounts, but
you don't need one of those to absolutely destroy a new Macan in terms
of value.
>> > Clean examples with the IMS fixed and with low mileage = expect ~$50K.
>>
>> True, but that's still in the low-end Macan range. No extra leftover
>> for maintenance, but if you can't afford to maintain it, you shouldn't
>> be buying it.
>
> Point is that your price points are ~4 years out of date.
>
Nope.
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/993
>
>> >> Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
>> >
>> > *I* bought ... what? Cite please!
>>
>> You mean those Macan photos that you posted a while back and stated
>> were photos of your car were actually photos of somebody else's car?
>
> That's not a citation.
I'm not going to deja the thread, but I remember you posting those
photos and at the very least insinuating that the Macan was yours.
The idea that you owned a Macan had DFS drooling over it, and I
posted a link to a photo or video where some brutha had slapped
some 24-inch wheels on one. I don't remember you trying to distance
yourself from the generally accepted idea that the photos of the
Macan you posted were of your car.
So are you now going claim that you do not own a Macan?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <241c2e77-fa06-45da-a4bc-1e43452e5e53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366252 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:12:16 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> >> -hh wrote:
> >> >>> That claim is funny as hell since it is coming from
> >> >>> an anonymous 'bruiser' who first claimed that they're
> >> >>> terrified of some moslem refugees.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not terrified at all. Just disgusted with that the
> >> >> Eurofags have allowed them to swarm all over the
> >> >> (previously) civilized world.
> >> >
> >> > Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years
> >> > before they even showed up? Suuuuure.
> >
> > Silence noted.
>
> OMG. I missed a line!
Golly, how ... convenient.
> I had thought of possibly visiting Europe in retirement.
Translation: when there's hopefully finally the resources.
> Going there has never been something that was important
> to me, ...
Except when supposedly retired & finally well off? Golly!
> There is no way I would consider going to that cesspool now
> that the moslems have destroyed it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3FwTtBVjk
You should go back to your own Google Street View look at
Versailles, rather than to cherry-pick a slanted video.
Case in point: a random selection from the street at Buckingham Palace:
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/London,+UK/@51.5020928,-0.1401213,3a,75y,233.12h,77.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7L6V1BA194rI0N1gitZ5WA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a00baf21de75:0x52963a5addd52a99!8m2!3d51.5073509!4d-0.1277583!6m1!1e1>
> >> >>> Similarly, you tried some macho posturing with:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> <quote>
> >> >>> I need to see your man card. Right now.
> >> >>> So which would you rather have:
> >> >>> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance.
> >> >>> 2. 2017 Macan (any version)
> >> >>> </quote>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ...but anyone with an actual 'man card' knows that
> >> >>> the choice is a fake one, as a 2009 would be a 997,
> >> >>> not a 993...
> >> >>
> >> >> It's still a 911 and *any* 911 is preferable to a Macan.
> >> >
> >> > Depends on what one needs ("right tool for the job"), doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Well the "right tool for the job" in your case apparently meant
> >> "anything with a Porsche badge." I mean, why else would anybody
> >> buy such an ugly piece of crap as the Macan, which along with
> >> the Cayman is sold to the riff-raff so that Porsche can stay
> >> in business serving worthy customers on the high end.
> >
> > Translation: "apparently" = Mr. Lagrange has still failed
> > to substantiate his claim.
>
> Which claim?
Merely your claim of just what I own/drive.
> >> > For example, if one already has a 911 and needs a
> >> > utilitarian hauler, what's it going to be?
> >>
> >> Not a Porsche. Most likely a pickup.
> >
> > Higher need for secure cargo more than "hose it out". And
> > a pickup is just like a Chevy Tahoe: almost as bad as a
> > Jeep for its highway manners.
>
> Well, practically any mid-size sedan will have more trunk space
> alone, without even considering the rear passenger area, than
> you have total cargo space in that Macan.
Depends on just what "cargo" means. Case in point: just
how many (few) 4dr sedans have the utility of a hatchback?
For example, there's the BMW 330 Gran Turismo...although on
closer inspection, BMW also employs POS runflat tires.
> >> > A Jeep is good for off-road, but if
> >> > you don't need that, there's better choices.
> >> > Feel free to offer up a few such candidates.
Still waiting. Golly, YA line which was "missed".
> >> >> Besides, you can find 993's in the 30's.
> >> >
> >> > "$30K? What's wrong with it?"
> >>
> >> Don't know. It was a cabriolet, so that's a big X for starters.
> >
> > Precisely.
>
> Well, Porsche currently lists a price range for new Macans
> in the range of 47,500 - 76,000. You can find 993's all day
> long in that range.
True, but your claim was $30K, to also have a repair budget too.
> Sure there's the occasionaly jewel asking astronomical amounts,
> but ...
... but as per your own choice of citation:
> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/993
...90% of this n=31 sample list for over $50K.
And the only one which was under $40K at all (at $32,500) not
only avoided stating its mileage but also gave a vague hand
wave of "Mechanically sound". Thanks for proving my point.
Here's the current data:
Inquire
Inquire
Inquire
Inquire
Inquire
295000
215000
198500
185000
184993
149990
109000
95900
89850
89500
86993
81500
72000
70900
64500
61993
59500
59500
58500
55000
54900
52000
49500
44500
44000
32500
And setting aside the n=5 "Inquire" (which as described
will very obviously be higher priced vehicles) and looking
at just those with numbers:
AVERAGE = $98,481.50
MEDIAN = $71,450
... just in case you were wondering why I characterized
$50K as the effective bottom of the 993 market and said:
"$30K? What's wrong with it?".
> >> >> Why didn't you buy one instead of that soccer-mom crate?
> >> >
> >> > *I* bought ... what? Cite please!
> >>
> >> You mean those Macan photos that you posted a while back and stated
> >> were photos of your car were actually photos of somebody else's car?
> >
> > That's not a citation.
>
> I'm not going to deja the thread, but I remember you posting those
> photos and at the very least insinuating that the Macan was yours.
> The idea that you owned a Macan had DFS drooling over it, and I
> posted a link to a photo or video where some brutha had slapped
> some 24-inch wheels on one. I don't remember you trying to distance
> yourself from the generally accepted idea that the photos of the
> Macan you posted were of your car.
>
> So are you now going claim that you do not own a Macan?
Neither: I'm pointing out that you should check before you
embarrass yourself further with your claims.
What you've shown that by keeping it vague, those who
have a strong inferiority complex to self-identify by
just how thoroughly they embarrass themselves in public.
-hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdsafoe893.a4@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366263 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:12:16 AM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> >> Well, Porsche currently lists a price range for new Macans >> in the range of 47,500 - 76,000. You can find 993's all day >> long in that range. > > True, but your claim was $30K, to also have a repair budget too. > That was an example based on a probably correct assumption that the Macan you purchased was bottom of the line. But now you're even trying to weasel out that. Just go ask them if they'll buy it back from you. Then you won't be flashing that "Couldn't afford a 911" sign anymore. >> Sure there's the occasionaly jewel asking astronomical amounts, >> but ... > > ... but as per your own choice of citation: > >> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/993 > > ...90% of this n=31 sample list for over $50K. > > And the only one which was under $40K at all (at $32,500) not > only avoided stating its mileage but also gave a vague hand > wave of "Mechanically sound". Thanks for proving my point. > > Here's the current data: > ... > 49500 > 44500 > 44000 > 32500 > > And setting aside the n=5 "Inquire" (which as described > will very obviously be higher priced vehicles) and looking > at just those with numbers: > > AVERAGE = $98,481.50 > MEDIAN = $71,450 > Median 993 still is cheaper than top of the line Macan. And is a vastly superior choice. Not to mention that you can option up a Macan to over $100k. LOL! Can you imagine? What kind of moron would pay $100k for a Macan! > ... just in case you were wondering why I characterized > $50K as the effective bottom of the 993 market and said: > "$30K? What's wrong with it?". > Here's a nice 993 at $62k which still gives you $14k maintenance budget over top of the line Macan: http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/911/1855491.html Here's another at $52k: http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/911/1819822.html Sucks to be you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCUwQIn3GrU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f69e502d-f27d-4e0b-b06f-3aecf046066c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366267 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 1:08:50 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > > >> Well, Porsche currently lists a price range for new Macans > >> in the range of 47,500 - 76,000. You can find 993's all day > >> long in that range. > > > > True, but your claim was $30K, to also have a repair budget too. > > That was an example based on a probably correct assumption that > the Macan you purchased was bottom of the line. Trying to save face on your goal post shift attempt? Won't work, because you were off on how much 993's cost. Case in point: OWL> <quote> OWL> So which would you rather have: OWL> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance. OWL> 2. 2017 Macan (any version) OWL> </quote> OWL> OWL> ...you can find 993's in the 30's. Thus, the range you provided (unforced) was: ($30K + $15K cash) to ($30K + $35K cash) = $45K - $65K > >> Sure there's the occasionaly jewel asking astronomical > >> amounts, but ... > > > > ... but as per your own choice of citation: > >> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/993 > > > > ...90% of this n=31 sample list for over $50K. > > And the only one which was under $40K at all (at $32,500) not > > only avoided stating its mileage but also gave a vague hand > > wave of "Mechanically sound". Thanks for proving my point. > > .... > > And setting aside the n=5 "Inquire" ... and looking > > at just those with numbers: > > > > AVERAGE = $98,481.50 > > MEDIAN = $71,450 > > Median 993 still is cheaper than top of the line Macan. But above the upper limit you previously set of $65K = goalpost move. > Sucks to be you. Merely YA unsubstantiated claim on your part. Again. In the meantime, you've been piling up the evidence on your suckage by what you lie & dodge & snip to hide, such as: %> >> > Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years %> >> > before they even showed up? Suuuuure. %> > %> > Silence noted. %> %> OMG. I missed a line! Still waiting. And hey, you snipped this too: @> >> > A Jeep is good for off-road, but if @> >> > you don't need that, there's better choices. @> >> > Feel free to offer up a few such candidates. Again, still waiting. Rhetorically, of course, since DFS did predict that you will run. Finally, let's not forget the original topic: #>>> >> "Watch him run" #>>> > #>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed #>>> > to dispute the OP topic: #>>> > #>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical #>>> > significance... that having more choices correlates to #>>> > making _lower quality_ decisions." Still not scientifically debunked. Merely denied loudly by a bunch of luddites who persist despite their knowledge that they lack objective scientific evidence as the basis of their claims. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366276 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 1:08:50 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> >> Well, Porsche currently lists a price range for new Macans >> >> in the range of 47,500 - 76,000. You can find 993's all day >> >> long in that range. >> > >> > True, but your claim was $30K, to also have a repair budget too. >> >> That was an example based on a probably correct assumption that >> the Macan you purchased was bottom of the line. > > Trying to save face on your goal post shift attempt? Won't work, > because you were off on how much 993's cost. Case in point: > > OWL> <quote> > OWL> So which would you rather have: > OWL> 1. 2009 911 + $15k-$35k cash to cover maintenance. > OWL> 2. 2017 Macan (any version) > OWL> </quote> > OWL> > OWL> ...you can find 993's in the 30's. > > Thus, the range you provided (unforced) was: > ($30K + $15K cash) to ($30K + $35K cash) = $45K - $65K > Nope. That was not a 993, remember? That was iirc, this car: https://www.truecar.com/used-cars-for-sale/listing/WP0AA29989S706536/2009-porsche-911/ $34,800. Giving you roughly 15-35 leftover against the base price of a 2017 Macan. > >> >> Sure there's the occasionaly jewel asking astronomical >> >> amounts, but ... >> > >> > ... but as per your own choice of citation: >> >> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/porsche/993 >> > >> > ...90% of this n=31 sample list for over $50K. >> > And the only one which was under $40K at all (at $32,500) not >> > only avoided stating its mileage but also gave a vague hand >> > wave of "Mechanically sound". Thanks for proving my point. >> > .... >> > And setting aside the n=5 "Inquire" ... and looking >> > at just those with numbers: >> > >> > AVERAGE = $98,481.50 >> > MEDIAN = $71,450 >> >> Median 993 still is cheaper than top of the line Macan. > > But above the upper limit you previously set of $65K = goalpost move. > You brought up the requirement that it be a 993. I set no such limit for a 993. I said simply that you can get a relatively recent 911 (2009, in this case) and still save money over even a base model Macan, with the added benefit of having a much more desirable car. > >> Sucks to be you. > > Merely YA unsubstantiated claim on your part. Again. > Well, it sure seems like it would suck to be you. Surely your life sucks if you have to boast (LOL!) of owning a Macan (LOL!). And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. > In the meantime, you've been piling up the evidence on your > suckage by what you lie & dodge & snip to hide, such as: > > %> >> > Which is why you 'boycotted' the Continent years > %> >> > before they even showed up? Suuuuure. > %> > > %> > Silence noted. > %> > %> OMG. I missed a line! > > Still waiting. > I already answered that. > And hey, you snipped this too: > > @> >> > A Jeep is good for off-road, but if > @> >> > you don't need that, there's better choices. > @> >> > Feel free to offer up a few such candidates. > > Again, still waiting. Rhetorically, of course, since > DFS did predict that you will run. > > I wonder what DFS thinks about you now trying to back out of your previous claim of owning a Macan. > Finally, let's not forget the original topic: > > #>>> >> "Watch him run" > #>>> > > #>>> > Yes, certainly so: trying to run from how he failed > #>>> > to dispute the OP topic: > #>>> > > #>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > #>>> > significance... that having more choices correlates to > #>>> > making _lower quality_ decisions." > > Still not scientifically debunked. Merely denied loudly by a > bunch of luddites who persist despite their knowledge that they > lack objective scientific evidence as the basis of their claims. > You made a false claim that these "statistics" of purchases can be generalized to extrapolate the importance of "too much choice" to all areas, including choices without cost. I described a scenario of 700 choices, which even included an offer of $1000 not to bother with choosing from among the 700 choices, and you tried to weasel out of it, even to the point of giving your retarded estimate of the value of a 1-gallon bag full of master-cut natural diamonds, the smallest of which is 5 carats, at $1500. LOL! That's the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard. (Well, aside from your Macan purchase). http://www.vistaprint.com/studio.aspx?template=765040_AAT&ag=True&xnav=previews&xnid=image_93&rd=1#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web