Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #448422 > unrolled thread

[Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-18 06:43 -0500
    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-19 07:09 -0500
      Another Hero Worship Thread from the PWNED loser (was: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse.) -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-19 07:54 -0700
        [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-19 10:45 -0500
          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-19 08:49 -0700
          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 21:12 +0000
    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 21:10 +0000
      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-20 14:18 -0700
      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-21 13:30 -0400
        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-21 11:21 -0700
          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-21 19:47 +0000
            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 13:09 -0700
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 00:51 -0700
            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-21 21:37 +0000
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 21:59 -0700
            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 00:31 +0000
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-22 18:02 -0700
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:58 -0700
                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 09:06 -0700
                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:02 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 11:11 -0700
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 11:26 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 14:11 -0500
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:33 -0700
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:13 -0700
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-23 03:14 -0700
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 04:31 -0700
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 06:43 -0700
                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 14:15 +0000
                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 07:46 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 14:51 +0000
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 08:34 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:03 -0700
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 09:20 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:40 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 16:42 +0000
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 09:46 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 16:39 +0000
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 09:45 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 17:53 +0000
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 11:48 -0700
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 19:27 +0000
                                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 12:48 -0700
                                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 19:32 -0500
                                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:44 -0700
                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 13:10 -0500
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 17:19 +0000
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-23 10:56 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 11:06 -0700
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 11:45 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 18:32 +0000
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 14:49 -0500
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 11:52 -0700
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 12:06 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 12:19 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 18:59 +0000
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 19:00 +0000
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 19:12 -0500
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 23:17 +0000
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:43 -0700
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-23 21:09 -0500
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-24 01:11 +0000
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 18:51 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 16:17 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-24 10:53 +0100
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 02:57 -0700
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-24 08:17 -0500
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 07:32 -0500
                                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 12:44 +0000
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-04-23 12:45 -0700
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 12:51 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 12:53 -0700
                                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 19:49 -0700
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 22:00 -0700
                                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 08:46 -0700
                                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:09 -0700
                                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 09:43 -0700
                                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:05 -0700
                                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-24 10:54 -0700
                                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:34 -0700
                                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:10 -0700
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 21:23 +0000
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 20:13 +0000
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 20:15 +0000
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 20:32 +0000
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 13:44 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 15:42 -0700
                              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-23 22:45 +0000
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 11:50 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 07:18 -0500
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-24 18:00 -0500
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-24 23:41 +0000
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-25 11:33 -0500
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-25 07:14 -0500
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-23 07:37 -0400
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-04-23 05:53 -0700
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 06:44 -0700
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 08:37 -0500
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-24 08:54 -0700
                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:13 -0700
                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 11:44 -0500
                    Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-24 11:39 -0700
                      Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:03 -0500
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-24 14:05 -0500
                        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-24 18:03 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:32 -0700
                          Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-25 07:05 -0500
                            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 05:29 -0700
            Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-23 03:19 -0700
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 12:24 +0000
                Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-23 06:34 -0700
                  Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-23 14:48 +0000
              Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-23 06:42 -0700
        Re: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 12:37 -0700

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#448875

On 4/23/18, 10:02 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> The other 99% of the computer users in
>>>>> >  >>>  the world don't have to worry about it.
>>>> >  >>
>>>> >  >>  The fact you assume only 1% is a bit silly.
>>> >  >
>>> >  >  Hey! You're right for once,Snit!  The number of people who "absolutely need
>>> >  >  to manipulate Photoshop files" is actually smaller than 1% "of the computer
>>> >  >  users in the world" (a number that's larger than those connected to the 'net).
>> >
>> >  The number of people who have and use Photoshop is larger than that...
> So lay out the numbers and your evidence, but don't forget, you're laying it out for
> "the computer users in the world", not just net connected users. Further, you're laying
> it out for those in "need", which discounts a lot of people who merely pirated it (and
> may never have touched it). By the way, his 1% number, just off the cuff, is not "silly"
> because the number is probably somewhere between 0.5% and 1.5%...  so it's a pretty
> good guess.

I work with users. I see people's systems. But while my guess is higher 
than yours, it is not much higher... maybe 2-3%, and that is in the US. 
Maybe less elsewhere.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448878

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 10:02 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >>>>> The other 99% of the computer users in
> >>>>> >  >>>  the world don't have to worry about it.
> >>>> >  >>
> >>>> >  >>  The fact you assume only 1% is a bit silly.
> >>> >  >
> >>> >  >  Hey! You're right for once,Snit!  The number of people who "absolutely need
> >>> >  >  to manipulate Photoshop files" is actually smaller than 1% "of the computer
> >>> >  >  users in the world" (a number that's larger than those connected to the 'net).
> >> >
> >> >  The number of people who have and use Photoshop is larger than that...
> > So lay out the numbers and your evidence, but don't forget, you're laying it out for
> > "the computer users in the world", not just net connected users. Further, you're laying
> > it out for those in "need", which discounts a lot of people who merely pirated it (and
> > may never have touched it). By the way, his 1% number, just off the cuff, is not "silly"
> > because the number is probably somewhere between 0.5% and 1.5%...  so it's a pretty
> > good guess.
> 
> I work with users. I see people's systems. But while my guess is higher 
> than yours, it is not much higher... maybe 2-3%, and that is in the US. 
> Maybe less elsewhere.

There is  a huge difference between mobile users of it, people who have pirated
it, etc, and the people the OP was talking about (who "absolutely need" it).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448876

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:02:12 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll
<fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:06:13 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/23/18, 8:58 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:02:35 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> >> On 4/22/18, 5:31 PM, RonB wrote:
>> >> ...>>
>> >>>> darktable and a mask.
>> >>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
>> >>>
>> >>> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that
>> >>> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need
>> >>> Photoshop.
>> >>
>> >> Did someone suggest *most*
>> >
>> > LOL!
>> 
>> This is where the proper answer would have been "no". 
>
>It's "interesting" how the hypocrite who tried to stuff words into someone
>else's keyboard is now telling them what a "proper" answer is.

How dare you forget that Snit is the intellectual and moral authority
in comp.os.linux.advoacy? To be at his level, we would have to fast
and pray for forty days straight in the middle of a desert.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448819

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:31:27 PM UTC-7, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-21, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> >>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
> >>> >> posts so aggressively.  
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
> >>> >> following the detection of any lies.)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
> >>> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
> >>> >> close-mindedness".
> >>> >
> >>> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
> >>> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
> >>> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
> >>> 
> >>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
> >>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
> >> 
> >> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
> >> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
> >> or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
> >> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
> >> & Elements, etc.  
> >> 
> >> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have 
> >> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
> >> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing 
> >> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
> >> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
> >> 
> >> -hh
> >
> > darktable and a mask.
> > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
> 
> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that 
> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need 
> Photoshop. This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo 
> studios. If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to 
> manipulate Photoshop files then, by all means, buy a Mac and/or Windows 
> computer so you can use Photoshop. The other 99% of the computer users in 
> the world don't have to worry about it. It's stupid to use the "no Photoshop 
> for Linux" argument in an attempt to make people think they have to use the 
> inferior Mac or Windows OSes.
> 
> Ditto (and even more so) with the other argument trolls love to use "Linux 
> doesn't run Autocad."
> 
> Both are expensive, niche products that most people don't need. 
> 
> Figure it out. This is not rocket science. 
> 
> -- 
> The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.



Reviewing Arch Linux... forever an initiate... Lots of people persist in talking to Jessica Lane. To be clear, I don't indict Jeff Relf for having his dander up but I don't fathom why he stays here after all this nonsense. Jeff Relf is better at dialog as found in a Facebook environment and free environments will just lead to frustration. Not only did Jeff Relf's question not refer to the "desktop", it has nada to do with Linux. Jessica Lane should learn to read ;) Jessica Lane-like trolls are still posting about the Arch Linux "CLI" as if something like that literally would be useful. 

--
E-commerce Simplified!
http://www.5z8.info/facebook-of-sex_w4l4wg_bomb
http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448823

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:31:27 PM UTC-7, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-21, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> >>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
> >>> >> posts so aggressively.  
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
> >>> >> following the detection of any lies.)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
> >>> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
> >>> >> close-mindedness".
> >>> >
> >>> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
> >>> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
> >>> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
> >>> 
> >>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
> >>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
> >> 
> >> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
> >> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
> >> or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
> >> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
> >> & Elements, etc.  
> >> 
> >> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have 
> >> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
> >> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing 
> >> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
> >> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
> >> 
> >> -hh
> >
> > darktable and a mask.
> > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
> 
> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that 
> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need 
> Photoshop. This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo 
> studios. If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to 
> manipulate Photoshop files then, by all means, buy a Mac and/or Windows 
> computer so you can use Photoshop. The other 99% of the computer users in 
> the world don't have to worry about it. It's stupid to use the "no Photoshop 
> for Linux" argument in an attempt to make people think they have to use the 
> inferior Mac or Windows OSes.
> 
> Ditto (and even more so) with the other argument trolls love to use "Linux 
> doesn't run Autocad."
> 
> Both are expensive, niche products that most people don't need. 
> 
> Figure it out. This is not rocket science. 
> 
> -- 
> The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


It was me and "trolling" meant pointing out your inconsistencies:

"He has lied about the war on Iraq.  An illegal war.  One that makes him a war criminal." - Snit 

A week later: 
"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit 

The following week: 
"Bush is a war criminal". - Snit 

Just mass confusion from you:
"Ok... Morally he is a war criminal. Legally, it has not been decided." - Snit 


This is really no different than what owl just complained about in this thread, your obvious confusion is causing you to make inconsistent statements. Maybe someday, when you lay off the meds long enough, your brain may come back... but I doubt it ;)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=fdE9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened
http://www.5z8.info/warez_w2t4ge_girlsgonewildpart1.wmv
https://youtu.be/HHT9SJgYsH4
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU_evUKollmjeuJy5V5UMotPUs65Q7YM6
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448831

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:31:27 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-21, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> >>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
> >>> >> posts so aggressively.  
> >>> >>
> >>> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
> >>> >> following the detection of any lies.)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
> >>> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
> >>> >> close-mindedness".
> >>> >
> >>> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
> >>> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
> >>> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
> >>> 
> >>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
> >>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
> >> 
> >> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
> >> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
> >> or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
> >> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
> >> & Elements, etc.  
> >> 
> >> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have 
> >> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
> >> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing 
> >> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
> >> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
> >> 
> >> -hh
> >
> > darktable and a mask.
> > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off

Pretty much, although a mask in this context is pretty close to what Photoshop
implements via layers...they go back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and
similar 'tricks' of the darkroom.  


> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that 
> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need 
> Photoshop. 

Unfortunately, the statements in the archives do not acknowledge any minority 
or niche accommodation, but are along the lines of "NO ONE EVER NEEDS THIS".

As such, you're just trying to rewrite history.

> This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo studios....
> If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to 
> manipulate Photoshop files ...

Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the 
automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR. 

Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448835

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:14:41 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:31:27 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote:
> > On 2018-04-21, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> > >>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >>> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
> > >>> >> posts so aggressively.  
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
> > >>> >> following the detection of any lies.)
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
> > >>> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
> > >>> >> close-mindedness".
> > >>> >
> > >>> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
> > >>> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
> > >>> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
> > >>> 
> > >>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
> > >>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
> > >> 
> > >> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
> > >> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
> > >> or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
> > >> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
> > >> & Elements, etc.  
> > >> 
> > >> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have 
> > >> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
> > >> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing 
> > >> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
> > >> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
> > >> 
> > >> -hh
> > >
> > > darktable and a mask.
> > > https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
> 
> Pretty much, although a mask in this context is pretty close to what Photoshop
> implements via layers...they go back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and
> similar 'tricks' of the darkroom.  
> 
> 
> > My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that 
> > most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need 
> > Photoshop. 
> 
> Unfortunately, the statements in the archives do not acknowledge any minority 
> or niche accommodation, but are along the lines of "NO ONE EVER NEEDS THIS".
> 
> As such, you're just trying to rewrite history.
> 
> > This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo studios....
> > If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to 
> > manipulate Photoshop files ...
> 
> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the 
> automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
> the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR. 
> 
> Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
> 
> 
> -hh



These degenerates get their enjoyment out of triggering emotional responses to their crap, which is the very definition of a troll. BTW, I've already discussed that his use of "herd" to describe Dan Cross is mud slinging, since he's likening them to Mac users. Tmux is based on Linux. Even if Staci M. Elliot is too stupid to figure that out. How Staci M. Elliot decides when to use the flood script: http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snit_flood. 

When I was being honest, I wanted to be fair and nonjudgemental. I gave Staci M. Elliot more than a rational person generally would. 



-- 
E-commerce Simplified!
http://www.5z8.info/michaelangelo-virus_t6v2vq_molotovcocktail
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448842

On 4/23/18, 3:14 AM, -hh wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:31:27 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote:
>> On 2018-04-21, owl<owl@rooftop.invalid>  wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
>>>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-04-18, chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
>>>>>>> posts so aggressively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
>>>>>>> following the detection of any lies.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
>>>>>>> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We claimed that it "is a waste".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
>>>>>>> close-mindedness".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche
>>>>>> product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product
>>>>>> that only about 1% of the people need.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
>>>>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
>>>>
>>>> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in
>>>> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow&  painful
>>>> or quick&  efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the
>>>> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
>>>> &  Elements, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have
>>>> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
>>>> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing
>>>> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.
>>>> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> darktable and a mask.
>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
>
> Pretty much, although a mask in this context is pretty close to what Photoshop
> implements via layers...they go back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and
> similar 'tricks' of the darkroom.
>
>
>> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that
>> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need
>> Photoshop.
>
> Unfortunately, the statements in the archives do not acknowledge any minority
> or niche accommodation, but are along the lines of "NO ONE EVER NEEDS THIS".
>
> As such, you're just trying to rewrite history.
>
>> This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo studios....
>> If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to
>> manipulate Photoshop files ...
>
> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
> automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
> the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>
> Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.

It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and 
image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have 
been rare, but not now.



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448844

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 3:14 AM, -hh wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 8:31:27 PM UTC-4, RonB wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-21, owl<owl@rooftop.invalid>  wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
>>>>>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2018-04-18, chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
>>>>>>>> posts so aggressively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
>>>>>>>> following the detection of any lies.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
>>>>>>>> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We claimed that it "is a waste".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
>>>>>>>> close-mindedness".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche
>>>>>>> product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product
>>>>>>> that only about 1% of the people need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
>>>>>> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in
>>>>> a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow&  painful
>>>>> or quick&  efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the
>>>>> product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
>>>>> &  Elements, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a composition where you have
>>>>> a subject in the foreground that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
>>>>> overexposed and you want to effectively balance the presentation by decreasing
>>>>> the exposure of the background portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.
>>>>> Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this sort of task with this workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> darktable and a mask.
>>>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
>>
>> Pretty much, although a mask in this context is pretty close to what Photoshop
>> implements via layers...they go back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and
>> similar 'tricks' of the darkroom.
>>
>>
>>> My point being (for the purposely obtuse, take your bows high horse) is that
>>> most people don't manipulate graphic files in complex ways and don't need
>>> Photoshop.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the statements in the archives do not acknowledge any minority
>> or niche accommodation, but are along the lines of "NO ONE EVER NEEDS THIS".
>>
>> As such, you're just trying to rewrite history.
>>
>>> This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo studios....
>>> If you're in the 1% who needs to do this and absolutely need to
>>> manipulate Photoshop files ...
>>
>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>> automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>> the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>
>> Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
> 
> It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and 
> image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have 
> been rare, but not now.
> 

Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448845

On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>> >>  automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>> >>  the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>> >>
>>> >>  Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>> >
>> >  It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>> >  image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>> >  been rare, but not now.
>> >
> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>

Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe 
the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in 
a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle 
it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as 
you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.

Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past: 
<https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>

And another: <https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>

With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass 
downloading of recipes as PDFs.



-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448847

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>> >>  automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>> >>  the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>  Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>> >
>>> >  It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>> >  image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>> >  been rare, but not now.
>>> >
>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>
> 
> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe 
> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in 
> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle 
> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as 
> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
> 
> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past: 
> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
> 
> And another: <https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
> 
> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass 
> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
> 

So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448850

On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>   automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>   the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>
>>>>>   It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>   image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>   been rare, but not now.
>>>>>
>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>
>>
>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>
>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>
>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>
>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>
>
> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.

Not interested in your games. Hey, if you want to say that you do not 
care about Linux handling this less well, or wish to show how it can 
handle it as well, then cool.

But NOT getting pulled into your meta-debate trolling.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448854

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:34:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
> > Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
> >> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
> >>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
> >>>>>>>   automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
> >>>>>>>   the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
> >>>>>   image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
> >>>>>   been rare, but not now.
> >>>>>
> >>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
> >> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
> >> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
> >> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
> >> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
> >>
> >> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
> >> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
> >>
> >> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
> >>
> >> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
> >> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
> >>
> >
> > So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
> 
> Not interested in your games.

You claim a poster said something and were then asked for proof of it.
Instead of supplying that proof you label the asking for it "games".

The best part? You do stuff like this as you try to sell the idea that you're 
reasonable and logical.  

Pretty funny stuff ;) 

No one needs to ask what you do for an encore...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448857

On 4/23/18, 9:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:34:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>>    automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>>    the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>>    image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>>    been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>>
>>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>>
>>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>>
>>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
>>
>> Not interested in your games.
>
> You claim a poster said something and were then asked for proof of it.
> Instead of supplying that proof you label the asking for it "games".
>
> The best part? You do stuff like this as you try to sell the idea that you're
> reasonable and logical.
>
> Pretty funny stuff ;)
>
> No one needs to ask what you do for an encore...

I showed one of the videos made during one of the many, many times that 
PDF / image annotation has come up.

For Owl to pretend to not remember it is simply dishonest of him (keep 
in mind he even moved goal posts to avoid the conversation to his 
downloading of multiple recipes by script... a task I was able to do on 
macOS so well he and Peter insisted I must be cheating), but if he wants 
to pretend so whatever. He can ignore the facts, he can say he thinks he 
can show Linux handling it as well now, or he can admit that Linux does 
not handle this as well as far as he knows.

But the topic is Linux and how it compares... NOT your games nor his. I 
am NOT interested in such.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448860

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:20:47 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 9:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:34:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> >> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
> >>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>   wrote:
> >>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
> >>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
> >>>>>>>>>    automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
> >>>>>>>>>    the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>    Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>    It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
> >>>>>>>    image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
> >>>>>>>    been rare, but not now.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
> >>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
> >>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
> >>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
> >>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
> >>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
> >>>>
> >>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
> >>>>
> >>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
> >>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
> >>
> >> Not interested in your games.
> >
> > You claim a poster said something and were then asked for proof of it.
> > Instead of supplying that proof you label the asking for it "games".
> >
> > The best part? You do stuff like this as you try to sell the idea that you're
> > reasonable and logical.
> >
> > Pretty funny stuff ;)
> >
> > No one needs to ask what you do for an encore...
> 
> I showed one of the videos made during one of the many, many times that 
> PDF / image annotation has come up.

Why would you do that when you were asked to supply a quote for 
what you've alleged someone else has stated?

> For Owl to pretend to not remember it is simply dishonest of him 

For you to make a claim and not support it when asked is dishonest of you.

You can either support it or you can't... when you don't, you're the one with 
the credibility problem. Simple, really.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448861

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 9:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:34:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>>>    automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>>>    the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>>>    image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>>>    been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>>>
>>>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
>>>
>>> Not interested in your games.
>>
>> You claim a poster said something and were then asked for proof of it.
>> Instead of supplying that proof you label the asking for it "games".
>>
>> The best part? You do stuff like this as you try to sell the idea that you're
>> reasonable and logical.
>>
>> Pretty funny stuff ;)
>>
>> No one needs to ask what you do for an encore...
> 
> I showed one of the videos made during one of the many, many times that 
> PDF / image annotation has come up.
> 
> For Owl to pretend to not remember it is simply dishonest of him (keep 
> in mind he even moved goal posts to avoid the conversation to his 
> downloading of multiple recipes by script... a task I was able to do on 
> macOS so well he and Peter insisted I must be cheating), but if he wants 
> to pretend so whatever. He can ignore the facts, he can say he thinks he 
> can show Linux handling it as well now, or he can admit that Linux does 
> not handle this as well as far as he knows.
> 
> But the topic is Linux and how it compares... NOT your games nor his. I 
> am NOT interested in such.
> 

It shouldn't be that hard to provide a quote unless you were lying.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448864

On 4/23/18, 9:42 AM, owl wrote:
> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/23/18, 9:03 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 9:34:57 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>    wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>>>>     automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>>>>     the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>     Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>>>>     image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>>>>     been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>>>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>>>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>>>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>>>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>>>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
>>>>
>>>> Not interested in your games.
>>>
>>> You claim a poster said something and were then asked for proof of it.
>>> Instead of supplying that proof you label the asking for it "games".
>>>
>>> The best part? You do stuff like this as you try to sell the idea that you're
>>> reasonable and logical.
>>>
>>> Pretty funny stuff ;)
>>>
>>> No one needs to ask what you do for an encore...
>>
>> I showed one of the videos made during one of the many, many times that
>> PDF / image annotation has come up.
>>
>> For Owl to pretend to not remember it is simply dishonest of him (keep
>> in mind he even moved goal posts to avoid the conversation to his
>> downloading of multiple recipes by script... a task I was able to do on
>> macOS so well he and Peter insisted I must be cheating), but if he wants
>> to pretend so whatever. He can ignore the facts, he can say he thinks he
>> can show Linux handling it as well now, or he can admit that Linux does
>> not handle this as well as far as he knows.
>>
>> But the topic is Linux and how it compares... NOT your games nor his. I
>> am NOT interested in such.
>>
>
> It shouldn't be that hard to provide a quote unless you were lying.
>

Again: not digging back through threads for something you know to be 
true and are just playing games with.

For crying out loud... you and Carroll really do NOTHING but troll these 
days.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448859

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>   automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>   the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>   image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>   been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>
>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>
>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>
>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>
>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>
>>
>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
> 
> Not interested in your games. Hey, if you want to say that you do not 
> care about Linux handling this less well, or wish to show how it can 
> handle it as well, then cool.
> 

You should keep in mind that when you take off on these fantastical
tangents no one is able to follow your train of thought.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448863

On 4/23/18, 9:39 AM, owl wrote:
> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
>> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>   wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>>    automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>>    the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>>    image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>>    been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>>
>>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>>
>>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>>
>>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
>>
>> Not interested in your games. Hey, if you want to say that you do not
>> care about Linux handling this less well, or wish to show how it can
>> handle it as well, then cool.
>>
>
> You should keep in mind that when you take off on these fantastical
> tangents no one is able to follow your train of thought.
>

In other words you are going to just pretend you do not recall how you 
could not show Linux handling SIMPLE tasks with PDF / image annotation. 
Fair enough.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448872

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/18, 9:39 AM, owl wrote:
>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>  wrote:
>>> On 4/23/18, 7:51 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>   wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/18, 7:15 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nope.  Just take a look at the actual mechanics that are underneath the
>>>>>>>>>>    automatic ("magic button" adjustments in consumer software today - even
>>>>>>>>>>    the stuff on smartphones, such as on/off automatic HDR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    Surprise, surprise!  You've been one of those "1% Pros" for years without realizing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    It is much like how Owl and others have repeatedly told me that PDF and
>>>>>>>>    image annotations are rare things. Really? In the '80s they might have
>>>>>>>>    been rare, but not now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got some quotes to back up your trolling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Geeeeezus! I think it was yesterday you brought up flyers again. Maybe
>>>>> the day before. You and other "advocates" obsess over image rotation (in
>>>>> a WP) and PDF / image annotation because you know Linux does not handle
>>>>> it well. Your "defense" is to act like these things do not matter, as
>>>>> you do with image editing, screencasting, and more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is one of the videos I showed about the task in the past:
>>>>> <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>
>>>>>
>>>>> And another:<https://youtu.be/mqiaPeY1YaI>
>>>>>
>>>>> With the PDF annotation part, when you failed you moved to mass
>>>>> downloading of recipes as PDFs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So more trolling and still no quotes.  As expected.
>>>
>>> Not interested in your games. Hey, if you want to say that you do not
>>> care about Linux handling this less well, or wish to show how it can
>>> handle it as well, then cool.
>>>
>>
>> You should keep in mind that when you take off on these fantastical
>> tangents no one is able to follow your train of thought.
>>
> 
> In other words you are going to just pretend you do not recall how you 
> could not show Linux handling SIMPLE tasks with PDF / image annotation. 
> Fair enough.
> 

"In other words"?  How about just sticking to the words I said.
Then maybe you would be able to quote them in the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web