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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f41dcb01-b7fb-4959-aa71-9739c153ea22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366288 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > 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? It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) > > But above the upper limit you previously set of $65K = goalpost move. > > > > You brought up the requirement that it be a 993. And yet you said: "...you can find 993's in the 30's." > >> 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!). Except for the unfortunate-fact-for-you that I've done no such thing. Which is why you can't substantiate your claim. > And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? I did? Cite please! > LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... so long as the books being done aren't being cooked for the Mob, what's so bad about that kind of life? ;-) > > 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. Oh really? Cite please. > > 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. Reminding you to actually check on what was actually previously said is hardly "back out". > > 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. Where your definition of "false" is to cite 45 CFR 46? > 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 ... Really? Are you really sure that that's what you _remember_? Particularly since you've been reminded to check on your other 'recollections'? Better go check on this one too. "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical significance... that having more choices correlates to making _lower quality_ decisions." Still hasn't been scientifically debunked. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgaiued83.a3bb@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366290 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > 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? > > It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite > unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." > Yes I did. And you can. http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html <quote> $32,500 Description: 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet </quote> > YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' > by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) > I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >> > But above the upper limit you previously set of $65K = goalpost move. >> > >> >> You brought up the requirement that it be a 993. > > And yet you said: "...you can find 993's in the 30's." > And you can. As I showed. > >> >> 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!). > > Except for the unfortunate-fact-for-you that I've done no > such thing. Which is why you can't substantiate your claim. > You implied it, and you haven't yet denied it. Are you now ashamed that you bought it? I wouldn't blame you. >> And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? > > I did? Cite please! > >> LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. > > It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some > are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate > FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to > spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". > so > long as the books being done aren't being cooked for the Mob, > what's so bad about that kind of life? ;-) > Ha! So now you have a 911 too. Pics or it didn't happen. > >> > 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. > > Oh really? Cite please. > In the very post where you quote "OMG. I missed a line!" > >> > 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. > > Reminding you to actually check on what was actually > previously said is hardly "back out". > So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. And now you also have a 911. What don't you have? > >> > 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. > > Where your definition of "false" is to cite 45 CFR 46? > Where did I do that? >> 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 ... > > Really? Are you really sure that that's what you _remember_? > > Particularly since you've been reminded to check on your > other 'recollections'? Better go check on this one too. > > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > significance... that having more choices correlates to > making _lower quality_ decisions." > > Still hasn't been scientifically debunked. > I described a thought experiment (which is physically doable with enough resources) and gathered answers to the question it asks. If forget what you ended up doing after all the weaseling you did. Did you decide to take the $1000 or go for the diamonds?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0A6E2.79D3D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366292 |
On 8/22/16, 12:30 PM, in article fhjgaiued83.a3bb@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite >> unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." >> > > Yes I did. And you can. > http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html > <quote> > $32,500 > Description: > 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet > </quote> > >> YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' >> by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) >> > > > I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. > As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! I would say having good morals is more important... things such as NOT calling for violence against others for merely disagreeing with you. -- * 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 20:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgdsoad833.44@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366295 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 12:30 PM, in article fhjgaiued83.a3bb@perch.invalid, "Octavian > W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >>> It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite >>> unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." >>> >> >> Yes I did. And you can. >> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html >> <quote> >> $32,500 >> Description: >> 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet >> </quote> >> >>> YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' >>> by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) >>> >> >> >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. > > You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! > Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? > I would say having good morals is more important... things such as NOT > calling for violence against others for merely disagreeing with you. > But nobody is interested in what you would say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0ABD8.79D4C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366297 |
On 8/22/16, 1:03 PM, in article hjgdsoad833.44@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 12:30 PM, in article fhjgaiued83.a3bb@perch.invalid, "Octavian >> W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite >>>> unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." >>>> >>> >>> Yes I did. And you can. >>> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html >>> <quote> >>> $32,500 >>> Description: >>> 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet >>> </quote> >>> >>>> YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' >>>> by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) >>>> >>> >>> >>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >> >> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! > > Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. What an absurd standard! You show you know this by your efforts to put me on the defensive. >> I would say having good morals is more important... things such as NOT >> calling for violence against others for merely disagreeing with you. > > But nobody is interested in what you would say. LOL! See how you work to move goal posts over and over and over. It is your tell when you know you have backed yourself into a corner. -- * 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 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bgdms.i3@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366300 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:03 PM, in article hjgdsoad833.44@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 12:30 PM, in article fhjgaiued83.a3bb@perch.invalid, "Octavian >>> W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite >>>>> unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes I did. And you can. >>>> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html >>>> <quote> >>>> $32,500 >>>> Description: >>>> 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>>> YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' >>>>> by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>> >>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >> >> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? > > The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" man? And why would a libtard tranny like you care either way? It's a subject that falls completely outside your realm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B157.79D58%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366302 |
On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>> >>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>> >>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >> >> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. > > Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" > man? OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your errors. > And why would a libtard tranny like you care either way? See: this is you just spewing random bigoted insults. > It's a subject that falls completely outside your realm. -- * 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 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghja0.ahouga46@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366303 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>>> >>>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>>> >>>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >>> >>> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. >> >> Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" >> man? > > OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without > insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your > errors. > OMG. You don't even know what a man is? See what this libtard culture rot has done to your mind? Repeat after me: Man has dick. Woman has pussy. >> And why would a libtard tranny like you care either way? > > See: this is you just spewing random bigoted insults. > >> It's a subject that falls completely outside your realm. > > Not random.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B6B1.79D63%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366307 |
On 8/22/16, 1:54 PM, in article ghja0.ahouga46@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>>>> >>>>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>>>> >>>>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >>>> >>>> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. >>> >>> Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" >>> man? >> >> OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without >> insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your >> errors. > > OMG. You don't even know what a man is? I am asking YOUR defintion. To me, as I already noted, I would say it is pretty much synonymous with a good man. But you disagreed... so what is YOUR definition? But, it is clear, you have dug your own grave AGAIN and will work to turn things around. ... -- * 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 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgdsau93.ajgi@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366309 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 1:54 PM, in article ghja0.ahouga46@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>>>>> >>>>>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >>>>> >>>>> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. >>>> >>>> Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" >>>> man? >>> >>> OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without >>> insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your >>> errors. >> >> OMG. You don't even know what a man is? > > I am asking YOUR defintion. To me, as I already noted, I would say it is > pretty much synonymous with a good man. But you disagreed... so what is YOUR > definition? > > But, it is clear, you have dug your own grave AGAIN and will work to turn > things around. > I just gave it to you. Man has dick. Woman has pussy. Why is this simple concept so hard for you to understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0B9F4.79D6A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366311 |
On 8/22/16, 2:09 PM, in article hjgdsau93.ajgi@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/22/16, 1:54 PM, in article ghja0.ahouga46@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>>>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >>>>>> >>>>>> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. >>>>> >>>>> Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" >>>>> man? >>>> >>>> OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without >>>> insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your >>>> errors. >>> >>> OMG. You don't even know what a man is? >> >> I am asking YOUR defintion. To me, as I already noted, I would say it is >> pretty much synonymous with a good man. But you disagreed... so what is YOUR >> definition? >> >> But, it is clear, you have dug your own grave AGAIN and will work to turn >> things around. >> > > I just gave it to you. Man has dick. Woman has pussy. Why is this > simple concept so hard for you to understand? > In other words NOTHING to do with cars. Your definition changed once you realize you dug your own grave. Got it. -- * 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 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjague93a.r3@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366313 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/22/16, 2:09 PM, in article hjgdsau93.ajgi@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. > Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/22/16, 1:54 PM, in article ghja0.ahouga46@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/16, 1:37 PM, in article bgdms.i3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. >>>>> Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>>>>>>>> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You define being a "good" man as knowing about cars. LOL! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again you lie. Where did I say anything about "good"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole "man card"... a "real" man knows about cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> Make up your mind about your lies. Is it a "good" man or a "real" >>>>>> man? >>>>> >>>>> OK, define what you mean by a "real man" - see if you can do this without >>>>> insults or accusations to try to put me on the defensive and obfuscate your >>>>> errors. >>>> >>>> OMG. You don't even know what a man is? >>> >>> I am asking YOUR defintion. To me, as I already noted, I would say it is >>> pretty much synonymous with a good man. But you disagreed... so what is YOUR >>> definition? >>> >>> But, it is clear, you have dug your own grave AGAIN and will work to turn >>> things around. >>> >> >> I just gave it to you. Man has dick. Woman has pussy. Why is this >> simple concept so hard for you to understand? >> > In other words NOTHING to do with cars. Your definition changed once you > realize you dug your own grave. Got it. > Nope. The corollary to the above is that Man likes pussy. Woman likes dick. 911 gets Man pussy (and in a pinch can substitute for pussy). Macan does not. Therefore Man chooses 911. Hence the demand to see the man card from some so-called man that would choose a Macan instead, even when choosing between a used 911 and a new Macan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E0C150.79D78%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366318 |
On 8/22/16, 2:46 PM, in article fhjague93a.r3@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >>>> But, it is clear, you have dug your own grave AGAIN and will work to turn >>>> things around. >>>> >>> >>> I just gave it to you. Man has dick. Woman has pussy. Why is this >>> simple concept so hard for you to understand? >>> >> In other words NOTHING to do with cars. Your definition changed once you >> realize you dug your own grave. Got it. > > Nope. The corollary to the above is that Man likes pussy. Woman likes > dick. Before you noted what they HAVE... now you are speaking of what they WANT. Your silly assumption is a gay person is not a "real" man (or woman?). That is absurd... and bigoted. > 911 gets Man pussy (and in a pinch can substitute for pussy). That is not a pretty picture! > Macan does not. Therefore Man chooses 911. Ah, your definition included being amazingly shallow! > Hence the demand to see the man card from some so-called man that would choose > a Macan instead, even when choosing between a used 911 and a new Macan. In other words you went from physical description to knowing / caring about cars. You have changed your definition HEAVILY. -- * 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 | 2016-08-22 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e37c308-7c0a-4ca6-ab7a-233687c2ce3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366292 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> -hh wrote: > >> > 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? > > > > It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite > > unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." > > Yes I did. And you can. > http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html > <quote> > $32,500 > Description: > 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet > </quote> One *CAN* also survive falling out of an airplane without a parachute without dying too ... but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea. And even from your own cite, there was only but one example out of n=31 listed for under $40K...a 3% incidence rate, if you ignore that the ad avoids mileage, etc. As such, the first comment still applies: "$30K? What's wrong with it?" > > YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' > > by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) > > I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. > As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. And yet you did say 'man card'. > >> And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? > > > > I did? Cite please! More silence. Shocking. > >> LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. > > > > It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some > > are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate > > FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to > > spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving > > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... > > A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. > > so long as the books being done aren't being cooked for the Mob, > > what's so bad about that kind of life? ;-) > > > > Ha! So now you have a 911 too. Pics or it didn't happen. Maybe, or maybe not: the above contained no such specific claim. Nor have you made it worth my while. > >> > 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. > > > > Oh really? Cite please. > > In the very post where you quote "OMG. I missed a line!" Oh, an admission of a deliberate dodge: Check. > >> > 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. > > > > Reminding you to actually check on what was actually > > previously said is hardly "back out". > > So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. And > now you also have a 911. What don't you have? What I don't have is a good reason to run Linux OS. > >> > 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. > > > > Where your definition of "false" is to cite 45 CFR 46? > > Where did I do that? > > >> 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 ... > > > > Really? Are you really sure that that's what you _remember_? > > > > Particularly since you've been reminded to check on your > > other 'recollections'? Better go check on this one too. > > > > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > > significance... that having more choices correlates to > > making _lower quality_ decisions." > > > > Still hasn't been scientifically debunked. > > I described a thought experiment ... A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. As such, you've still failed to debunk: "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 | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhje0938q.3u@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366319 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> -hh wrote: >> >> > 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? >> > >> > It originally wasn't, but you nevertheless said quite >> > unambiguously "...you can find 993's in the 30's." >> >> Yes I did. And you can. >> http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/porsche/993/1866047.html >> <quote> >> $32,500 >> Description: >> 1995 Porsche 993 Cabriolet >> </quote> > > One *CAN* also survive falling out of an airplane without > a parachute without dying too ... but that doesn't mean that > it is a good idea. > The fact remains that what I said was true. You can find 993's in the 30s. Only one a hemmings, but it's a big internet. > And even from your own cite, there was only but one example > out of n=31 listed for under $40K...a 3% incidence rate, if > you ignore that the ad avoids mileage, etc. As such, the > first comment still applies: "$30K? What's wrong with it?" > So what? Even a cabriolet that might need work is better than a Macan. > >> > YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' >> > by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) >> >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. > > And yet you did say 'man card'. > Doesn't take a supercar to validate a man card. > >> >> And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? >> > >> > I did? Cite please! > > More silence. Shocking. > That was a question, moron. See the question mark? That was your hint that it was a question. >> >> LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. >> > >> > It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some >> > are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate >> > FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to >> > spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving >> > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... >> >> A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". > > And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. > Uh. Any actual SUV. Macan is one of those retarded crossovers. >> > so long as the books being done aren't being cooked for the Mob, >> > what's so bad about that kind of life? ;-) >> > >> >> Ha! So now you have a 911 too. Pics or it didn't happen. > > Maybe, or maybe not: the above contained no such specific > claim. Nor have you made it worth my while. > Dodge. >> >> > 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. >> > >> > Oh really? Cite please. >> >> In the very post where you quote "OMG. I missed a line!" > > Oh, an admission of a deliberate dodge: Check. > > How is pointing you to the answer to your question a "dodge"? >> >> > 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. >> > >> > Reminding you to actually check on what was actually >> > previously said is hardly "back out". >> >> So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. And >> now you also have a 911. What don't you have? > > What I don't have is a good reason to run Linux OS. > Dodge. >> >> > 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. >> > >> > Where your definition of "false" is to cite 45 CFR 46? >> >> Where did I do that? >> >> >> 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 ... >> > >> > Really? Are you really sure that that's what you _remember_? >> > >> > Particularly since you've been reminded to check on your >> > other 'recollections'? Better go check on this one too. >> > >> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical >> > significance... that having more choices correlates to >> > making _lower quality_ decisions." >> > >> > Still hasn't been scientifically debunked. >> >> I described a thought experiment ... > > A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, > particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. > The feds don't have to be involved for something to qualify as "science." They also don't have to be involved for funding. Even at this level, a curious billionaire could personally fund the experiment out of pocket. > As such, you've still failed to debunk: > > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > significance... that having more choices correlates to > making _lower quality_ decisions." > You failed to prove that assertion. Statistical evidence that is of insufficient scope is useless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 17:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9815604d-f907-4a10-9d69-8915e7073ef3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366325 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:29:34 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: > > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > >> ... > > > > One *CAN* also survive falling out of an airplane without > > a parachute without dying too ... but that doesn't mean that > > it is a good idea. > > The fact remains that what I said was true. And so too for my observation that one can also survive falling out of an airplane without a parachute ... but that fact doesn't mean that it is a generally expected outcome, as you tried to imply. > > And even from your own cite, there was only but one example > > out of n=31 listed for under $40K...a 3% incidence rate, if > > you ignore that the ad avoids mileage, etc. As such, the > > first comment still applies: "$30K? What's wrong with it?" > > > > So what? Even a cabriolet that might need work is better > than a Macan. Depends on how much work, so as to satisfy "basic transportation" threshold needs. Plus as what was already stated, a 911 just isn't a great hauler of stuff, nor even just four adults: definitions of "better" are a personal YMMV. > >> > YMMV to what degree you already forfeited your 'man card' > >> > by not suggesting a 993 in the first place ;-) > >> > >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. > >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. > > > > And yet you did say 'man card'. > > Doesn't take a supercar to validate a man card. Nope, hence the 993. > >> >> And didn't you say something once about being an accountant? > >> > > >> > I did? Cite please! > > > > More silence. Shocking. > > That was a question, moron. See the question mark? That was > your hint that it was a question. See my question mark too? Once again, you should double-check your citation sources, particularly for reading comprehension errors. > >> >> LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. > >> > > >> > It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some > >> > are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate > >> > FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to > >> > spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving > >> > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... > >> > >> A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". > > > > And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. > > Uh. Any actual SUV. Macan is one of those retarded crossovers. Spoken like someone who's never lived with a big old SUV to know their downsides. > >> > so long as the books being done aren't being cooked for the Mob, > >> > what's so bad about that kind of life? ;-) > >> > > >> > >> Ha! So now you have a 911 too. Pics or it didn't happen. > > > > Maybe, or maybe not: the above contained no such specific > > claim. Nor have you made it worth my while. > > Dodge. Actually, a re-emphasis of the facts. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > Oh really? Cite please. > >> > >> In the very post where you quote "OMG. I missed a line!" > > > > Oh, an admission of a deliberate dodge: Check. > > How is pointing you to the answer to your question a "dodge"? Merely by using your own ruler on you. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > Reminding you to actually check on what was actually > >> > previously said is hardly "back out". > >> > >> So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. And > >> now you also have a 911. What don't you have? > > > > What I don't have is a good reason to run Linux OS. > > Dodge. Merely a more on-topic point within COLA. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > Where your definition of "false" is to cite 45 CFR 46? > >> > >> Where did I do that? > >> > >> >> 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 ... > >> > > >> > Really? Are you really sure that that's what you _remember_? > >> > > >> > Particularly since you've been reminded to check on your > >> > other 'recollections'? Better go check on this one too. > >> > > >> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > >> > significance... that having more choices correlates to > >> > making _lower quality_ decisions." > >> > > >> > Still hasn't been scientifically debunked. > >> > >> I described a thought experiment ... > > > > A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, > > particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. > > The feds don't have to be involved for something to qualify > as "science." They also don't have to be involved for funding. > Even at this level, a curious billionaire could personally > fund the experiment out of pocket. Such as what Facebook did around a bit over year ago ... and for which those involved caught hell. Need a cite? > > As such, you've still failed to debunk: > > > > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical > > significance... that having more choices correlates to > > making _lower quality_ decisions." > > You failed to prove that assertion. Statistical evidence > that is of insufficient scope is useless. Sorry, but in peer review land, you have no weight. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pxfhjvu49.866@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366336 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:29:34 PM UTC-4, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> ... >> > >> >> >> >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >> >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >> > >> > And yet you did say 'man card'. >> >> Doesn't take a supercar to validate a man card. > > Nope, hence the 993. > Doesn't take a 993 to validate a man card either. Any 911 will do. Macan won't do it though. LOL. Did the salesman promise you that it would? > >> >> >> LOL if that doesn't scream "My life sucks!" I dont' know what does. >> >> > >> >> > It merely depends on what one wants out of life. While some >> >> > are content to never travel out of Mommy's basement and donate >> >> > FOSS code, if being an accountant means that one is able to >> >> > spend weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving >> >> > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... >> >> >> >> A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". >> > >> > And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. >> >> Uh. Any actual SUV. Macan is one of those retarded crossovers. > > Spoken like someone who's never lived with a big old SUV to know > their downsides. > Doesn't need to be a "big old SUV" to be an SUV. But those planed-off "crossovers" don't meet the bar. >> >> >> >> So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. And >> >> now you also have a 911. What don't you have? >> > >> > What I don't have is a good reason to run Linux OS. >> >> Dodge. > > Merely a more on-topic point within COLA. > But off-topic for this thread, hence the label "dodge". >> >> >> >> I described a thought experiment ... >> > >> > A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, >> > particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. >> >> The feds don't have to be involved for something to qualify >> as "science." They also don't have to be involved for funding. >> Even at this level, a curious billionaire could personally >> fund the experiment out of pocket. > > Such as what Facebook did around a bit over year ago ... and > for which those involved caught hell. Need a cite? > Not at all analogous. > >> > As such, you've still failed to debunk: >> > >> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical >> > significance... that having more choices correlates to >> > making _lower quality_ decisions." >> >> You failed to prove that assertion. Statistical evidence >> that is of insufficient scope is useless. > > Sorry, but in peer review land, you have no weight. > Sorry, but peers are free to review the research without the government's approval.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abc10667-7130-4967-b6a9-871ca4f9116e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #366338 |
Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: > -hh wrote: >> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> >> ... > >> >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>> >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>> > >> > And yet you did say 'man card'. >>> >>> Doesn't take a supercar to validate a man card. >> >> Nope, hence the 993. > > Doesn't take a 993 to validate a man card either. Any 911 will do. Including water cooled ones? Got a cite for that? >>> >> > .., if being an accountant means that one is able to spend >>> >> > weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving >>> >> > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... >>> >> >>> >> A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". >>> > >>> > And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. >>> >>> Uh. Any actual SUV. Macan is one of those retarded crossovers. >> >> Spoken like someone who's never lived with a big old SUV to know >> their downsides. > > Doesn't need to be a "big old SUV" to be an SUV. > But those planed-off "crossovers" don't meet the bar. Which is some undefined "bar" of your very arbitrary choosing, right? Lack of quantitativeness noted. >>> >> So you don't have a Macan. But you do have a Macan. >>> >> And now you also have a 911. What don't you have? >>> > >>> > What I don't have is a good reason to run Linux OS. >>> >>> Dodge. >> >> Merely a more on-topic point within COLA. > > But off-topic for this thread, hence the label "dodge". Whining on how your off-topic goalpost drag got sidetracked back to being on-topic: priceless. >>> >> I described a thought experiment ... >>> > >>> > A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, >>> > particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. >>> >>> The feds don't have to be involved for something to qualify >>> as "science." They also don't have to be involved for funding. >>> Even at this level, a curious billionaire could personally >>> fund the experiment out of pocket. >> >> Such as what Facebook did around a bit over year ago ... and >> for which those involved caught hell. Need a cite? > > Not at all analogous. Sorry, but all meet the same legal definition of Human Subject Research. The Fed's rules are simply the strictest... BTW, have you found any prohibition yet in 45 CFR 46 on using money yet? >>> > As such, you've still failed to debunk: >>> > >>> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical >>> > significance... that having more choices correlates to >>> > making _lower quality_ decisions." >>> >>> You failed to prove that assertion. Statistical evidence >>> that is of insufficient scope is useless. >> >> Sorry, but in peer review land, you have no weight. > > Sorry, but peers are free to review the research without > the government's approval. Scientific ones, sure ... but you've still not demonstrated that you have any standing for that, either. Sucks to be you, with your envy of mere rumors being worn on your shirt sleeve. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 12:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgadu939.afju@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #366342 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>>> -hh wrote: >>>> > Octavian W. Lagrange wrote: >>> >> ... >> >> >> I said a "recent 911." There aren't any "recent" 993's. >>>> >> As for man card, I didn't suggest a Carrera GT either. Or a 918. >>>> > >>> > And yet you did say 'man card'. >>>> >>>> Doesn't take a supercar to validate a man card. >>> >>> Nope, hence the 993. >> >> Doesn't take a 993 to validate a man card either. Any 911 will do. > > Including water cooled ones? Got a cite for that? > Men don't need cites. >>>> >> > .., if being an accountant means that one is able to spend >>>> >> > weeks on holiday in Europe and elsewhere while also driving >>>> >> > a 911 ... and hey, also a Macan for when an SUV is needed ... >>>> >> >>>> >> A Macan is a shitty excuse for an "SUV". >>>> > >>>> > And the approved alternatives are ... oh, right: more silence. >>>> >>>> Uh. Any actual SUV. Macan is one of those retarded crossovers. >>> >>> Spoken like someone who's never lived with a big old SUV to know >>> their downsides. >> >> Doesn't need to be a "big old SUV" to be an SUV. >> But those planed-off "crossovers" don't meet the bar. > > Which is some undefined "bar" of your very arbitrary choosing, > right? Lack of quantitativeness noted. > You could always get a bumper sticker for your Macan that says, "Real men don't care if they can't afford a 911." > >>>> >> I described a thought experiment ... >>>> > >>>> > A "plan" isn't an actual peer reviewed research paper, >>>> > particularly when it would constitute HSR as per 45 CFR 46. >>>> >>>> The feds don't have to be involved for something to qualify >>>> as "science." They also don't have to be involved for funding. >>>> Even at this level, a curious billionaire could personally >>>> fund the experiment out of pocket. >>> >>> Such as what Facebook did around a bit over year ago ... and >>> for which those involved caught hell. Need a cite? >> >> Not at all analogous. > > Sorry, but all meet the same legal definition of Human Subject > Research. The Fed's rules are simply the strictest... BTW, have > you found any prohibition yet in 45 CFR 46 on using money yet? > Sorry, but 45 CFR 46 has no authority over my research. >>>> > As such, you've still failed to debunk: >>>> > >>>> > "that the relevant research has shown ...with statistical >>>> > significance... that having more choices correlates to >>>> > making _lower quality_ decisions." >>>> >>>> You failed to prove that assertion. Statistical evidence >>>> that is of insufficient scope is useless. >>> >>> Sorry, but in peer review land, you have no weight. >> >> Sorry, but peers are free to review the research without >> the government's approval. > > Scientific ones, sure ... but you've still not demonstrated that > you have any standing for that, either. Sucks to be you, with > your envy of mere rumors being worn on your shirt sleeve. > You have not demonstrated that someone with such standing would be prohibited from conducting this research, or be prohibited from publishing his findings, or be automatically discredited.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3E09DB6.79D38%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #366288 |
On 8/22/16, 11:48 AM, in article ghjdau9f3.hgg@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
...
> 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).
What I found funny was how you crumbled when it was explained to you how
your thought experiment did NOT actually debunk science AND, even with it,
you made a case AGAIANST desktop 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.
--
* 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]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web