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 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#448422 — [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse.

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".

-- 
"Thus, we once again see what is so wrong with Linux:  the Community's
intolerant bigots and bullies who think that YELLING LOUDER is the way
to attract customers."  -  lying asshole "-hh"

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#448516

chrisv 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".

*crickets*

Check-out the -highhorse "logic" that concludes that GNU/Linux
"sucks".  There's no other possible reasonable conclusion!

Of course, the asshole's premise is gibberish, and the conclusion
pulled from his ass.  The question of a company dumping Windows is not
so simple, *obviously*.

Sheesh.

-- 
'When a knownledgeable customer who does have thousands upon thousands
of identical seats that don't have the non-obscure use case won't
adopt your product even when it is "Free", what possible reasonable
conclusion exists other than the "Free" product sucks?'  -  lying
asshole "-hh"

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

#448524 — Another Hero Worship Thread from the PWNED loser (was: [Troll] Admit to your Photoshop lies, -highhorse.)

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv 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.)

(Please see Note 1 at end)

> >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".

'"Photoshop in particular is the most grossly over-hyped and 
ridiculously expensive software ever created..."   -Homer 

I don't see where that has any accommodation for Pro's in that 
statement...do you?' 

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/uGN0bwpcFLg/-QddwB6fAAAJ>

Nor any other exception (such as for 'Serious Amateurs') accommodations.

Similarly,

"Photoshop too expensive?  Ya think?  :-)" 
  - Chris Ahlstrom 

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/P32TWntCDtU/gekj8Uds9KAJ>

No exceptions acknowledged here either.   


> *crickets*

Sorry, you're just not a priority.  This week's busy with completing
the annual performance reviews on four scientific PhD's who work for me.

Since you claim to have only a BSEE, if you were to work for me here, your 
job would be to maintain the physical plant, supervise the janitor, launder 
the white labcoats, & otherwise do whatever chores the PhD's say needs doing.  


Note 1:  the statement means that claims of 'snipped, unread' has to
be false, since this is noting that a portion of the post *was* read. 


Bottom line remains the same:  if chrisv don't want to be called out and 
end up butthurt pwned again for saying stupid stuff...the remedy is to 
stop saying stupid stuff. 


-hh

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

#448527

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Sorry, -highhorse, but you will never "pwn" anyone, with your lies.

You should "man up" and admit to your lies, -highhorse.  It's not like
we don't already know...

-- 
'The recurring pattern is that the killfile "announcer" allegedly
performs his act only after they've very obviously lost a debate on
its merits:  the act of plonking is a reliable sign of an illogical
and a sore loser.'  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

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

#448529

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11:45:28 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> 
> > (snipped, unread)
> 
> Sorry, -highhorse, but you will never "pwn" anyone...

Gosh kids, if chrisv did actually "snip, unread", then how did he
possibly know that him being pnwed was part of the post?

Once again, chrisv's actions prove his words to be a lie.

Pwned^2.


-hh

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

#448602

On 2018-04-19, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Sorry, -highhorse, but you will never "pwn" anyone, with your lies.
>
> You should "man up" and admit to your lies, -highhorse.  It's not like
> we don't already know...

Typical troll tactic. Self-claimed victory, self-delusional BS.

-- 
The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.

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

#448601

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.  

-- 
The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.

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

#448603

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:10:47 PM UTC-4, RonB 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? 

Nope!  The butthurt OP was chrisv.


-hh

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

#448664

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.

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

#448677

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

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

#448683

-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

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

#448686

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:47:58 PM UTC-7, owl 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



Seriously, what lie? Several people keep replying to Allie Higley. To be clear, I do not denounce VPN God Marek for his animosity but, frankly, I can't explain why he posts here after all this nonsense. VPN God Marek is far more interested in conversations as experienced in a BBS group and advocacy environments just aren't it. 

You can say I am Satan himself for all I care. Allie Higley is five seconds away from being in everyone's kill filter. 

Already moved on from that. You are too slow! Allie Higley can't get anything else to work, either. These posts are clearly not automated, they are made by a glue sniffing insomniac with a personal vendetta who has way too much time on his hands. 

--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc
https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
Jonas Eklundh Communication

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

#448721

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-7, Steven Petruzzellis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:47:58 PM UTC-7, owl 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
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what lie? Several people keep replying to Allie Higley. To be clear, I do not denounce VPN God Marek for his animosity but, frankly, I can't explain why he posts here after all this nonsense. VPN God Marek is far more interested in conversations as experienced in a BBS group and advocacy environments just aren't it. 
> 
> You can say I am Satan himself for all I care. Allie Higley is five seconds away from being in everyone's kill filter. 
> 
> Already moved on from that. You are too slow! Allie Higley can't get anything else to work, either. These posts are clearly not automated, they are made by a glue sniffing insomniac with a personal vendetta who has way too much time on his hands. 
> 
> --
> What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
> https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc
> https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
> https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
> Jonas Eklundh Communication



No no. Autumn 'The Shill' Nissen never agreed to stop accusing good people of being like him. He lied about his trolling of course. This is something you know nothing about. The entire burlesque is full of ridiculous gaps and leans heavily on Autumn 'The Shill' Nissen's 'many certificates' nonsense. 

Time to blame the Russians! 

Studying Linux... forever an initiate... 

- 
Top Six Ways Autumn 'The Shill' Nissen Trolls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xD43Khhkw
http://www.5z8.info/boobs_j0v3qo_dont-just-drizzle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffkiSAsYo8
Jonas Eklundh

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

#448690

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

If one is an idiot, like you, one will just select the foreground, invert
the selection, and then apply a tonal correction curve to the selection.
The GIMP can do this nicely.

But an idiot, like you, would not realize that such a procedure is,
in general, IMPOSSIBLE.  If the background is overexposed by +2EV,
with the foreground exhibiting a balanced tonal histogram, then the
likelihood is very high that many pixels are already "blown out"
and have reached maximum intensity.  Any further tonal compensation
of the background region would yield a visually awkward and unnatural
effect.

The intelligent photographer (that's NOT you) would entirely prevent
such an occurrence by taking a series of bracketing exposures to capture
the entire dynamic range.  Most recent digital SLR cameras have a
automatic bracketing procedure but it also be done manually.  Then, the
image series is processed with the GNU/Linux pfstools:

http://pfstools.sourceforge.net

The result is a single conventional image (not HDR) that captures the
full dynamic range of the original scene.

Furthermore, using GNU/Linux, the pfstools step can be incorporated
into a fully automated method.  Just plug your camera card into a
GNU/Linux machine and perfectly processed images will result automatically.

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

#448719

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, F. Russell wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 
> If one is an idiot, like you, one will just select the foreground, invert
> the selection, and then apply a tonal correction curve to the selection.
> The GIMP can do this nicely.
> 
> But an idiot, like you, would not realize that such a procedure is,
> in general, IMPOSSIBLE.  If the background is overexposed by +2EV,
> with the foreground exhibiting a balanced tonal histogram, then the
> likelihood is very high that many pixels are already "blown out"
> and have reached maximum intensity.  Any further tonal compensation
> of the background region would yield a visually awkward and unnatural
> effect.
> 
> The intelligent photographer (that's NOT you) would entirely prevent
> such an occurrence by taking a series of bracketing exposures to capture
> the entire dynamic range.  Most recent digital SLR cameras have a
> automatic bracketing procedure but it also be done manually.  Then, the
> image series is processed with the GNU/Linux pfstools:
> 
> http://pfstools.sourceforge.net
> 
> The result is a single conventional image (not HDR) that captures the
> full dynamic range of the original scene.
> 
> Furthermore, using GNU/Linux, the pfstools step can be incorporated
> into a fully automated method.  Just plug your camera card into a
> GNU/Linux machine and perfectly processed images will result automatically.



You're like a school bus in a bike rack. We all see you hiding there and wonder how you can be so stupid. And you're so stupid you keep denying it. 

Regardless of my deep feelings about Fedora, I continue to use it for clients who've had difficulties with OS X, especially if I have learned that they're not reasonably savvy at navigating the web and ignoring of all of the online threats. 

Proof Deplorable 'The Moron' Owl accuses everyone of being Snit http://sandman.net/files/snit_circus.png. Just absurd trolling. And I am responding to that trolling. THAT is what the "Deplorable 'The Moron' Owl circus" is. Autumn Nissen of Prescott Valley can create a virtual machine. Make sure to send him a gold star! 

I thought showing someone I know where he lives might help the situation. It did not. 

--
Live on Kickstarter
http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h
https://youtu.be/UkAyrfOZaXc
http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex
Jonas Eklundh Communication

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

#448814

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.

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

#448815

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* people need this? That even 30% of users seek 
to do this?

> This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo
> studios.

Also a lot of home and small business use.

> 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.

For that or for many other needs... or even if you just want "lower end" 
needs done well. Heck, look at how Owl mocks me over rotating images or 
"flyers". Simple stuff.

Does not mean, of course, that Linux does not shine in some areas, too. 
It absolutely does. Its CLI is second to none, for example.

> 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. I used to teach Photoshop 
classes at a college -- if only 1% wanted to use it their would not be 
enough students for such a class.

> 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.

If you think they are inferior that is cool. And use what you like.

But why not speak of what tasks you think they handle less well? When 
you just spew they are "inferior" it demonstrates your insecurity.

> 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.

Linux is cheap. Free even. And likely fewer people use it on the desktop 
than use Photoshop, even with it being a very expensive package.




-- 
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]

#448853

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! Said the loony hypocrite fresh off this exchange:

Me: "There are people who do and many of them are software developers."

(note I said "many")

You: "Many. OK, sure. But most... no."

(no one said "most" until you brought it up)

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/a0F7Q33myPA/6B22XGrzCQAJ>

It was another 'coming down off drugs' day for you again, wasn't it? ;)

>  people need this? That even 30% of users seek 
> to do this?
> 
> > This is mainly done professionally in print shops or photo
> > studios.
> 
> Also a lot of home and small business use.

Where did he say they weren't home based shops/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.
> 
> For that or for many other needs... or even if you just want "lower end" 
> needs done well. Heck, look at how Owl mocks me over rotating images or 
> "flyers". Simple stuff.
> 
> Does not mean, of course, that Linux does not shine in some areas, too. 
> It absolutely does. Its CLI is second to none, for example.
> 
> > 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).

> I used to teach Photoshop 
> classes at a college -- if only 1% wanted to use it their would not be 
> enough students for such a class.

OK, you're actually scaring me now. There aren't any sharp instruments laying 
around, are there?

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

#448856

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". You opted, 
instead, to troll and move goal posts to people who are developers.

...
>>> 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... 
and, sure, you can play semantic games with the word "want" and "need" 
but, frankly, I do not care.

>> I used to teach Photoshop
>> classes at a college -- if only 1% wanted to use it their would not be
>> enough students for such a class.
>
> OK, you're actually scaring me now. There aren't any sharp instruments laying
> around, are there?

I see you have not grown up one iota in the years I did not respond to you.


-- 
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]

#448866

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.

> >>> 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.

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

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

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

csiph-web