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 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#449024

-hh wrote:

>>-- 
>>"Specifically, (advocates) whine about how Photoshop costs 600 and is
>>a waste, while claiming that the same capabilities can be accomplished
>>for free."  -  asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
>
> (snipped, unread)

What was really amazing was when DumFSck saw the above pack of lies,
and came riding to -highhorse's rescue, using the ages-old troll-trick
of pretending that the dispute was over the *one* part of the
statement that was *not* in dispute, that advocates had "whined" about
Photoshop's price.

"Where's the lie, turd?", the dumb fsck wrote, then proceeded to quote
some advocates mentioning Photoshop's price.

Happily accepting DumFSck's idiotic, self-serving assumption of what
claims were being disputed, and ignoring all other claims made in the
statement, -highhorse then declared that "Unfortunately, lying is all
that chrisv has".

So, -highhorse, who in fact, lied and lied to attack decent,
reasonable people, was "the good guy", falsely accused.  I, who did
nothing but point-out some blatant lying about what advocates have
claimed, was "the bad guy", the "liar".

Sheesh!

But this *proof positive* of what a *liar* and *asshole* -highhorse
is, probably only shows that I am "pwned".  -highhorse wins again!  He
says so!

Guffaw.

-- 
"What's more unfortunate is the sheer close-mindedness that goes into
their irrational hate of an inanimate object.  Personally, I have no
particular love for Photoshop's pricetag either, but that doesn't mean
that I'll globally reject it for all possible consumers...particularly
on the basis of nothing but its price."  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying
shamelessly

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

#449043

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:44:44 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> 
> >>-- 
> >>"Specifically, (advocates) whine about how Photoshop costs 600 and is
> >>a waste, while claiming that the same capabilities can be accomplished
> >>for free."  -  asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
> >
> > (snipped, unread)
> 
> What was really amazing was when DumFSck ...

No, what's really amazing is that the headers of this post from
chrisv, which can be seen here:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/4i4rVC77dvM/cQ52vSIdAAAJ>

Clearly has listed as its last reference Message-ID: "<b2446d33-9149-44b9-812f-0dbb0908973b@googlegroups.com>"

Which can be read in its original form in its entirety here:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/4i4rVC77dvM/giztsWEaAAAJ>

This is important because it does not in fact contain the
'...Photoshop costs 600...' bit that chrisv alleges is being
quoted in nested reference.

In other words, chrisv inserted a quote into a cite which doesn't exist.

And readers can independently verify this via the provided links.

> But this *proof positive* of what a *liar* and *asshole* -highhorse
> is, probably only shows that I am "pwned".  -highhorse wins again!  He
> says so!

Well, you've just been caught deliberately altering quoted text.  
Which makes it pretty damn clear just who the shameless liar is.


-hh

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

#449046

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

What I wrote is disputable.  I'm not going to read your garbage.

When you are ready to "man up" and admit to your lies, put it in the
subject, so I'll see it.

-- 
'whenever there is touch labor being invested, if it isn't a "zero"
expense, then the 'Linux is free' claim becomes untrue.'  -  lying
asshole "-hh"

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

#449048

chrisv wrote:

>-hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
>What I wrote is disputable. 

Dammit, I meant "indisputable", obviously.

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

#449074

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> 
> > (snipped, unread)
> 
> What I wrote is disputable.  

Yes, it most certainly was indisputable.  That's why I highlighted it.


> I'm not going to read your garbage.

Oh, but of course not!   /S

Just like how you're also not going to be driving your old beater of a Ford Fiesta 
tomorrow, to that Windows PC job that you're enslaved to and that you hate (&
why you cuss so much on COLA).


> When you are ready to "man up" and admit to your lies, put it in the
> subject, so I'll see it.

LOL!   Sorry, but you're not in any position to demand anything of me, or of
anyone else for that matter.  

> 'whenever there is touch labor being invested, if it isn't a "zero"
> expense, then the 'Linux is free' claim becomes untrue.'  -  lying
> asshole "-hh"

Personally, I preferred the quip of noting that since his free time is worth so little 
to him ... to "COME MOW MY LAWN".



-hh

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

#449075

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:03:34 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:03:07 PM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> > 
> > > (snipped, unread)
> > 
> > What I wrote is disputable.  
> 
> Yes, it most certainly was indisputable.  That's why I highlighted it.
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to read your garbage.
> 
> Oh, but of course not!   /S
> 
> Just like how you're also not going to be driving your old beater of a Ford Fiesta 
> tomorrow, to that Windows PC job that you're enslaved to and that you hate (&
> why you cuss so much on COLA).
> 
> 
> > When you are ready to "man up" and admit to your lies, put it in the
> > subject, so I'll see it.
> 
> LOL!   Sorry, but you're not in any position to demand anything of me, or of
> anyone else for that matter.  
> 
> > 'whenever there is touch labor being invested, if it isn't a "zero"
> > expense, then the 'Linux is free' claim becomes untrue.'  -  lying
> > asshole "-hh"
> 
> Personally, I preferred the quip of noting that since his free time is worth so little 
> to him ... to "COME MOW MY LAWN".
> 
> 
> 
> -hh



Autumn Nissen and the advocates insist looking for guidance for an RMS-approved application is instigating. Time to blame the cult-like herd of convenient friends! 

What I do is certainly more productive. 

--
Get Rich Slow!
https://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh Communication

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

#449098

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

What's it like, to be a proven liar, whose word means nothing,
-highhorse?  Are you proud of yourself?  Fancy yourself a "good
person", do you?

-- 
'It doesn't matter that Linux's share was unchanged and logically not
hurt:  the logic here is that Apple's gain in share "morally" belonged
to Linux.'  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

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

#449100

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:05:07 AM UTC-7, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> 
> > (snipped, unread)
> 
> What's it like, to be a proven liar, whose word means nothing,
> -highhorse?  Are you proud of yourself?  Fancy yourself a "good
> person", do you?
> 
> -- 
> 'It doesn't matter that Linux's share was unchanged and logically not
> hurt:  the logic here is that Apple's gain in share "morally" belonged
> to Linux.'  -  lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly



Total garbage by an uninformed, tall-tale telling, Machiavellian, conspiring nitwit who would not be honest even if he swore on his mother's grave. 

By getting an education from 'authority figures' like that you get phrases like 'affirmative action'. Carried to its (un)reasonable progression, the concept that it's 'discrimination' for a straight guy to not wish to date a dead body is instituted. Who doesn't know that this kind of hokum is Steve 'The Fool' Carroll's modus operandi, not the approach of Krystal Lynn? It is all just projection... the endless posting, the forging, the writing of word-twisted nonsense, the anger... the puffy red eyes and willingness to show how distressed he is over being booted from the schoolyard for pooping in it again... Steve 'The Fool' Carroll can not help himself ;) 

Was that meant to be your best shot? 

The herd's reverse compiled Elementary OS with (it appears) the Baum–Welch method to regurgitate texts which are not unlike those from Krystal Lynn's. 

Ha! Give it up, man... even you have filtered that moron. Given what he is nary a soul would condemn you for seeking to be rid of his monstrous style of craziness. And why the added task to send a request via Elementary OS in an embedded system? Of course, he didn't list this as part of his never ending expansion of 'standard' <shrug>. 

--
Live on Kickstarter
http://www.5z8.info/yourdick_v1o3ww_manhunter
Jonas Eklundh Communication

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

#448832

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, 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

Yes, and a mask is a layer.  It goes back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and 
similar darkroom techniques, such as can be seen here:

<https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work> 


FWIW, I assume your mask was just a quick & dirty job for purposes of creating an example
and that Marketable can do much better - - BTW, I had researched DT awhile back and had
read that its support had been discontinued?   Is it back, or am I thinking of a different FOSS
app that went stale?


-hh

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

#448837

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, 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
> 
> Yes, and a mask is a layer.  It goes back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and 
> similar darkroom techniques, such as can be seen here:
> 
> <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I assume your mask was just a quick & dirty job for purposes of creating an example
> and that Marketable can do much better

Yes, that was a quick workup.  I've never used it before.  Probably should have watched
this beforehand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKknBy5lX7I

> - - BTW, I had researched DT awhile back and had
> read that its support had been discontinued?   Is it back, or am I thinking of a different FOSS
> app that went stale?
> 

darktable development appears to be active. 
https://www.darktable.org/
https://github.com/darktable-org/

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

#448840

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-4, owl wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, owl wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> >> >> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
> >> >> >> posts so aggressively.  
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
> >> >> >> following the detection of any lies.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
> >> >> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
> >> >> >> close-mindedness".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
> >> >> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
> >> >> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
> >> >> 
> >> >> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
> >> >> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
> >> > 
> >> > Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
> >> > a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
> >> > or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
> >> > product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
> >> > & Elements, etc.  
> >> > 
> >> > Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a
> >> > composition where you have a subject in the foreground 
> >> > that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
> >> > overexposed and you want to effectively balance the 
> >> > presentation by decreasing the exposure of the background 
> >> > portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
> >> > Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this
> >> > sort of task with this workflow.
> >> > 
> >> > -hh
> >> 
> >> darktable and a mask.
> >> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
> > 
> > Yes, and a mask is a layer.  It goes back to the paradigms
> > of stacked acetates and similar darkroom techniques, such
> > as can be seen here:
> > 
> > <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work> 
> > 
> > 
> > FWIW, I assume your mask was just a quick & dirty job for 
> > purposes of creating an example and that Marketable can do much better
> 
> Yes, that was a quick workup.  I've never used it before.  

Using masks & adjustment layers are a very powerful tool to 
adjust a photo that ideally would have been better photographed
separately (foreground / background).  



> Probably should have watched this beforehand:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKknBy5lX7I

The good news is that the more that one practices the techniques
for masking the quicker/easier it becomes with the App's tools.  
I just did two instances of one ~2 weeks ago where the foreground 
subject was wearing black in front of a projection screen, which 
was (naturally) blown out...took ~15 minutes from the original
photos to make two adjusted ones to choose from.  AFAIC, it wasn't
a very good job due to mask edge artifacts, but it was good enough
for the usage & short deadline.  The others were unaware that such 
an adjustment could even be made, so they thought it was fabulous.



> > - - BTW, I had researched DT awhile back and had
> > read that its support had been discontinued?   Is it back,
> > or am I thinking of a different FOSS app that went stale?
> > 
> 
> darktable development appears to be active. 
> https://www.darktable.org/
> https://github.com/darktable-org/


Checked back into the archives ... it was "blueMarine" at the time 
which I had found had apparently gone dormant.


-hh

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

#448846

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-4, owl wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, owl wrote:
>> >> -hh wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:30:21 PM UTC-4, a.m wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:10:44 -0000 (UTC), RonB
>> >> >> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> >On 2018-04-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Admit to your Photoshop lies, and I'll try not to "snip, unread" your
>> >> >> >> posts so aggressively.  
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (Note that your response to this post will be snipped, unread,
>> >> >> >> following the detection of any lies.)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Some undeniable lies that you used to attack decent, honest,
>> >> >> >> reasonable FOSS advocates are below:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We claimed that "the same capabilities can be accomplished for free".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We claimed that it "is a waste".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We "globally reject it for all possible consumers".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We have an "irrational hate" of it, which demonstrates an "unfortunate
>> >> >> >> close-mindedness".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Good grief, is high horse back on his Photoshop bandwagon? It's a niche 
>> >> >> >product. A whole OS shouldn't be judged on whether it will run a product 
>> >> >> >that only about 1% of the people need.  
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I have yet to come across a graphical problem which couldn't be
>> >> >> remedied by GIMP or a combination of GIMP and Paint.NET, both free.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Except that any tool that can manipulate down to individual pixels results in 
>> >> > a "can be done", but that doesn't have bearing on just how slow & painful
>> >> > or quick & efficient that process takes.  As such, that's really where the 
>> >> > product differentiation resides for products such as iPhoto, Lightroom, Photoshop
>> >> > & Elements, etc.  
>> >> > 
>> >> > Case in point, broadly describe your workflow for a
>> >> > composition where you have a subject in the foreground 
>> >> > that's properly exposed and a background that's +2EV
>> >> > overexposed and you want to effectively balance the 
>> >> > presentation by decreasing the exposure of the background 
>> >> > portion only, leaving the foreground unchanged.  
>> >> > Then discuss just how long it takes you to do this
>> >> > sort of task with this workflow.
>> >> > 
>> >> > -hh
>> >> 
>> >> darktable and a mask.
>> >> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
>> > 
>> > Yes, and a mask is a layer.  It goes back to the paradigms
>> > of stacked acetates and similar darkroom techniques, such
>> > as can be seen here:
>> > 
>> > <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > FWIW, I assume your mask was just a quick & dirty job for 
>> > purposes of creating an example and that Marketable can do much better
>> 
>> Yes, that was a quick workup.  I've never used it before.  
> 
> Using masks & adjustment layers are a very powerful tool to 
> adjust a photo that ideally would have been better photographed
> separately (foreground / background).  
> 
> 
> 
>> Probably should have watched this beforehand:
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKknBy5lX7I
> 
> The good news is that the more that one practices the techniques
> for masking the quicker/easier it becomes with the App's tools.  
> I just did two instances of one ~2 weeks ago where the foreground 
> subject was wearing black in front of a projection screen, which 
> was (naturally) blown out...took ~15 minutes from the original
> photos to make two adjusted ones to choose from.  AFAIC, it wasn't
> a very good job due to mask edge artifacts, but it was good enough
> for the usage & short deadline.  The others were unaware that such 
> an adjustment could even be made, so they thought it was fabulous.
> 
> 

This is pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWF6Wk-JPb0
Lots of tutorials out there for an app I'd never heard of.  LOL

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

#448841

On 4/23/18, 3:19 AM, -hh 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.
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> darktable and a mask.
>> https://pewtube.com/user/owl/ms9eRBE?autoplay=off
>
> Yes, and a mask is a layer.  It goes back to the paradigms of stacked acetates and
> similar darkroom techniques, such as can be seen here:
>
> <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/landscape-photographer-races-to-finish-decades-of-work>

With Photoshop you can create adjustment layers and then put masks on 
those (multiple types), or have a layer be masked by another layer.

>
>
> FWIW, I assume your mask was just a quick&  dirty job for purposes of creating an example
> and that Marketable can do much better - - BTW, I had researched DT awhile back and had
> read that its support had been discontinued?   Is it back, or am I thinking of a different FOSS
> app that went stale?
>
>
> -hh


-- 
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]

#448681

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-7, 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.



This is merely a joy of Donny Karcie's. 

It was Donny Karcie who flooded Paul F. Riddle's site hundreds of thousands of times and refused to admit it. 

Paul F. Riddle can create a virtual machine. Rips what that Mac can do to shreds! Donny Karcie failed to show a single time of an effective enterprise that has gained its position by not giving a damn about its customers and services. Nobody gets it, I am the one who figured it out. 



--
E-commerce Simplified
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglvCo3dJ38&feature=youtu.be
Jonas Eklundh

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

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

csiph-web