Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jolly Roger Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Upcoming New Newsreader for the Mac: Signal Date: 7 Jun 2014 20:27:28 GMT Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates Lines: 96 Message-ID: References: <1lmqa29.k4rshchnvytzN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> <27idnRNKcuWKYw_OnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net yknp8HjE2OU5l2/FB65uDA1mqLvqMZEKsN6JiMpbs5X6KthmP6 Cancel-Lock: sha1:h0j/s4LNMGLdSJ4fGj/CHpupN4M= X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:22445 On 2014-06-07, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2014.06.07, 11:58 , Jolly Roger wrote: >> On 2014-06-07, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2014.06.07, 10:12 , Jolly Roger wrote: >>>> On 2014-06-07, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>> On 2014.06.06, 21:57 , Jolly Roger wrote: >>>>>> On 2014-06-07, Alan Browne wrote: >>>>>>> On 2014.06.06, 20:02 , Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He should develop it on his own and then market it as donation or >>>>>>>>> license ware. That's the best way to see if he's "right". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? Is he breaking some kind of law doing it the way he's doing it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course not. However given that he's presenting with deception rather >>>>>>> than truth, I'd be very wary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Claim 1 that he makes: >>>>>>> "Bring Usenet Back to the Mac" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is nothing to bring back. It never left - there are various >>>>>>> clients available and they do more that enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> I interpreted it more as a gimmicky marketing phrase stating that the >>>>>> application will give Mac users a great Usenet experience. You seem to >>>>>> be taking it *quite* literally instead. That's fine, I guess, but we all >>>>>> know marketing slogans are typically anything but literal, factual >>>>>> statements. So to me, it seems just a little disingenuous to take such a >>>>>> harsh stance based on such a literal interpretation of a marketing >>>>>> slogan. And in the end, really, who gives a flying fuck? I'm much more >>>>>> interested in the actual usability and performance of the final product >>>>>> than any silly marketing text about it. >>>>> >>>>> Good for you. >>>> >>>> What's good for me? >>>> >>>>> And what about the fake bug farts he posted? >>>> >>>> You'll need to back up your assertion that they were faked. >>> >>> Show me they weren't. >> >> You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Show the proof, or >> recant. Simple. > > I showed the evidence. Viewing the source doesn't show me much other than: > > "I’ve mentioned here before that I’ve been..." > > and > > "I've done my best to ..." I think you don't have a good understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence". You asserted that Doc added the apostrophe characters in an apparent attempt to deceive. The fact that some apostrophe characters are ASCII and others are Unicode is not evidence that the characters were inserted manually, nor that they were added nefariously. You have not proven your assertion. Until you do provide evidence of your assertion, your assertion is assumed to be false. >>> It's strange that the "bug" appears in one sentence and not in the other >>> with the same punctuation. >> >> Strange? I think not. It was likely both created and sent with >> alpha-quality software, and it's quite possible at some point during >> authoring something prevented Cocoa from doing its normal substitution. > > Possible, huh? Absolutely. >>> All you great experts should tell me why that is so. >> >> I can't explain why you find this so strange. > > Let's try this: "I've struggled to see what this guy is up to." > > This is filler. This is more filler. Fill. Fill. > Intentionally filled. Filler. More filler. Full of filller. > Fill. Fill. Fill. FULL! > > Let's try again: "I've struggled to see what this guy is up to." > > Now let's see if that posts the same way twice. You seem to be indicating that you are unable or unwilling to imagine that an alpha-quality piece of software might have a bug that prevents character substitution in certain situations. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR