Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Upcoming New Newsreader for the Mac: Signal Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <140620141504092126%timstreater@greenbee.net> <140620141535214459%timstreater@greenbee.net> <140620141742040671%timstreater@greenbee.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1402807066 23308 166.84.1.5 (15 Jun 2014 04:37:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:37:46 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:22933 comp.sys.mac.system:60964 dorayme wrote, quoting me: OK, I'm eliding nothing. On the other hand, I think there is enough included text here to make my point. > > > [...] Everybody will buy a product that suits them at a price they > > > are prepared to pay. All these are motherhood statements. They are > > > not lost on anyone at all. > > > > But, but -- you just said, moments ago - > > > > > In your case, the charge is that given that the only usenet reader > > > project on the realistic possibility horizon is OP's, given that you > > > want a usenet reader, you would be expected to pledge (not bet) some > > > of your hard earned. > > > > How do you reconcile these two opposing points of view? > > I don't see them as opposing. The first was said to point out that it > *was the bleeding obvious* and as such is not lost on anyone (against > the claim you made in the context). The second is a description of an > argument, the elements of which are > > 1. The proposed usenet client would be something you would probably > want and likely would be happy to have when it is ready. (That you > would or might *then* be happy to pay something is not relevant here). Here's the problem. It may probably be something someone wants, but it could also perhaps be something someone does not want... Wanting a new newsreader does not mean wanting anything new that pops up... > 2. A condition of the program being completed is a certain amount be > pledged (via escrow) > > 3. Your *wanting* a good newsreader is either an idle wish or type of > want that is backed up by action. > > 4. The only action that is relevant here is you coughing up a bit of > dough (that you will get back) but you not being prepared to do that. > And this shines a light on the nature of your want, it makes it more > fanciful. ...hence all your conclusions do not necessarily follow. As well, if the funding campaign succeeds, no one gets any money back. Plus, in this case, one's money is tied up until the campaign ends. > As you have been sniping about quoting and contexts and memory, I have > an online newsreader and only reluctantly use its facilities or other > facilities to backtrack to see what was said exactly. The above has a > context and to disentangle what problems you are having with them I > would need to see it, you have not helped by isolating the comments. See my opening preface. Now that I know this, I will cite accordingly. > I don't condemn you, quoting is an art, not a science. > > > Billy Y.. > > (btw: consider delimiting your sig here according to best usenet > practice) I have, and decided to place my name here, as it's not in my email address. My apologies if it's annoying. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number