Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Question on MBPro
Date: 10 Mar 2015 21:39:47 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <cm96l3FrpmsU3@mid.individual.net>
References: <0OOdnQv607OJeWDJnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <1m125ff.12evvry1ixk8clN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> <barmar-818448.15044009032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <100320150944553879%YourName@YourISP.com> <54fe0cd5$0$19827$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> <100320151340259957%YourName@YourISP.com> <barmar-E2193A.10525110032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <110320150918579430%YourName@YourISP.com> <barmar-CA70B8.16552910032015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <cm94e4FrpmsU2@mid.individual.net> <100320151717003432%nospam@nospam.invalid>
X-Trace: individual.net r/3F0I+BzWm+MIXsa9k8EgNg8pzqj5+r/k7tSbX0bvDvrbIbPc
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NLlYThI9MKt1+WF21GjwPXI4rEc=
X-Face: _.g>n!a$f3/H3jA]>9pN55*5<`}Tud57>1<n@LQ!aZ7vLO_nWbK~@T'XIS0,oAJcU.qLM dk/j8Udo?O"o9B9Jyx+ez2:B<nx(k3EdHnTvB]'eoVaR495,Rv~/vPa[e^JI+^h5Zk*i`Q;ezqDW< ZFs6kmAJWZjOH\8[$$7jm,Ogw3C_%QM'|H6nygNGhhl+@}n30Nz(^vWo@h>Y%b|b-Y~()~\t,LZ3e up1/bO{=-)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:70826

On 2015-03-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cm94e4FrpmsU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Does the naming scheme have any relationship to the designs any more?
>> 
>> The relationship isn't defined by you, but Apple.
>
> his point is that it makes no sense.

It doesn't have to make sense.

-- 
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