[News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Linux ; On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:47:02 -0700, Snit wrote: > "Rick" stated in post > LqydnfrzAfX-6uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:32 PM: > >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> "Rick" stated in post >>> LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

  1. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:47:02 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfrzAfX-6uTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 8:32 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> LqydnfnzAfXz9-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 7:37 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:17:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>>>> -KmdnfBqs4Mow-TVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 6:47 PM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:02:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >>>>>>> tcr2rr2s0w01$.1urei5yqkynyf.dlg@40tude.net on 7/12/08 5:54 PM:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:27:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Malina - First alpha release of Amarok 2.0
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Amarok never should have made it to V1.0... It's a slow, bloated,
    >>>>>>>> buggy program that can't deal with large amounts of files and
    >>>>>>>> trips all over itself. On top of that the user interface ranks
    >>>>>>>> amongst the worst on the planet.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If ever there was a poster child for Linux/OSS basement ware,
    >>>>>>>> slop ware, Amarok is it....
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And BTW Amarok has a lot of potential but it just isn't ready yet
    >>>>>>>> and to put a V2.0 version on it is a scam....
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>>>>> install what database they want to use. What? Sure, some techie
    >>>>>>> folks might care but if you going to have such an odd option why
    >>>>>>> not have a default and let the techies change it if they want?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>>>> based distro?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Your question, in this context, is nonsense. You have just proved
    >>>>> your inability to understand what you read. The question is not
    >>>>> what database *any* other program uses, no less the OS database
    >>>>> default.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your statement. in this context, shows you abysmal knowledge of Linux
    >>>> based distros.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Yup.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Your words: "if you going to have such an odd option why not have a
    >>>> default".
    >>>
    >>> Yup. For the *program*. Not the distro. Sure, different distros
    >>> could have different defaults for the *program*.

    >>
    >> A default database for the app, not the distro? You do undersatnd that
    >> is its applications that utilize databses, don't you? You do realize
    >> that database managers have to be installed, don't you? You do realize
    >> that there are several choices of databases available don't you?
    >>
    >>
    >>> You get mad when I point out you are in over your head, but, really...
    >>> are you seriously as lost as you are acting?

    >>
    >> So, you are gain claiming to know when people are angry. Really... is
    >> there no end to your narcissism?
    >>
    >>
    >>>> So, what is "default" database that is installed with each Linux
    >>>> based distro?
    >>>
    >>> Irrelevant...

    >>
    >> Relevant.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> What do you suggest the default be?
    >>>
    >>> For the distro? Who cares? In the given context you are just
    >>> babbling... you have no clue what you are talking about.

    >>
    >> You are again showing your ignorance of Linux based distros.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Take iTunes for example - it has a default database of some sort...
    >>> but does it need to base it on the default for OS X or Windows? Of
    >>> course not!

    >>
    >> If I were to guess, I would guess that it has its own internal
    >> database, and doesn't have the ability to use an external database.
    >>
    >>> If Apple were to port iTunes to Linux would they have to use the
    >>> "default database" of a distro...

    >>
    >> What default database of a distro?
    >>
    >>> assuming a distro even has one?
    >>> Again: of course not. Your questions in that area show amazing
    >>> ignorance on your part.
    >>>
    >>> You are not able to understand the most simple of things related to
    >>> technology.

    >>
    >> That's funny, coming from you.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>> Heck, have an advanced install option if you want it set up at
    >>>>>>> install - right now it is just silly.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, right now it is different from what you are used to.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not designed for the general user... most people are not going
    >>>>> to care any more about what database their *music* player uses than
    >>>>> they care about what brand of socks their favorite political
    >>>>> prefers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, you miss the point.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Yup.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >>>> used, instead of installing its own database.

    >>
    >> Reworded:
    >>
    >> Amarok is asking what database the user has installed so that can be
    >> used, instead of using its own database.
    >>
    >>
    >>> So you think Amarok would not work on a distro without a database
    >>> installed?

    >>
    >> Go search on Amarok and SQLite. You will find that Amarok uses SQLite
    >> internally.


    What? no reply? Of course not. You apparently did not hear of SQLite.

    >>
    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Look, you are again pointing to the web pages of Michael Glasser,
    >> Prescott Computer Guy.... are you just trying to collect personal
    >> information again?

    >
    >
    > You babble on, spew insults, and show no understanding of the fact that
    > Amarok is a *program* and not a distro of Linux (such as PCLOS or
    > Ubuntu).


    No, that is your incorrect inference. And now you will repeat your BS
    trying to turn it into fact. You have no comprehension that Amarok can
    use external databases, and in order to do that, it ask the user which to
    use.

    >
    > And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    > targetting my personal and professional information.


    You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that businesses
    get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that negative
    advertising is quite legal, don't you?

    >
    > You know you made an ass out of yourself... *you* proved it with your
    > actions.


    You are such a whining self-professed martyr. BTW, your customers,
    however many there are, should know, in advance, how uninformed you are.
    If you don't want them to know, stop pointing to your business pages. It
    is not my fault that you do it.

    Now, be a good little troll and trundle off and read about Amarok and
    internal and external databases.

    --
    Rick

  2. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVTx74NVAOTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:16 PM:

    >> You babble on, spew insults, and show no understanding of the fact that
    >> Amarok is a *program* and not a distro of Linux (such as PCLOS or
    >> Ubuntu).

    >
    > No, that is your incorrect inference. And now you will repeat your BS
    > trying to turn it into fact. You have no comprehension that Amarok can
    > use external databases, and in order to do that, it ask the user which to
    > use.


    Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it very, very
    clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first* sentence in this thread:

    I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the
    user on install what database they want to use.

    Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how wrong
    you were? I bet so!

    >> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >> targetting my personal and professional information.

    >
    > You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that businesses
    > get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that negative
    > advertising is quite legal, don't you?


    I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You find
    nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I point out
    how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it, Rick, that shows a
    complete lack of morality from you.

    >> You know you made an ass out of yourself... *you* proved it with your
    >> actions.

    >
    > You are such a whining self-professed martyr. BTW, your customers,
    > however many there are, should know, in advance, how uninformed you are.
    > If you don't want them to know, stop pointing to your business pages. It
    > is not my fault that you do it.


    You are pretending it is my actions in question: it is not. You are the one
    tying your lies to my business simply because you humiliated yourself in a
    Usenet debate. That is pathetic of you.

    > Now, be a good little troll and trundle off and read about Amarok and
    > internal and external databases.


    As proved above: you are flat out wrong... the fact you are flat out wrong
    was clear from my very first sentence in this thread.

    Yes, Rick, you are *that* pathetic.


    --
    BU__SH__




  3. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:15:41 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > LqydnfPzAfWvBuTVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:05 PM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:54:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> LqydnfDzAfXUE-TVnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 10:10 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:49:27 +0000, thufir wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:18:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    >>>>>> some pretty basic functionality out of it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You can purchase codecs.
    >>>>>
    >>>> As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity.
    >>>> I never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just
    >>>> to get some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as
    >>>> usual, weird interpretation.
    >>>
    >>> Snit:
    >>> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    >>> was told there was no available decoder.
    >>>
    >>> Rick:
    >>> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    >>> some codecs.
    >>>
    >>> Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of course
    >>> you do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie your
    >>> posts to my personal information - you want *your* lies associated
    >>> with my name.
    >>>
    >>> How despicable of you.

    >>
    >> Post the exact message ID so context can be seen.

    >
    > 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >
    > And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >
    > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/

    a6250d7d3c555647>
    >
    > So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your* lies
    > to *my* name.
    >
    > Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or are
    > you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how absurd
    > your actions are?


    Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context. Just
    downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.

    And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking
    the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of it."

    That isn't true.

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:22:26 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVTx74NVAOTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:16 PM:
    >
    >>> You babble on, spew insults, and show no understanding of the fact
    >>> that Amarok is a *program* and not a distro of Linux (such as PCLOS or
    >>> Ubuntu).

    >>
    >> No, that is your incorrect inference. And now you will repeat your BS
    >> trying to turn it into fact. You have no comprehension that Amarok can
    >> use external databases, and in order to do that, it ask the user which
    >> to use.

    >
    > Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it very,
    > very clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first* sentence in this
    > thread:
    >
    > I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    > install what database they want to use.
    >
    > Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how
    > wrong you were? I bet so!


    No, I am calling you on your lies. You keep drawing incorrect
    inferences. You have no comprehension that Amarok can use external
    databases, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT HAS TO ASK THE USER WHICH TO USE.

    The last part, in caps, is the important part.

    >
    >>> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >>> targetting my personal and professional information.

    >>
    >> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that
    >> businesses get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that
    >> negative advertising is quite legal, don't you?

    >
    > I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You find
    > nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I point
    > out how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it, Rick, that
    > shows a complete lack of morality from you.


    Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on your
    part.

    >
    >>> You know you made an ass out of yourself... *you* proved it with your
    >>> actions.

    >>
    >> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. BTW, your customers,
    >> however many there are, should know, in advance, how uninformed you
    >> are. If you don't want them to know, stop pointing to your business
    >> pages. It is not my fault that you do it.

    >
    > You are pretending it is my actions in question: it is not. You are the
    > one tying your lies to my business simply because you humiliated
    > yourself in a Usenet debate. That is pathetic of you.


    Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on your
    part.


    >
    >> Now, be a good little troll and trundle off and read about Amarok and
    >> internal and external databases.

    >
    > As proved above: you are flat out wrong... the fact you are flat out
    > wrong was clear from my very first sentence in this thread.
    >
    > Yes, Rick, you are *that* pathetic.


    Do you really believe all these lies you spew? BTW, I think it is time
    that you stop polluting the other groups. I have set the followup. Be a
    good little boy and leave the followup in place.

    --
    Rick

  5. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVHx74MWPOTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:32 PM:

    ....
    >>>> Snit:
    >>>> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    >>>> was told there was no available decoder.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rick:
    >>>> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    >>>> some codecs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of course
    >>>> you do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie your
    >>>> posts to my personal information - you want *your* lies associated
    >>>> with my name.
    >>>>
    >>>> How despicable of you.
    >>>
    >>> Post the exact message ID so context can be seen.

    >>
    >> 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >>
    >> And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >>
    >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    >> a6250d7d3c555647>
    >>
    >> So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your* lies
    >> to *my* name.
    >>
    >> Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or are
    >> you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how absurd
    >> your actions are?

    >
    > Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context. Just
    > downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.
    >
    > And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking
    > the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of it."
    >
    > That isn't true.


    You said a user (me) *has to take the chance of breaking the law*.

    Now you deny you said that. OK. Recently I noted how you deny your flip
    flips even when they are quoted to you. Thanks for proving me right.

    I told you that you would feign ignorance! You simply have no idea how easy
    you are to predict!


    --
    What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.


  6. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnVDx74NgP-TVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:38 PM:

    ....
    >> Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it very,
    >> very clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first* sentence in this
    >> thread:
    >>
    >> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >> install what database they want to use.
    >>
    >> Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how
    >> wrong you were? I bet so!

    >
    > No, I am calling you on your lies.


    Funny way to do it... deny that I know something I made *perfectly* clear I
    knew from my very first sentence in the thread.

    Wow.

    You really are bad at trying to prove your point!

    > You keep drawing incorrect inferences. You have no comprehension that Amarok
    > can use external databases, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT HAS TO ASK THE USER
    > WHICH TO USE.
    >
    > The last part, in caps, is the important part.


    You are lying about my views.

    I find it funny that a music organizer / player ASKS THE USER ON
    INSTALL WHAT DATABASE THEY WANT TO USE.

    The last part, in caps, is the important part... at least in the context of
    proving you are a liar.

    >>>> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >>>> targetting my personal and professional information.
    >>>
    >>> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that
    >>> businesses get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that
    >>> negative advertising is quite legal, don't you?

    >>
    >> I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You find
    >> nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I point
    >> out how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it, Rick, that
    >> shows a complete lack of morality from you.

    >
    > Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on your
    > part.


    Do you deny posting my personal and business information with the goal of
    tying your derogatory comments to my information?

    If you do deny that, Rick, you are - again - lying. This is not a debate,
    Rick - you can either admit to your despicable actions or deny them - either
    way it is clear you have done *exactly* as I describe. Repeatedly. You
    even talked about contacting a lawyer when I first noted this behavior from
    you.
    ....

    I snipped your grade school insults. Well... some of them.


    --
    "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    - Anatole France




  7. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:10:33 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > As usual, Michael Glasser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    > never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    > some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual, weird
    > interpretation.



    While Snit did quote he failed to cite.



    -Thufir

  8. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "thufir" stated in post
    GBiek.96413$gc5.70893@pd7urf2no on 7/13/08 12:59 AM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:10:33 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity. I
    >> never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to get
    >> some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual, weird
    >> interpretation.

    >
    >
    > While Snit did quote he failed to cite.


    From a recent post:
    -----
    13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com

    And hey, to help you out, here is a link:

    <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    a6250d7d3c555647>

    So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying
    *your* lies to *my* name.

    Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you,
    eh? Or are you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do
    not realize how absurd your actions are?
    -----

    You were saying?



    --
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
    that take our breath away.




  9. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:40:11 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVHx74MWPOTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:32 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>>> Snit:
    >>>>> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    >>>>> and was told there was no available decoder.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rick:
    >>>>> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    >>>>> some codecs.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you not realize how easy it is to prove you are a liar? Of
    >>>>> course you do! That is the very reason you resort to trying to tie
    >>>>> your posts to my personal information - you want *your* lies
    >>>>> associated with my name.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How despicable of you.
    >>>>
    >>>> Post the exact message ID so context can be seen.
    >>>
    >>> 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >>>
    >>> And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >>>
    >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    >>> a6250d7d3c555647>
    >>>
    >>> So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your*
    >>> lies to *my* name.
    >>>
    >>> Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or are
    >>> you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how absurd
    >>> your actions are?

    >>
    >> Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context.
    >> Just downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.
    >>
    >> And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking
    >> the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of it."
    >>
    >> That isn't true.

    >
    > You said a user (me) *has to take the chance of breaking the law*.


    I said A USER. A USER. I didn't say yu specifically. If it is illegal to
    DL and install certain software, without paying for it, where you live,
    then it is illegal.

    >
    > Now you deny you said that. OK. Recently I noted how you deny your
    > flip flips even when they are quoted to you. Thanks for proving me
    > right.
    >
    > I told you that you would feign ignorance! You simply have no idea how
    > easy you are to predict!


    Michael, you really do need to get more therapy.

    And, once again, I am going to set the followup so you stop polluting
    other groups. Please don't remove it.

    --
    Rick

  10. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:05:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "thufir" stated in post
    > GBiek.96413$gc5.70893@pd7urf2no on 7/13/08 12:59 AM:
    >
    >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:10:33 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> As usual, Michael Glxsser is showing his dishonesty and or stupidity.
    >>> I never said or implied he would have to risk breaking the law just to
    >>> get some pretty basic functionality out of Amarok. That was, as usual,
    >>> weird interpretation.

    >>
    >>
    >> While Snit did quote he failed to cite.

    >
    > From a recent post:
    > -----
    > 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >
    > And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >
    > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    > a6250d7d3c555647>
    >
    > So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your*
    > lies to *my* name.
    >
    > Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or
    > are you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how
    > absurd your actions are? -----
    >
    > You were saying?


    They cite says "a user". Not Snit. Not Michael Glasser. A user. And it
    plainly implies there are places where it is illegal to just DL and
    install certain software.

    The Amarok developers don't write their software based on where Michael
    Glasser lives, much as you'd like to think so.

    Followup set for pollution control.

    --
    Rick

  11. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:53:31 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnVDx74NgP-TVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:38 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>> Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it
    >>> very, very clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first* sentence
    >>> in this thread:
    >>>
    >>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>> install what database they want to use.
    >>>
    >>> Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how
    >>> wrong you were? I bet so!

    >>
    >> No, I am calling you on your lies.

    >
    > Funny way to do it... deny that I know something I made *perfectly*
    > clear I knew from my very first sentence in the thread.
    >
    > Wow.
    >
    > You really are bad at trying to prove your point!


    Wow, you a most prolific liar.

    >
    >> You keep drawing incorrect inferences. You have no comprehension that
    >> Amarok can use external databases, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT HAS TO
    >> ASK THE USER WHICH TO USE.
    >>
    >> The last part, in caps, is the important part.

    >
    > You are lying about my views.


    I am not.

    >
    > I find it funny that a music organizer / player ASKS THE USER ON
    > INSTALL WHAT DATABASE THEY WANT TO USE.
    >
    > The last part, in caps, is the important part... at least in the context
    > of proving you are a liar.


    And you prove your stupidity in the process. Since Amarok is capable of
    using external databases, it asks the user what database the user wants
    it to use. If it didn't ask, it wouldn't know if the person wanted to use
    the internal database, or some external data base. And, apparently you
    think that is funny.

    >
    >>>>> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >>>>> targetting my personal and professional information.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that
    >>>> businesses get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that
    >>>> negative advertising is quite legal, don't you?
    >>>
    >>> I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You find
    >>> nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I point
    >>> out how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it, Rick,
    >>> that shows a complete lack of morality from you.

    >>
    >> Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on your
    >> part.

    >
    > Do you deny posting my personal and business information with the goal
    > of tying your derogatory comments to my information?


    Yes.

    >
    > If you do deny that, Rick, you are - again - lying.


    You cannot know my motivations, unless you can read minds. Are claiming
    clairvoyance now, Michael?


    > This is not a
    > debate, Rick - you can either admit to your despicable actions or deny
    > them - either way it is clear you have done *exactly* as I describe.


    It may be clear to you, but you seem to have problems with reality. If
    you'd like -me- to start associating your public words with your personal
    and business reputation, I can do that. Just let me know. I, or anyone
    here, probably, can show you the difference between what you are whining
    about and actually connecting your words with your personal and business
    life..

    And, you need to come to terms with the fact that everything said here is
    in a public forum. Public. If you feel there have been untruths written
    about you, and those untruths are causing public personal and business
    harm, you should contact a lawyer.

    > Repeatedly. You even talked about contacting a lawyer when I first
    > noted this behavior from you.


    Another lie. That is not the reason I talked about contacting a lawyer.

    > ...
    >
    > I snipped your grade school insults. Well... some of them.


    Of course you snipped with out attribution. It is what you do.

    --
    Rick

  12. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUzx74O_cuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:03 AM:

    >>> Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context.
    >>> Just downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.
    >>>
    >>> And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk breaking
    >>> the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of it."
    >>>
    >>> That isn't true.

    >>
    >> You said a user (me) *has to take the chance of breaking the law*.

    >
    > I said A USER. A USER. I didn't say yu specifically. If it is illegal to
    > DL and install certain software, without paying for it, where you live,
    > then it is illegal.


    Snit:
    Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    and was told there was no available decoder.

    Rick:
    The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    some codecs.

    I, clearly, was one of the users in question... if not the only user.

    And you told me that the "user HAS to take a chance of breaking the law".
    Emphasis mine.

    You said I would *have* to. Have to take a chance of breaking the law.

    Break the law - just to get some pretty basic functionality.

    Now you are back pedaling. Oh well.

    As I said: you deny your flip flops and feign ignorance... and here you are
    proving me correct.

    Again.
    ....


    --
    "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    - Anatole France




  13. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnU_x74NncuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:07 AM:

    ....
    >>> While Snit did quote he failed to cite.

    >>
    >> From a recent post:
    >> -----
    >> 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >>
    >> And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >>
    >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    >> a6250d7d3c555647>
    >>
    >> So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your*
    >> lies to *my* name.
    >>
    >> Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or
    >> are you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how
    >> absurd your actions are? -----
    >>
    >> You were saying?

    >
    > They cite says "a user". Not Snit.


    Snit:
    Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    and was told there was no available decoder.

    Rick:
    The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    some codecs.

    Ah, Rick is playing the game where he pretends (almost surely knowing full
    well he is wrong) that the context does not make it clear he was in
    reference to me. Poor Rick... his best "defense" is to feign ignorance as
    he flip flops and denies his own words.

    ....

    And, of course, now that Rick knows he has "lost" another Usenet debate he
    reacts by inserting my personal name into his posts as much as he can - he
    knows he cannot "win" by doing anything that is even moderately moral or
    reasonable so he sinks to that.

    Again.

    And proves me right about what a pathetic troll he is. Oh well.


    --
    Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!


  14. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    Snit writes:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnU_x74NncuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:07 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> While Snit did quote he failed to cite.
    >>>
    >>> From a recent post:
    >>> -----
    >>> 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >>>
    >>> And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >>>
    >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    >>> a6250d7d3c555647>
    >>>
    >>> So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your*
    >>> lies to *my* name.
    >>>
    >>> Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or
    >>> are you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize how
    >>> absurd your actions are? -----
    >>>
    >>> You were saying?

    >>
    >> They cite says "a user". Not Snit.

    >
    > Snit:
    > Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    > and was told there was no available decoder.
    >
    > Rick:
    > The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    > some codecs.
    >
    > Ah, Rick is playing the game where he pretends (almost surely knowing full
    > well he is wrong) that the context does not make it clear he was in
    > reference to me. Poor Rick... his best "defense" is to feign ignorance as
    > he flip flops and denies his own words.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > And, of course, now that Rick knows he has "lost" another Usenet debate he
    > reacts by inserting my personal name into his posts as much as he can - he
    > knows he cannot "win" by doing anything that is even moderately moral or
    > reasonable so he sinks to that.
    >
    > Again.
    >
    > And proves me right about what a pathetic troll he is. Oh well.


    Is Rick flip flopping again in order to cover some of the weaknesses in
    OSS that he has previously admitted to? Unbelievable - he makes 7 look
    like a reasonable, balanced "advocate".

  15. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUnx74OnauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:38 AM:

    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:53:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnVDx74NgP-TVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:38 PM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>> Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it
    >>>> very, very clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first* sentence
    >>>> in this thread:
    >>>>
    >>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>> install what database they want to use.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how
    >>>> wrong you were? I bet so!
    >>>
    >>> No, I am calling you on your lies.

    >>
    >> Funny way to do it... deny that I know something I made *perfectly*
    >> clear I knew from my very first sentence in the thread.
    >>
    >> Wow.
    >>
    >> You really are bad at trying to prove your point!

    >
    > Wow, you a most prolific liar.


    Ah, having no evidence or logic to support his case Rick sinks to grade
    school name calling.

    Typical of you, Rick!

    >>> You keep drawing incorrect inferences. You have no comprehension that
    >>> Amarok can use external databases, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT HAS TO
    >>> ASK THE USER WHICH TO USE.
    >>>
    >>> The last part, in caps, is the important part.

    >>
    >> You are lying about my views.

    >
    > I am not.


    Then you are amazing in your ability to not understand what you read.

    >> I find it funny that a music organizer / player ASKS THE USER ON
    >> INSTALL WHAT DATABASE THEY WANT TO USE.
    >>
    >> The last part, in caps, is the important part... at least in the context
    >> of proving you are a liar.

    >
    > And you prove your stupidity in the process. Since Amarok is capable of
    > using external databases, it asks the user what database the user wants
    > it to use. If it didn't ask, it wouldn't know if the person wanted to use
    > the internal database, or some external data base. And, apparently you
    > think that is funny.


    Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not understand why I find
    Amarok's behavior to be "funny"?

    It is good, by gthe way, that you finally acknowledged that Amarok can use
    an "internal" database. That is progress for you!

    >>>>>> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >>>>>> targetting my personal and professional information.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that
    >>>>> businesses get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that
    >>>>> negative advertising is quite legal, don't you?
    >>>>
    >>>> I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You find
    >>>> nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I point
    >>>> out how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it, Rick,
    >>>> that shows a complete lack of morality from you.
    >>>
    >>> Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on your
    >>> part.

    >>
    >> Do you deny posting my personal and business information with the goal
    >> of tying your derogatory comments to my information?

    >
    > Yes.


    Then it is clear you are lying.

    >> If you do deny that, Rick, you are - again - lying.

    >
    > You cannot know my motivations, unless you can read minds. Are claiming
    > clairvoyance now, Michael?


    Let us not pretend you are doing anything other than lying.

    >> This is not a
    >> debate, Rick - you can either admit to your despicable actions or deny
    >> them - either way it is clear you have done *exactly* as I describe.

    >
    > It may be clear to you, but you seem to have problems with reality. If
    > you'd like -me- to start associating your public words with your personal
    > and business reputation, I can do that. Just let me know. I, or anyone
    > here, probably, can show you the difference between what you are whining
    > about and actually connecting your words with your personal and business
    > life..


    I have made it clear I do not want you associating your posts with *my*
    personal and professional info. Now you are asking me if I want you to do
    so (though you pretend your use of my info would connect my info with *me*,
    as if *I* post as you. I do not).

    As noted: you have a hard time understanding what you read.

    > And, you need to come to terms with the fact that everything said here is
    > in a public forum. Public. If you feel there have been untruths written
    > about you, and those untruths are causing public personal and business
    > harm, you should contact a lawyer.


    You are pretending I have been untruthful. You are pretending that your
    actions are defensible. They are not.

    >> Repeatedly. You even talked about contacting a lawyer when I first
    >> noted this behavior from you.

    >
    > Another lie. That is not the reason I talked about contacting a lawyer.


    Shall I quote your talking about a lawyer when I noted your indefensible
    behavior?
    >> ...
    >>
    >> I snipped your grade school insults. Well... some of them.

    >
    > Of course you snipped with out attribution. It is what you do.


    "Attribution"? Do you even know what the word means?


    --
    Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!


  16. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Hadron" stated in post
    g5db4b$imi$1@registered.motzarella.org on 7/13/08 9:39 AM:

    ....
    >> Snit:
    >> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station
    >> and was told there was no available decoder.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing
    >> some codecs.
    >>
    >> Ah, Rick is playing the game where he pretends (almost surely knowing full
    >> well he is wrong) that the context does not make it clear he was in
    >> reference to me. Poor Rick... his best "defense" is to feign ignorance as
    >> he flip flops and denies his own words.
    >>
    >> ...
    >>
    >> And, of course, now that Rick knows he has "lost" another Usenet debate he
    >> reacts by inserting my personal name into his posts as much as he can - he
    >> knows he cannot "win" by doing anything that is even moderately moral or
    >> reasonable so he sinks to that.
    >>
    >> Again.
    >>
    >> And proves me right about what a pathetic troll he is. Oh well.

    >
    > Is Rick flip flopping again in order to cover some of the weaknesses in
    > OSS that he has previously admitted to?


    In this case he may have exaggerated the flaw with Amarok... though it is
    still rather absurd. He is, however, clearly in denial of his own words -
    even though I have quoted and cited them. Who does he think he is fooling?

    > Unbelievable - he makes 7 look
    > like a reasonable, balanced "advocate".


    Maybe that is Rick's goal?

    --
    "The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay


  17. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:22:36 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnUzx74O_cuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:03 AM:
    >
    >>>> Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context.
    >>>> Just downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.
    >>>>
    >>>> And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk
    >>>> breaking the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of
    >>>> it."
    >>>>
    >>>> That isn't true.
    >>>
    >>> You said a user (me) *has to take the chance of breaking the law*.

    >>
    >> I said A USER. A USER. I didn't say you specifically. If it is illegal
    >> to DL and install certain software, without paying for it, where you
    >> live, then it is illegal.

    >
    > Snit:
    > Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    > was told there was no available decoder.
    >
    > Rick:
    > The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
    > codecs.
    >
    > I, clearly, was one of the users in question... if not the only user.


    Clearly, you are mistaken. I am sure the Amarok developers do not write
    their software based on your specific locality or legality.

    >
    > And you told me that the "user HAS to take a chance of breaking the
    > law". Emphasis mine.
    >
    > You said I would *have* to. Have to take a chance of breaking the law.
    >
    > Break the law - just to get some pretty basic functionality.
    >
    > Now you are back pedaling. Oh well.
    >
    > As I said: you deny your flip flops and feign ignorance... and here you
    > are proving me correct.
    >
    > Again.
    > ...


    Idiot.



    --
    Rick

  18. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:26:14 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnU_x74NncuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:07 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> While Snit did quote he failed to cite.
    >>>
    >>> From a recent post:
    >>> -----
    >>> 13oft08jhqo0556@news.supernews.com
    >>>
    >>> And hey, to help you out, here is a link:
    >>>
    >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.....advocacy/msg/
    >>> a6250d7d3c555647>
    >>>
    >>> So now when will you apologize for not only lying but tying *your*
    >>> lies to *my* name.
    >>>
    >>> Even you have to admit that was amazingly pathetic of you, eh? Or
    >>> are you going to feign ignorance and pretend you do not realize
    >>> how absurd your actions are? -----
    >>>
    >>> You were saying?

    >>
    >> They cite says "a user". Not Snit.

    >
    > Snit:
    > Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    > was told there was no available decoder.
    >
    > Rick:
    > The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
    > codecs.
    >
    > Ah, Rick is playing the game where he pretends (almost surely knowing
    > full well he is wrong) that the context does not make it clear he was in
    > reference to me. Poor Rick... his best "defense" is to feign ignorance
    > as he flip flops and denies his own words.


    The context was why Amarok does not include codecs.

    >
    > ...
    >
    > And, of course, now that Rick knows he has "lost" another Usenet debate
    > he reacts by inserting my personal name into his posts as much as he can
    > - he knows he cannot "win" by doing anything that is even moderately
    > moral or reasonable so he sinks to that.
    >
    > Again.
    >
    > And proves me right about what a pathetic troll he is. Oh well.


    How do you sleep at night, knowing what a pathetic liar you are?


    --
    Rick

  19. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:45:17 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > VaWdnUnx74OnauTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:38 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:53:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> VaWdnVDx74NgP-TVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/12/08 11:38 PM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>>> Not only did I knew Amarok could use external databases I made it
    >>>>> very, very clear I knew this. In fact, Rick, my *very first*
    >>>>> sentence in this thread:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player asks the user on
    >>>>> install what database they want to use.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you going to now feign ignorance and pretend you do not see how
    >>>>> wrong you were? I bet so!
    >>>>
    >>>> No, I am calling you on your lies.
    >>>
    >>> Funny way to do it... deny that I know something I made *perfectly*
    >>> clear I knew from my very first sentence in the thread.
    >>>
    >>> Wow.
    >>>
    >>> You really are bad at trying to prove your point!

    >>
    >> Wow, you a most prolific liar.

    >
    > Ah, having no evidence or logic to support his case Rick sinks to grade
    > school name calling.
    >
    > Typical of you, Rick!
    >


    It is a fact that you are a most prolific liar.

    >>>> You keep drawing incorrect inferences. You have no comprehension
    >>>> that Amarok can use external databases, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, IT
    >>>> HAS TO ASK THE USER WHICH TO USE.
    >>>>
    >>>> The last part, in caps, is the important part.
    >>>
    >>> You are lying about my views.

    >>
    >> I am not.

    >
    > Then you are amazing in your ability to not understand what you read.
    >
    >>> I find it funny that a music organizer / player ASKS THE USER ON
    >>> INSTALL WHAT DATABASE THEY WANT TO USE.
    >>>
    >>> The last part, in caps, is the important part... at least in the
    >>> context of proving you are a liar.

    >>
    >> And you prove your stupidity in the process. Since Amarok is capable of
    >> using external databases, it asks the user what database the user wants
    >> it to use. If it didn't ask, it wouldn't know if the person wanted to
    >> use the internal database, or some external data base. And, apparently
    >> you think that is funny.

    >
    > Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not understand why I find
    > Amarok's behavior to be "funny"?
    >
    > It is good, by gthe way, that you finally acknowledged that Amarok can
    > use an "internal" database. That is progress for you!


    I "finally" acknowledged? Maybe you can show where I impled or stated it
    didn't use an "internal" database. I am the one that pointed you to
    SQLite.

    >
    >>>>>>> And to prove you know you are in over your heard you resort to
    >>>>>>> targetting my personal and professional information.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You are such a whining self-professed martyr. You do know that
    >>>>>> businesses get "targeted" every day, don't you? You do know that
    >>>>>> negative advertising is quite legal, don't you?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I did not mention legality. I am talking about *morality*. You
    >>>>> find nothing wrong with targeting my *business* simply because you I
    >>>>> point out how you embarrass yourself in a Usenet debate. Face it,
    >>>>> Rick, that shows a complete lack of morality from you.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your statement is a complete lie, which shows a lack of morals on
    >>>> your part.
    >>>
    >>> Do you deny posting my personal and business information with the goal
    >>> of tying your derogatory comments to my information?

    >>
    >> Yes.

    >
    > Then it is clear you are lying.


    it is clear you are lying.

    >
    >>> If you do deny that, Rick, you are - again - lying.

    >>
    >> You cannot know my motivations, unless you can read minds. Are claiming
    >> clairvoyance now, Michael?

    >
    > Let us not pretend you are doing anything other than lying.


    it is clear you are lying.

    >
    >>> This is not a
    >>> debate, Rick - you can either admit to your despicable actions or deny
    >>> them - either way it is clear you have done *exactly* as I describe.

    >>
    >> It may be clear to you, but you seem to have problems with reality. If
    >> you'd like -me- to start associating your public words with your
    >> personal and business reputation, I can do that. Just let me know. I,
    >> or anyone here, probably, can show you the difference between what you
    >> are whining about and actually connecting your words with your personal
    >> and business life..

    >
    > I have made it clear I do not want you associating your posts with *my*
    > personal and professional info.


    > Now you are asking me if I want you to
    > do so (though you pretend your use of my info would connect my info with
    > *me*, as if *I* post as you. I do not).
    >
    > As noted: you have a hard time understanding what you read.


    As noted: you are clueless. And, BTW, I am an excellent reader.

    >
    >> And, you need to come to terms with the fact that everything said here
    >> is in a public forum. Public. If you feel there have been untruths
    >> written about you, and those untruths are causing public personal and
    >> business harm, you should contact a lawyer.

    >
    > You are pretending I have been untruthful.


    You are an out and out liar. I am not pretnding anything.

    > You are pretending that your
    > actions are defensible. They are not.


    And you are wrong again.

    >
    >>> Repeatedly. You even talked about contacting a lawyer when I first
    >>> noted this behavior from you.

    >>
    >> Another lie. That is not the reason I talked about contacting a lawyer.

    >
    > Shall I quote your talking about a lawyer when I noted your indefensible
    > behavior?


    Go ahead. Only. make sure you don't do what you usually do, which is
    selectively quote. Make sure you include the parts preceding me telling
    you you do what you need to do, and I'll do what I need to do.

    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>> I snipped your grade school insults. Well... some of them.

    >>
    >> Of course you snipped with out attribution. It is what you do.

    >
    > "Attribution"? Do you even know what the word means?


    Yes.

    --
    Rick

  20. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    "Rick" stated in post
    VaWdnUHx74ORpOfVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 10:19 AM:

    > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:22:36 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> VaWdnUzx74O_cuTVnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@supernews.com on 7/13/08 5:03 AM:
    >>
    >>>>> Purchase them and you should be fine. Should be. Might be. Context.
    >>>>> Just downloading and installing codecs can violate laws in places.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And your statement was :"Rick has told me I would have to risk
    >>>>> breaking the law just to get some pretty basic functionality out of
    >>>>> it."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That isn't true.
    >>>>
    >>>> You said a user (me) *has to take the chance of breaking the law*.
    >>>
    >>> I said A USER. A USER. I didn't say you specifically. If it is illegal
    >>> to DL and install certain software, without paying for it, where you
    >>> live, then it is illegal.

    >>
    >> Snit:
    >> Then I went to Radio Streams and Shoutcast... picked a station and
    >> was told there was no available decoder.
    >>
    >> Rick:
    >> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
    >> codecs.
    >>
    >> I, clearly, was one of the users in question... if not the only user.

    >
    > Clearly, you are mistaken. I am sure the Amarok developers do not write
    > their software based on your specific locality or legality.


    Notice how you change the topic from your comments in response to me to what
    Amarok developers are doing in regards to their product in general.

    In other words you lied.

    But, sure, your claim that users would *have* to risk breaking the law
    applied to not just me but to others as well.

    No argument here!

    >> And you told me that the "user HAS to take a chance of breaking the
    >> law". Emphasis mine.
    >>
    >> You said I would *have* to. Have to take a chance of breaking the law.
    >>
    >> Break the law - just to get some pretty basic functionality.
    >>
    >> Now you are back pedaling. Oh well.
    >>
    >> As I said: you deny your flip flops and feign ignorance... and here you
    >> are proving me correct.
    >>
    >> Again.
    >> ...

    >
    > Idiot.


    You did not format your .sig correctly.



    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast