Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release - Ubuntu ; "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). ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

  1. 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__




  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.


  5. 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

  6. 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.




  7. 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!


    Is there a ladder long enough to reach the bottom of the hole you just
    dug?

    I might be wrong as I *am* new to using Linux in a desktop environment.
    I'm guessing that Amarok could use a Postgres database or a MySQL
    database to store its data and that's the question it's asking.

    That's the point that Rick's making (I think) and he knows that you
    haven't a clue what he's alluding to. He's just fed you enough rope to
    hang yourself.

    --
    Andy Jacobs

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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




  11. 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

  12. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release


    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.ubuntu.]
    On 2008-07-13, Rick wrote:
    > 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:
    >>
    >>> ...
    >>>> 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.


    Tip [to both of you]: learn how to edit a posting so that it does not go
    on and on and on with irrelevant crap before you add your text. Most people
    don't want to read the same stupid argument over and over.

    And learn how to argue with precision instead of wasting each other's
    time with vague clutter and emotional gibberish.

    I'm adding both your names to my kill file. I don't have time to
    manually skip over your babbling.

  13. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On 2008-07-13, Andy Jacobs wrote:
    > I might be wrong as I *am* new to using Linux in a desktop environment.
    > I'm guessing that Amarok could use a Postgres database or a MySQL
    > database to store its data and that's the question it's asking.


    OR SQLite... I use MySQL on my Database server. Most will probably
    use SQLite, as it is the Amarok default and requires no configuration.

    Personally, I LOVE that Amarok is so flexible.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  14. Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:36:33 +0200, Jim Cochrane wrote:

    > Tip [to both of you]: learn how to edit a posting so that it does not go
    > on and on and on with irrelevant crap before you add your text. Most people
    > don't want to read the same stupid argument over and over.


    And some don't want to read it at all and filter out all x-posts to
    advocacy groups, well done for posting it only to here otherwise we would
    have missed all the fun.

    > And learn how to argue with precision instead of wasting each other's
    > time with vague clutter and emotional gibberish.
    >
    > I'm adding both your names to my kill file. I don't have time to
    > manually skip over your babbling.


    You can have 30 days in mine, twit.

    --
    A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2