Calumet files Chapter 7

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Tony Cooper
03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any
approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe product.

other than you, but you backpedaled on that.

What has been said is that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is a
misleading term. It implies that the plug-in is something Adobe has
provided. It should be called "a plug-in for Photoshop".

nonsense. the two terms are interchangeable. there is *no* implication
that a 'photoshop plug-in' is authored by adobe. you made that up.

I know you'll be quick to say "Nobody does that". That doesn't negate
that the term "Photoshop Plug-in" is wrong. It just shows that there
are many people - including you - who have no respect for the
proprietary rights to the word "Photoshop".

it's not wrong, and in both cases, the word photoshop is used.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the
points he posted above are just basic facts.

The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very
truthful
statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors,
just
look at Apple.

Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with
anyone;

nonsense. apple competes with every other company making similar
products, including computers, phones, tablets, mp3 players and
numerous accessories.

He's not talking about Apple. He's talking about Apple sales outlets.

same thing in this case. the stores compete with non-apple stores
selling non-apple products (and even apple products).

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

nonsense. of course there is.

You don't get much competition when no one but Apple (or it's very
small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly
price-controlled) sells Apple products.

plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and walmart,
two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other stores in other
countries that sell apple products. heck there are even vending
machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include other
stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to spice up the
deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

On 2014-04-04 11:03:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after
all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored
by adobe.

How the Hell did we manage to come back to this stupid Photoshop
plug-in argument for, at least the forth time in multiple threads?

They are ****in' plug-ins, and they are developed by all sorts of folks
to work in Photoshop!!
Some of them (with a change from .plugin to .lrplugin & whatever
Aperture uses) will work in Lightroom and some will work in Aperture,
and some will even work as standalone apps, but remain referred to
simply as *plug-ins* by many I won't use *most* because that will open
another can of worms) users of PS, PSE, LR, &/or Aperture.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , nospam wrote:

In article , Eric
Stevens

Sandman:
'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

Eric Stevens:
And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can
other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper
way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

nospam:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of
companies do.

Eric Stevens:
Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is,
after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was
authored by adobe.

Unless, of course, we ask Tony:

Tony Cooper
03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM

"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a 'Photoshop Plug-in'"

Surely that claim is based on well-grounded research on the matter. Of
course, he hasn't shared that research with us... yet.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

nospam:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of
companies do.

To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any
approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe
product.

Only to "use with" Photoshop:

Tony Cooper
03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM

"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for
Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins
that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval
process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop.

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on
their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored by
Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they approve
the plugins "for use with Photoshop".



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
But, no, I don't think your error was
"unforgiving"[sic]. Nor is it unforgivable. (Funny how
"Ironic" comes and bites you in the ass.)

Sandman:
How so? I am not posting spelling and grammar flames,
and I am fully aware that I make such mistakes,

Eric Stevens:
You could have fooled me. :-)

Sandman:
By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric?

Eric's meaning is clear, and not at all what you took from it. He
is questioning whether or you are aware of your mistakes, not that
you are posting spelling and grammar flames.

I know, he was trolling. I tried to keep him relevant.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I had used the
word "onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to show how, and I
have since substantiated that I was using it correctly - which is
when he quietly left the thread to lick his wounds.

You used the word in a way that is not idiomatic in English.

This is an incorrect claim from you, as I have shown.

The usage would not have been written by anyone who understands how the
word is used.

Incorrect. And ironic to be coming from you.

There is a difference that you don't seem to grasp between
"inappropriate" and "incorrect". This is part of the reason you
come out with these clangers in usage.

Ironic.

An inappropriate usage can be a usage where the word just doesn't
fit. It's wrong for the application. An incorrect usage is when the
word is not just wrong for the application, but wrong enough to make
the usage not understandable or misleading.

Luckily, I used the word appropriately, which I showed in my
substantiation, which you snipped and ignored since you can't counter it.

It's a subtle difference, but one that people who seek to improve
their language skills take heed of.

An ironic claim to come from you.

I left the thread because I recognized that you have no interest in
improving your English in this area. You would rather insist that
your usage was appropriate than learn.

I am very interested in improving my English. Your mistake is thinking
you're proficient enough to teach anyone anything. You're the one that has
made such hilarious comment such as:

Tony Cooper
11/27/2013 04:03:26 PM

"A requirement is what you want to do."

You're not seriously considering yourself in a position to teach anyone
something about the usage of English words, now are you? This is just your
attempt at being funny, right?

I am not wounded by your intractability. I'm not even mildly
distressed. If it's OK with you to continue to look foolish by
insisting that the inappropriate is appropriate, that's your choice.

Again, I am not the one looking foolish when I can support my argument and
you can only snip it. But I understand your need for this to be the case,
given the humiliation you've endured.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

nospam:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write
and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a
lot of companies do.

Tony Cooper:
To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that
any approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an
Adobe product.

Sandman:
Only to "use with" Photoshop:

Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM


"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop.
The plugins on that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has
approved for use with Photoshop."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the
approval process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with"
Photoshop.

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the
plug-in on their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while
none are authored by Adobe), but that failed to provide support
for the claim that they approve the plugins "for use with
Photoshop".

I offer expert testimony: nospam, your midget tag team buddy. He's
posted several times that Adobe has approved certain plug-ins for
the "showcase".

As opposed to "for use with Photoshop", which was your explicit and
incorrect claim.

Case closed? You made a mistake and you're now admitting to it? Would be
the first time. Does he dare or will he just ignore this post? Nah, he may
snip some embarrassing parts of it though.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-04-04 15:02:30 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 05:51:26 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-04-04 11:03:15 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after
all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored
by adobe.

How the Hell did we manage to come back to this stupid Photoshop
plug-in argument for, at least the forth time in multiple threads?

They are ****in' plug-ins, and they are developed by all sorts of folks
to work in Photoshop!!
Some of them (with a change from .plugin to .lrplugin & whatever
Aperture uses) will work in Lightroom and some will work in Aperture,
and some will even work as standalone apps, but remain referred to
simply as *plug-ins* by many I won't use *most* because that will open
another can of worms) users of PS, PSE, LR, &/or Aperture.

No one has questioned whether or not they are plug-ins, will work with
Adobe products, or anything except how they are described.

....but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the issue
has been beaten to death several times?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/3/2014 5:32 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:09:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

As much as something may benefit us, if the federal government has no
Constitutional authority to do it, then they simply should not do it.

Yup! Except that there is clear Constitutional authority. Indeed the
prime reason for a government is to provide for the welfare of the
people.

The prime reason for a government is to defend the realm.

All else is icing on the cake.


Defending against what?

Illness.
Natural disasters
Economic issues.
thieves and scoundrels,

Or is it only to fight when someone, not a native dares to step on the
sacred soil.


--
PeterN