A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nospam's Dead Body &c.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 23rd 15, 03:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

nospam wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
...
By those standards I guess Apple does deserve
the award. They're probably near the top in terms
of offshoring profits to avoid taxes.


they do no such thing.

apple pays taxes they are required to pay.


There is a legitimate point to be made about these
legal tax 'evasion' strategies, but what's clearly
disingenuous is to try to imply that only but one
corporation who's employing them. Case in point:

"Google's effective tax rate in the United States
has fallen dramatically from 21 percent to 15.7
percent in recent years as the company has broadened
its use of overseas tax benefits."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/ireland-to-phase-out-double-irish-tax-trickery-to-googles-chagrin/

"Ireland is the go-to place for Apple, Google, Twitter,
and Facebook, not to mention big pharma."

"Google and Microsoft cut their overseas tax rates to
single digits with Dublin-registered subsidiaries
designated as tax resident in Bermuda."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/10/14/ireland-corks-double-irish-tax-deal-closing-time-for-apple-google-twitter-facebook/

And so on.


where do people come up with this ****???


It is made up, because the underlying motivation
actually has nothing to do with Apple ... the posts
are merely an "Acting Out" by a socially marginalized
individual with no self-worth, who is attempting to
have anyone pay attention to them.

FYI, you'll find that when they're ignored, their
claims will become increasingly outrageous. Eventually,
someone on the group gets fed up and flames them, but
the problem with this is that ANY response is viewed as
a positive reward, because what they want is attention,
regardless of if it is good or bad attention.


-hh
  #12  
Old February 23rd 15, 05:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious
fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his
nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes
you want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't
stink" position.


Sandman:
That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is
based on an antagonizing post Eric made,


This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the
newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole.


Well, that I agree with.

If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what
he did in the first place.


I.e. if Eric has no one to troll he wouldn't troll. Yes, that makes sense.

This is not a newsgroup about laptop service problems, lawsuits, or
Apple products.


Again, I agree. I have no idea why someone would post about these things. But
then again, it's not a group about sharing reading recommendations, thread
displays or finding restaurants either. Sure, some off topic stuff is ok, but
sometimes you wonder.

If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been any
replies or notice of the post.


He wasn't the only one who replied though. But I fail to see your reasoning here
- somehow it's nospam's fault that he's here so that Eric has a motive for
posting antagonizing threads?

Andreas Skitsnack:
If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts
would wither away and die. No one would really care that much.


Sandman:
So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link
just to antagonize nospam?


Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam.
Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and
you will see that he only posts to start arguments.


This is of course incorrect, and most certainly fits you a lot better than him.
There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation and posting to
start an argument. Case in point; when Android posted about replacing the D400,
nospam posted to correct that misinformation along with some thoughts on what the
successor to the D300s might be.

You, on the other hand, posted only to start an argument regarding semantics. You
snipped the ongoing camera-related content and only posted about your incorrect
conclusions and links. That's posting only to start an argument, and you're being
constantly called on it.

Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an
interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some
positive aspect of photography?


I have a hard time remembering any such from you. Nospam doesn't start threads. I
can't tell you why. I can't tell you why he is here or what he wants to talk
about. I can't talk for nospam, but even though I have seen him argue for no
obvious reason many times, this applies to you far more than him.

Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there wouldn't be any
off topic arguments at all.

--
Sandman
  #13  
Old February 23rd 15, 08:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:20:58 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 23 Feb 2015 07:25:44 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Davoud:
Davoud:

Here's something to cause heartburn for the Apple enviers who
are whining in that other thread!
http://fortune.com/worlds-most-admired-companies/apple-1

Astro and natu http://www.primordial-light.com.
Miscellany and nature macrophotography:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval.

Eric Stevens:

Eric Stevens:
What on earth has any of this to do with an Apple repair program
undertaken under the pressure of a class action?

Davoud:
It partially explains Apple-envy, which is the reason for this
lengthy off-topic thread.

It really isn't Apple-envy at all. Most people - including the ones
who post critical comments about Apple here - understand that Apple
makes quality products and are at the forefront of innovation. It's
rather expected that any company that sells as many products as
Apple does will have a few problems.


I'm one of those that does post most of the negative comments about Apple in
this group, and I've been a Mac user since 1984.

What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious
fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his
nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes you
want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't stink"
position.


That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is based on an
antagonizing post Eric made,


This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the
newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole.

If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what
he did in the first place.


Yes I would. I would post a link to any source which announced a
widespread repair/replacement program for hardware which is likely to
be owned by subscribers to this news group. I knew what nospam's
reaction would be even if I didn't realise quite how long this thread
would grow as a result.

This is not a newsgroup about laptop
service problems, lawsuits, or Apple products. If nospam wasn't here
to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the
post.

If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would
wither away and die. No one would really care that much.


So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to
antagonize nospam?


Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam.
Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you
will see that he only posts to start arguments.

Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an
interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive
aspect of photography?

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old February 23rd 15, 09:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
If nospam wasn't here to take the hook, there may not have been
any replies or notice of the post.


Sandman:
He wasn't the only one who replied though. But I fail to see your
reasoning here - somehow it's nospam's fault that he's here so
that Eric has a motive for posting antagonizing threads?


Yes...pretty much. Without nospam's presence, Eric would - as he
has many times in the past - post links to his photographs. That's
a "would" as in "I think he would".


And... this is nospam's fault... That's some really crazy reasoning there.

Andreas Skitsnack:
If nospam would drop out of the group,
the anti-Apple posts would wither away and die. No one
would really care that much.

Sandman:
So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an
anti-Apple link just to antagonize nospam?


I'm sure that factored in. Surely, you are not so dense that you
don't immediately know, when a thread appears with a post that is at
all critical of Apple, that nospam will jump in with an argument.
Eric knows this.


As I said, there is a difference between correcting misinformation and posting
just to start an argument.

The thing is, both nospam and me are Mac users, and we follow Mac news. We're
both also technically competent, being developers and fairly savvy with
computers. This means that in many computer and especially mac-related topics,
we usually know what we're talking about and can easily spot incorrect
information and of course correct it.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes
nospam. Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting
history and you will see that he only posts to start arguments.


Sandman:
This is of course incorrect,


You are prone to pull up old posts at the drop of a hat showing that
something was said. Pull up a few that prove me wrong.


Why of course, no problem. I do enjoy proving you incorrect! Here are a couple:


He replies to the OP with information about rotating images


He replies to the OP with information and help about wireless networks


He replies to the OP with a joke relating to an earlier thread


He replies to the OP with some thoughts about camera model succession.


He replies to a question about the need for a 50MP camera


He answered a question and gave remodeling advice


He shared his thoughts about B/W photos and post processing


Gives an explanation to a users software issues

And so on, these are pretty much his latest replies to threads in this group.
No real digging, just look at his replies to threads - none were made with the
intention to start an argument.

Do you want me to do you now? :-D

Find a few posts from nospam that were not argumentative.


Pretty much all his OP-replies are non-argumentative. Some are, but most
aren't.

Find any new thread started by nospam that was neutral about
anything.


As I said, nospam doesn't start threads. That doesn't make it ok for Eric to
troll him in his new threads.

Find a post wherein he linked to one of his photographs.


How is that even a parameter in this??

Sandman:
and most certainly fits you a lot better than him.


Do the same for me.


Ok, you asked for it. I narrowed it down to posts you've made to a person that
wasn't talking to you, so posts where you are "jumping in" to an ongoing
discussion or talk. Also, I only picked posts from this year


A new thread meant only to antagonize another poster


Replying only to troll


Joined the thread with nothing but ad hominem's and trolling


Joined the thread with what I presume was supposed to be an insult.


Joined the thread only to argue semantics and snipped all camera-related
content


Replied only to antagonize the poster


Replied only with a grammar flame

Enough?

Sandman:
There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation


Anything critical in the slightest of Apple or Adobe is
"misinformation" to nospam.


What do you base this claim on? How do you determine whether nospam is
correcting misinformation or posting just to argue? This is just an empty claim
from you.

Sandman:
and posting to start an argument. Case in point; when Android
posted about replacing the D400, nospam posted to correct that
misinformation along with some thoughts on what the successor to
the D300s might be.


You, on the other hand, posted only to start an argument regarding
semantics. You snipped the ongoing camera-related content and
only posted about your incorrect conclusions and links. That's
posting only to start an argument, and you're being constantly
called on it.


Who's calling me out on it? You? nospam? That's like being called
out by Whiskey Dave for making typographical errors.


I do argue with you, with nospam, and sometimes with Floyd when he
gets on his high horse as the World's Foremost Authority on
Everything.


You, though, argue with and insult almost everyone else in the
group.


Another lie from Andreas, how predictable.

Sandman:
Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there
wouldn't be any off topic arguments at all.


Nor would you be here to read any posts.


Of course I would, without you guys trolling the group constantly, it would
contain only good information. It would be awesome.

--
Sandman
  #15  
Old February 23rd 15, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

What turns these exchanges negative is nospam's almost-religious
fervor in defending Apple from any wrongdoing. The brown on his
nose extends to his ankles when Apple is brought up. He makes you
want to challenge him because of his "their **** doesn't stink"
position.


That doesn't follow, especially not in this thread. This thread is based on
an antagonizing post Eric made,


This thread is a continuation of a condition that has permeated the
newsgroup for quite a long time. It's part of a whole.

If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what
he did in the first place. This is not a newsgroup about laptop
service problems, lawsuits, or Apple products. If nospam wasn't here
to take the hook, there may not have been any replies or notice of the
post.


in other words, he was trolling and you're giving him a free pass and
blaming it on me. disgusting.

If nospam would drop out of the group, the anti-Apple posts would
wither away and die. No one would really care that much.


So, you're in effect saying that Eric posted an anti-Apple link just to
antagonize nospam?


Yes. Of course, Apple isn't the only thing that antagonizes nospam.
Anything at all seems to. Check on nospam's posting history and you
will see that he only posts to start arguments.


bull****. if it wasn't for the likes of you, there would be no
arguments.

if you would stfu, things could get back to photography.

Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an
interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some positive
aspect of photography?


there have been quite a few but they're lost in the idiotic arguments
fueled by you and others.
  #16  
Old February 23rd 15, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , -hh
wrote:

By those standards I guess Apple does deserve
the award. They're probably near the top in terms
of offshoring profits to avoid taxes.


they do no such thing.

apple pays taxes they are required to pay.


There is a legitimate point to be made about these
legal tax 'evasion' strategies, but what's clearly
disingenuous is to try to imply that only but one
corporation who's employing them. Case in point:

"Google's effective tax rate in the United States
has fallen dramatically from 21 percent to 15.7
percent in recent years as the company has broadened
its use of overseas tax benefits."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-double-irish-
tax-trickery-to-googles-chagrin/

"Ireland is the go-to place for Apple, Google, Twitter,
and Facebook, not to mention big pharma."

"Google and Microsoft cut their overseas tax rates to
single digits with Dublin-registered subsidiaries
designated as tax resident in Bermuda."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...-double-irish-
tax-deal-closing-time-for-apple-google-twitter-facebook/

And so on.


yep. everyone tries to reduce their tax burden, both corporations and
individuals.

only apple gets bashed for it.

nothing they're doing is illegal.

where do people come up with this ****???


It is made up, because the underlying motivation
actually has nothing to do with Apple ... the posts
are merely an "Acting Out" by a socially marginalized
individual with no self-worth, who is attempting to
have anyone pay attention to them.

FYI, you'll find that when they're ignored, their
claims will become increasingly outrageous. Eventually,
someone on the group gets fed up and flames them, but
the problem with this is that ANY response is viewed as
a positive reward, because what they want is attention,
regardless of if it is good or bad attention.


true, but unfortunately, some people may be misled by their bull****.
  #17  
Old February 23rd 15, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Can you think of any post by nospam wherein he originated an
interesting topic of discussion? Started a thread about some
positive aspect of photography?


I have a hard time remembering any such from you. Nospam doesn't start
threads. I
can't tell you why. I can't tell you why he is here or what he wants to talk
about. I can't talk for nospam, but even though I have seen him argue for no
obvious reason many times, this applies to you far more than him.


i have started threads a few times, but definitely not recently.

Imagine if you and the other trolls left the group, then there wouldn't be any
off topic arguments at all.


yep.
  #18  
Old February 23rd 15, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

There is a difference between posting to correct misinformation


Anything critical in the slightest of Apple or Adobe is
"misinformation" to nospam.


bull****.

there's plenty about apple to criticize, it's just not the crap you and
others claim, such as higher prices.

apple mice are horrible (and always have been), the macbook air is not
(yet) retina, the iphone was too small until this past year and the
ipad mini is too big, just to name a few.
  #19  
Old February 23rd 15, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


I'm sure that factored in. Surely, you are not so dense that you
don't immediately know, when a thread appears with a post that is at
all critical of Apple, that nospam will jump in with an argument.
Eric knows this.


As I said, there is a difference between correcting misinformation and
posting just to start an argument.

The thing is, both nospam and me are Mac users, and we follow Mac news. We're
both also technically competent, being developers and fairly savvy with
computers. This means that in many computer and especially mac-related
topics, we usually know what we're talking about and can easily spot incorrect
information and of course correct it.


the bashers thrive on spewing misinformation (one person in particular
comes to mind). sometimes they're just ignorant and don't know that
what they spew is bogus and other times they know it's bull**** and
spew it anyway. one thing is certain, they don't like actual facts.




Find a few posts from nospam that were not argumentative.


Pretty much all his OP-replies are non-argumentative. Some are, but most
aren't.

Find any new thread started by nospam that was neutral about
anything.


As I said, nospam doesn't start threads. That doesn't make it ok for Eric to
troll him in his new threads.


i have on occasion, but generally someone else has already started a
thread on topics i might have otherwise started.

Find a post wherein he linked to one of his photographs.


How is that even a parameter in this??


it's not.

they only want pics to be able to trash them.

what i photograph and whether or not i'm any good at it makes
absolutely no difference whatsoever in what i say.
  #20  
Old February 24th 15, 01:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nospam's Dead Body &c.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If the nospam factor wasn't present, Eric might not have posted what
he did in the first place.


Yes I would. I would post a link to any source which announced a
widespread repair/replacement program for hardware which is likely to
be owned by subscribers to this news group. I knew what nospam's
reaction would be even if I didn't realise quite how long this thread
would grow as a result.


then why didn't you post about lenovo and superfish?? that's a helluva
lot worse than anything apple ever did.

not only does it allow lenovo to force ads onto users, but it does that
on *encrypted* connections (i.e., to your *bank*) and leaves the doors
wide open for any hacker to do anything they want.

lenovo *now* says they screwed up but only after the **** hit the fan.

http://www.cnet.com/news/superfish-t...-with-more-tha
n-adware/
"Attackers are able to see all the communication that's supposed to
be confidential -- banking transactions, passwords, emails, instant
messages," said Timo Hirvonen, a senior researcher at security
software maker F-Secure. That kind of threat, known as a
man-in-the-middle attack because the hacker can spy on the users'
Internet traffic and infiltrate their computer, poses a serious risk
to consumers, he said.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...lenovo_superfi
sh_scandal_why_it_s_one_of_the_worst_consumer_comp uting_screw.html
Security researcher Marc Rogers wrote that itıs ³quite possibly the
single worst thing I have seen a manufacturer do to its customer
base. Š I cannot overstate how evil this is.² Heıs right. The Lenovo
Superfish security hole is really, really bad.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/law...enovo-superfis
h,28605.html
The class-action suit, with blogger Jessica Bennett as the plaintiff,
was filed at the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
California. Bennett claims that Lenovo invaded her privacy and made a
profit by keeping track of her online browsing.
....
Another law firm also opened up a class action lawsuit against Lenovo
and is encouraging customers to reach out if they want to
participate. Both cases are still in their early stages, so the
process could take some time before Lenovo gets its day in court. But
with Lenovo potentially fighting a legal battle on two fronts, the
company seems to be taking a turn for the worse, with the trust of
customers slowly fading away.


http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...th-man-in-the-
middle-adware-that-breaks-https-connections/
Lenovo is selling computers that come preinstalled with adware that
hijacks encrypted Web sessions and may make users vulnerable to HTTPS
man-in-the-middle attacks that are trivial for attackers to carry
out, security researchers said.
....
[Update: Rob Graham, CEO of security firm Errata Security, has
cracked the cryptographic key encrypting the Superfish certificate.
That means anyone can now use the private key to launch
man-in-the-middle HTTPS attacks that won't be detected by machines
that have the certificate installed. It took Graham just three hours
to figure out that the password was "komodia" (minus the quotes). He
told Ars the certificate works against Google even when an end-user
is using Chrome. That confirms earlier statements that certificate
pinning in the browser is not a defense against this attack (more
about that below). Graham has a detailed explanation how he did it
here.]

Superfish, Komodia, PrivDog vulnerability test:
https://filippo.io/Badfish/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Warning - iOS8 Upgrade problems - not for nospam Eric Stevens Digital Photography 116 October 1st 14 10:30 PM
One for nospam Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 4 August 15th 13 03:56 PM
Nikon D80 - Buy Body Only or Body with Kit Lens? Bill Gillespie Digital SLR Cameras 38 December 8th 06 08:25 PM
FA: Beginners, students and those who need a 2nd camera body need this Canon AE-1 body! Hugh Lyon-Sach 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 August 12th 05 09:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.