Mac users - be aware

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Is this the same nospam who, about a few year ago, that OSX was not
subject to hacker attacks.

i never said anything even close to that.

Wrong.

it's not wrong, because i never said anything of the sort.

either link to the actual post or just admit you're babbling.


So you now say.

feel free to link the post where i said it.

in the event you do link something, i guarantee that it won't say what
you claim it does.

in other words, you're full of ****.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Actually he doesn't appear know the difference between a developer and a
publisher.

the difference does not matter and it's usually the same anyway.

you're playing word games because you know you're full of ****.


Something you never do. You tried to twist, got caught, and now you
accuse me of playing word games. You are pathetic

nonsense.

you're fixated on something that *does not matter* and you're
desperately trying to avoid admitting you are full of ****.

and as i said, they're usually the same. adobe is both a developer and
a publisher. an indie developer is also both a developer and a
publisher.

you have no idea what you're talking about. zero.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you said 'many software publishers would like to see that happen'
(quoted above), referring to users not being able to install apps.


Yep!

that is flat out *false*.


How do you KNOW that.

because i'm a software developer and know far more about what goes on
in the industry than you ever will.

One of your biggest problems is your total failure
to distinguish fact from opinion. You have absolutely no proof of what
all software developers

i never said anything about all software developers.

more of your lies and twists.

you said 'many software developers' want it, which is totally false.

I did not say that.

you are a liar.

you absolutely did say that:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
It strikes me as being bad form to let users have physical access to
their computers and even worse form to allow them permissions to
install anything on them. Bring back the mainframe I say.

Many software publishers would like to see that happen. Except, what you
call mainframe, they call the cloud.

Bring back dumb terminals.


and then you confirmed it again (quoted above):
you said 'many software publishers would like to see that happen'
(quoted above), referring to users not being able to install apps.


Yep!


now you are claiming you did not. you are a liar.

Do learn to read.

i learned to read long ago.

i also learned to catch liars long ago.

It's obvious you do not know the difference between a software publisher
and developer.

i do, and the difference is *completely* irrelevant.

you're playing word games to avoid admitting you're full of ****.

Keep ranting though, that's your style.

i'm not ranting.

i'm simply pointing out just how much bull**** you spew.

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:19:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

you said 'many software publishers would like to see that happen'
(quoted above), referring to users not being able to install apps.


Yep!

that is flat out *false*.


How do you KNOW that.

because i'm a software developer and know far more about what goes on
in the industry than you ever will.

One of your biggest problems is your total failure
to distinguish fact from opinion. You have absolutely no proof of what
all software developers

i never said anything about all software developers.

more of your lies and twists.

you said 'many software developers' want it, which is totally false.

I did not say that.

you are a liar.

you absolutely did say that:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
It strikes me as being bad form to let users have physical access to
their computers and even worse form to allow them permissions to
install anything on them. Bring back the mainframe I say.

Many software publishers would like to see that happen. Except, what you
call mainframe, they call the cloud.

Bring back dumb terminals.


and then you confirmed it again (quoted above):
you said 'many software publishers would like to see that happen'
(quoted above), referring to users not being able to install apps.


Yep!


now you are claiming you did not. you are a liar.

Do learn to read.

i learned to read long ago.

i also learned to catch liars long ago.

You are arguing over whether or not he said "software developers". You
will not prove that he did by quoting him saying "software
publishers".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You are arguing over whether or not he said "software developers". You
will not prove that he did by quoting him saying "software
publishers".

the difference does not matter and it does not change a thing.

both entities do not want to prohibit users from installing apps.

In article , PeterN wrote:

AnthonyL:
It strikes me as being bad form to let
users have physical access to their computers and
even worse form to allow them permissions to
install anything on them. Bring back the mainframe
I say.

PeterN:
Many software publishers would like to see
that happen. Except, what you call mainframe, they
call the cloud.

nospam:
no they wouldn't.

PeterN:
The all knowing speaks again, for all
publishers.

nospam:
as if you do?

PeterN:
Never claimed that, you proposed to speak for all.

nospam:
selling apps is big business. apps use the cloud.
apps are not going away.

PeterN:
twisting.

nospam:
there is no twisting.

you said 'many software publishers would like to see that
happen' (quoted above), referring to users not being able to
install apps.

PeterN:
Yep!

nospam:
that is flat out *false*.

PeterN:
How do you KNOW that. One of your biggest problems is your total
failure to distinguish fact from opinion. You have absolutely
no proof of what all software developers

Sandman:
This is your claim:

"Many software publishers would like to see that happen."

This is nospam's response:

"no they wouldn't."

So you're making a claim about what "many" wants, and nospam is
saying they don't, yet you are questioning his certainty but not
your own. Ironic.

The difference is I am stating an opinion. nospam is claiming his
statement to be a fact.

Neither of your statements were in the shape of opinions. Both were statements
of fact at face value. You didn't add any qualifiers to your statement to
identify that it was merely a personal opinion of yours.

--
Sandman

On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 22:53:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You are arguing over whether or not he said "software developers". You
will not prove that he did by quoting him saying "software
publishers".

the difference does not matter and it does not change a thing.

both entities do not want to prohibit users from installing apps.

What about software producers?

... or software retailers?

Are you really trying to argue that the interests of all these parties
are identical?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The difference is I am stating an opinion. nospam is claiming his
statement to be a fact.

Neither of your statements were in the shape of opinions.

Both were statements
of fact at face value. You didn't add any qualifiers to your statement to
identify that it was merely a personal opinion of yours.

Qualifiers are not necessary to indicate that a statement is an
opinion and not a fact.

then how does one determine when a statement is one or the other??

Your first sentence above is an opinion, not
a fact, but you have not added a qualifier.

but you said qualifiers are not needed.

that also explains why you argue so much. you can't tell the difference.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You are arguing over whether or not he said "software developers". You
will not prove that he did by quoting him saying "software
publishers".

the difference does not matter and it does not change a thing.

both entities do not want to prohibit users from installing apps.

What about software producers?

what's a software producer? do you mean product manager?

... or software retailers?

what about them?

they no longer matter anyway, since there aren't very many anymore and
that number is shrinking.

software sales are almost all done online, either via an app store
(apple, microsoft, google) or a direct download from the developer.
sometimes both.

Are you really trying to argue that the interests of all these parties
are identical?

i'm saying that the difference between developer and publisher does not
matter and it doesn't change anything. he's arguing to argue.

they are also usually the same entity anyway.

gone are the days that a developer shops their product to someone to
publish. there's no need for that anymore.

simply set up a website where apps can be downloaded and purchased or
even easier, upload the apps to an app store and let the app store
handle hosting and payment details.

indie developers generally choose the latter because it's far more cost
effective while larger developers (e.g., adobe) generally choose the
former because their overhead is less. either way, the developer and
publisher are the same entity.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The difference is I am stating an opinion. nospam is claiming his
statement to be a fact.

Neither of your statements were in the shape of opinions.

Both were statements
of fact at face value. You didn't add any qualifiers to your statement to
identify that it was merely a personal opinion of yours.

Qualifiers are not necessary to indicate that a statement is an
opinion and not a fact.

then how does one determine when a statement is one or the other??

You really can't. Context gives a good indication. Tone gives an
indication. But, some statements are unidentifiable as to whether
they are opinion or fact.

in that case, you should ask rather than assume.

Your first sentence above is an opinion, not
a fact, but you have not added a qualifier.

but you said qualifiers are not needed.

No, they aren't, but I didn't say that. I said "not necessary". They
are needed if the writer wants to be precise, but not necessary
because the writer may not want to be precise or may be - like you -
trying weasel around and present an opinion as a fact.

i *never* state opinion as fact nor do i try to weasel.

more of your bull****.

that also explains why you argue so much. you can't tell the difference.

No one can absent sufficient clarification in the statement.

so why don't you ask for clarification rather than guess (wrong)?