Re: [News] Amarok 2.0 Approaches Release

[Snit]

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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.sys.mac.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.

 

[thufir]

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

 

[Snit]

"thufir" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> 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.sys.mac.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.

 

[Rick]

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

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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.sys.mac.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

 

[Rick]

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

> "thufir" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> 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.sys.mac.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

 

[Snit]

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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

 

[Rick]

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

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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