Google| Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 11/25/2013 21:29 (11/25/2013 15:29) |
| Message-ID | <251120131529133104%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
In article <cka799db7rb863hrv3h4u79rgp7kopv0kt@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
Tony Cooperi never said it wasn't valid. i said i never heard it used that way, and i haven't.
You gotta admit it's kinda funny. We have a guy with alleged technical experience and knowledge of technical "jargon" terms attempting to deny that "backup protocol" is a valid and descriptive term because he's never heard it used.
it's not commonly used in that manner, no matter how hard you pretend that it is.
you even proved it, by citing ftp, file transfer protocol, and then pretending it means something other than what it does.
there's a difference between the protocol (e.g., ftp) and the plan, which could use ftp (or afp or smb or some other protocol).
And, we have another guy who brags about his expertise who thinks a "backup protocol" is only a mental plan and something that is done manually.to the user, which is all that matters, it's automatic. the user does not need to understand about protocols or anything else. it 'just works'.
They both are trying to tell us that an "automatic" function is some kind of magic that the device comes up with on its own and not the result of a protocol included in the program. Both are trying to tell us that an "automatic" function not dependant on the program's protocols because the user thinks it's done automatically.
Dirt is flying all over the place from the two of them madly digging the hole deeper and deeper.you're the only one shoveling it, trying desperately to make it look like something it isn't, but you'll never admit that.
11/16/2013-
