Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/25/2014 07:53 (04/25/2014 07:53) |
| Message-ID | <slrnllju7a.osl.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (2h & 23m) > Sandman |
In article <0k3jl99gcks437076ckffjl3ic79k0a287@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Of course! As you know, I am happy to provide support for all my claims:Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
That's a good start. There is no possibility of supporting a stupid claim.
True - but according to Tony, the support itself is always contained within the claim itself, if it is "sensible".
That's a twisted interpretation which I think you have made up to enable you to build a shonky argument on top of it. If I am wrong, please show me where and how you can justify "according to Tony, the support itself is always contained within the claim itself, if it is "sensible".
Tony Cooper 04/22/2014 07:18:57 PM <as8dl99ia7cnvje70tn8pu82n5u2vaveef@4ax.com>
"No, you support a claim by making a sensible claim in the first place."
You're welcome!
No answer?? :-DSandman
To test it, let's do this. Here is a claim from me:"I drive a 2012 Dodge Charger SRT8"Tell me, Eric, how that claim should be formulated in a supposed "sensible" way to contain the support for it being factual.
Just like Tony hadn't stated the thing he claimed nospam is ignoring.Eric StevensSandmanTony Cooper 03/25/2014 08:09:46 PM <sjj3j9tcphc4s5ha6dlibj8h9cv2bgtcl6@4ax.com>"If it isn't stated, it's ignored."Eric Stevens
Of course it's ignored.
Incorrect. Or else you just ignored the color of my socks, the middle name of my wife and the age of my children. Why did you ignore that, Eric?
Because you never stated anything about them.
No, only facts.SandmanEric Stevens
To ignore something, it must be known to you ...
Another of your self-serving definitions?
From a copyright law viewpoint, it is.Eric StevensSandmanSandman
Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in""Eric Stevens
When you consider copyright law you will know that is correct.
Incorrect. Especially given the fact that Tony's statement is that everyone else should use "Plugin for Photoshop", where copyright laws would apply the same way.
Calling something a 'Plug-in for Photoshop' is not the same as 'Photoshop Plug-in'.
'Plug-in for Photoshop' means that the plug-in is designed to work in/with Photoshop. 'Photoshop Plug-in' means that the plug-in is a component of Photoshop.No it doesn't.
The plug-in needs to be written or licensed by Adobe before it can claim to be a component of Photoshop.Plugins aren't components of the program, Eric. Please don't showcase your ignorance again.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
