On 3/31/24 5:35 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> <snip>
>
> Jesus H. Christ you are tedious.
>

If you don't enjoy being criticized for saying stupid stuff, the simple
solution is to not say stupid stuff.

The FOSS fanboys simply can't have their cake & eat it too: TANTAAFL.

-hh

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 17:34:59 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> <bs snip>
>>
>> Sure, but it is only the Linux DIY fanboys would choose to walk over a
>> mile of glass and hot lava just to save 59 cents.
>
> You are a limp-wristed drama queen. :-D
>
> At worst some free-software-only users sacrifice proprietary
> featureitis.
>
> And at work? Let the Corp pay for said featureitis.

At the corp where I work 'free' was a big selling point.

-hh wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom: "Yeah, everyone who wants to manipulate images
>>>>> needs to pay $600 for Photoshop and then use only a 16th of its
>>>>> functionality.  <rolls eyes>"
>>>
>>> A perfectly valid point. Not whining.
>>
>>A perfect example of our position, and obviously reasonable.
>>Definitely not supporting the lying charges of -highhorse and DumFSck.
>>Why does the dumb fsck bring it up? Who knows?

-highhorse's "example" fell flat, also. One guy had a brain-fart
where he arbitrarily assigned a 1 cent cost to GIMP, but that sure
doesn't support the lying claims of -highhorse and DumFSck.

It was an example of an advocate saying something stupid, but how does
that compare to the constant stream of stupidity and lies from the
haters? I'll take someone who has the occasional brain fart over some
asshole who *lies* to attack others, any day of the week.

>>>> That's 4 for 4 whining on money, yet we're somehow supposed to believe
>>>> that no Linux fanboy considers cost a factor on Linux 'superiority';
>>
>>Oh, is that what has been claimed, that no Linux fanboy considers cost
>>a factor?
>
> (snipped, unread)

Poor -highhorse. The fact that he needs to *lie* says it all.

All the other 3/31 -highhorse posts were deleted, unread. As will his
response to this post.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Jesus H. Christ you are tedious.

That's how he "wins", with an avalanche of garbage. So much wrong, so
much dishonest, that it's a real effort to rebut.

Remember he also claimed that the advocates had an "irrational hatred"
of Photoshop. This demonstrated "sheer close-mindedness" on our part.

Such obvious lying, to attack our position, is a concession of defeat.

--
"What's more unfortunate is the sheer close-mindedness that goes into
their irrational hate of an inanimate object." - lying asshole
"-hh", lying shamelessly

On 4/1/24 7:58 AM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom: "Yeah, everyone who wants to manipulate images
>>>>>> needs to pay $600 for Photoshop and then use only a 16th of its
>>>>>> functionality.  <rolls eyes>"
>>>>
>>>> A perfectly valid point. Not whining.
>>>
>>> A perfect example of our position, and obviously reasonable.
>>> Definitely not supporting the lying charges of -highhorse and DumFSck.
>>> Why does the dumb fsck bring it up? Who knows?
>
> -highhorse's "example" fell flat, also. One guy had a brain-fart
> where he arbitrarily assigned a 1 cent cost to GIMP, but that sure
> doesn't support the lying claims of -highhorse and DumFSck.

Unfortunately, chrisv doesn't recall that the thread showed that even
sbd's "one cent" assignment did not matter, as I illustrated a basic ROI
that was generalizable, making his specific cost claim irrelevant.

Point is that when someone like chrisv is being paid $25/hour, a tool
which improves his productivity by, oh, say +10% will pay for itself
over time. If te tool costs $500, then 10% higher productivity means
that its value is 40*.1 = 4 hours/week, which is worth $100 and ROI
"break even" point is five weeks: a good investment to make.

And if one doesn't "like" this example's numbers, then change them.
For example, even just a +1% gain has an ROI of 50 weeks (~one year).

> It was an example of an advocate saying something stupid, but how does
> that compare to the constant stream of stupidity and lies from the
> haters?

Saying something stupid is what chrisv is once again doing now. /s

> I'll take someone who has the occasional brain fart over some
> asshole who *lies* to attack others, any day of the week.

So prove your claim by dropping DFS's misquote you used, and never use
it ever again.

>
>>>>> That's 4 for 4 whining on money, yet we're somehow supposed to believe
>>>>> that no Linux fanboy considers cost a factor on Linux 'superiority';
>>>
>>> Oh, is that what has been claimed, that no Linux fanboy considers cost
>>> a factor?
>>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Poor -highhorse. The fact that he needs to *lie* says it all.
>
> All the other 3/31 -highhorse posts were deleted, unread. As will his
> response to this post.

Of course, because chrisv won't want to admit seeing that he's been
challenged to prove that he's not lying by changing his behavior:

"So prove your claim by dropping DFS's misquote you used, and never use
it ever again."

-hh

On 4/1/24 8:09 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ you are tedious.
>
> That's how he "wins", with an avalanche of garbage. So much wrong, so
> much dishonest, that it's a real effort to rebut.

Paradigm shift: the reason why you're finding it so hard to rebut is
because it is the truth.

> Remember he also claimed that the advocates had an "irrational hatred"
> of Photoshop. This demonstrated "sheer close-mindedness" on our part.
>
> Such obvious lying, to attack our position, is a concession of defeat.
>

As illustrated by how it is the poster child you use, Photoshop has been
living tax free in your heads for more than a decade. Pwned!

-hh

On 4/1/2024 8:09 AM, shitv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ you are tedious.
>
> That's how he "wins", with an avalanche of garbage. So much wrong, so
> much dishonest, that it's a real effort to rebut.
>
> Remember he also claimed that the advocates had an "irrational hatred"
> of Photoshop.

Homer and Feeb do/did:

"I hate Photoshop intensely. It uses the ridiculously awkward Multiple
Document Interface and it is largely directed toward the faggot world
of graphic designers who are far more dilettantes than professionals."
Feeb Oct 2017

"I hate Photoshop because it is designed for technically illiterate
faggots and their faggot endeavors." - Feeb Oct 2017

"Is DumFSck now burning in hell? We can hope..." - shitv (he's "decent,
honest and reasonable")

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 3/31/24 5:35 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Jesus H. Christ you are tedious.

<more tedium snipped>

--
FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #4
A: Go west, young man, go west!
Q: What do wabbits do when they get tiwed of wunning awound?

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Point is that when someone like chrisv is being paid $25/hour, a tool
> which improves his productivity by, oh, say +10% will pay for itself
> over time. If te tool costs $500, then 10% higher productivity means
> that its value is 40*.1 = 4 hours/week, which is worth $100 and ROI
> "break even" point is five weeks: a good investment to make.

Imagine using a productivity argument with bloatware from Microsoft and Adobe

:-D

--
Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 22:57 this Saturday (GMT):
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:25:31 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>
>> On 30 Mar 2024 19:52:31 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in
>> <l6r8rvFkfnpU6@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 13:39:17 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with "tinkering". Big woop, wanna fight about it?
>>>
>>> Ooh, touchy! I wasn't even thinking about you.
>>
>> You took out the smiley: ;)
>
> blame Pan. It has no sense of humor.

Does any newsreader have humor?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 16:27 this Sunday (GMT):
> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Unless Photoshop has changed significantly, it isn't exactly intuitive
>>either.
>
>
> It's hard to use any of the image editing apps, Photoshop not least of
> such, but while I can acknowledge Wintendo being needed for the degree
> of support Adobe provides, it isn't something I'm ever going to care
> about, and GIMP is good.

GIMP is..certainly usable. Not my favorite, but it works.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Point is that when someone like chrisv is being paid $25/hour, a tool
>> which improves his productivity by, oh, say +10% will pay for itself
>> over time. If te tool costs $500, then 10% higher productivity means
>> that its value is 40*.1 = 4 hours/week, which is worth $100 and ROI
>> "break even" point is five weeks: a good investment to make.
>
>Imagine using a productivity argument with bloatware from Microsoft and Adobe

-highhorse moved the goalposts. The discussion was regarding
configuration changes, not "tools that cost money".

On 4/1/24 3:16 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Point is that when someone like chrisv is being paid $25/hour, a tool
>>> which improves his productivity by, oh, say +10% will pay for itself
>>> over time. If te tool costs $500, then 10% higher productivity means
>>> that its value is 40*.1 = 4 hours/week, which is worth $100 and ROI
>>> "break even" point is five weeks: a good investment to make.
>>
>> Imagine using a productivity argument with bloatware from Microsoft and Adobe
>
> -highhorse moved the goalposts. The discussion was regarding
> configuration changes, not "tools that cost money".
>

Nah, the point that I keep on is that of the product's ability to make
one's life easier and more fruitful (eg, productive) which in an
Enterprise setting does boil down to money.

This insight has multiple incarnations, from how much more resources it
takes to set up a new system vs DIY, to how well/easily/quickly a system
supports one's workflow to accomplish a value-added tasks/activity: the
fanboy claims of 'superiority' have to be objectively supportable, but
the ones on COLA regularly fail and try to blame anyone but themselves.

For an automotive analogy, COLA fanboys love their manual transmissions,
but objectively, modern "DSG" automatic transmissions now outperform 99%
of these manual transmission operators 99% of the time, not only in
0-60mph acceleration, but also by having better fuel efficiency too.
As such, there's little justification for choosing to have a manual
transmission, other than for just its emotional nostalgic value.

-hh

-hh wrote:

>> -highhorse moved the goalposts. The discussion was regarding
>> configuration changes, not "tools that cost money".
>
>Nah, the point that I keep on is that of the product's ability to make
>one's life easier and more fruitful (eg, productive) which in an (snipped, unread)

Was anyone fooled? If so, go back and read -highhorse's responses to
Stephane, which is where this started.

Argument lost, so goalposts were moved.

On 4/1/24 5:26 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>>> -highhorse moved the goalposts. The discussion was regarding
>>> configuration changes, not "tools that cost money".
>>
>> Nah, the point that I keep on is that of the product's ability to make
>> one's life easier and more fruitful (eg, productive) which in an (snipped, unread)

Unsnipped: "...which in an Enterprise setting does boil down to money."

> Was anyone fooled? If so, go back and read -highhorse's responses to
> Stephane, which is where this started.

Which back on 16 March was:

"And for those who want to defend their hours & hours spent twaddling
around with their gear to finally get something to work, if you consider
your time to do such things to not count as anything other than "free",
well I've got a lawn for you to mow..."

Again, the point is how you squander your time.

> Argument lost, so goalposts were moved.
>

Only in your addled little brain. Stéphane tried to claim that his
workflow was better, but he lacked substantiation: he eventually
conceded that it was just his opinion on himself.

Likewise as was also noted:

[quote]
This insight has multiple incarnations, from how much more resources it
takes to set up a new system vs DIY, to how well/easily/quickly a system
supports one's workflow to accomplish a value-added tasks/activity: the
fanboy claims of 'superiority' have to be objectively supportable, but
the ones on COLA regularly fail and try to blame anyone but themselves.

For an automotive analogy, COLA fanboys love their manual transmissions,
but objectively, modern "DSG" automatic transmissions now outperform 99%
of these manual transmission operators 99% of the time, not only in
0-60mph acceleration, but also by having better fuel efficiency too.
As such, there's little justification for choosing to have a manual
transmission, other than for just its emotional nostalgic value.
[/quote]

Not a lick of which is chrisv willing (or able) to dispute.

-hh

On 3/30/24 11:09 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Not.
>>
>> Except for how chrisv admits it below ... oops!
>
> No I don't. You are lying ... oops!
>
>>>> it was about how some folks
>>>> foolishly try to make claims without any objective support.
>>>
>>> Notice, everyone, the magic shape-shifting argument.
>>
>> Except for how chrisv admits it below ... oops!
>
> Ridiculous nonsense ... oops!
>
>>> The point has already been made that no "objective support" is needed,
>>> to know what one likes.
>>
>> Oh, look: chrisv trying to claw back to the original subject!
>
> Oh, look: -highhorse trying to evade my point!
>
>>> The point has already been made that no advocate has claimed personal
>>> tastes are objective or generalizable to everyone else.
>>
>> But if that were actually true, then they'd not posted, rather than to
>> advocate for their (...wait for it...) personal preference.
>
> No one with a brain is going to buy your made-up "if that were
> actually true" idiocy. The point has been made, and it is correct.
> Your *lies* to the contrary are just that.
>
>>> If anyone is guilty of that, it's -highhorse, with his implications
>>> that rich companies who have lots of users giving lots of feedback are
>>> going be objectively better.
>>
>> Bigger sample sizes yield better estimates.
>> Why did chrisv fail Statistics 101?
>
> See how he accepted my point, everyone? All this time, he's been
> attacking us for what he is guilty of.
>
>>> Again, -highhorse conjures shit up that no normal person could have
>>> thought what the issue was, at all. He's 180 degrees from it!
>>
>> Nope, DFS was already man enough to step up and admit that he wrote an
>> ambiguous statement ... way back in August 2012.
>
> I recognized that and addressed it, here:
>
> <s15g0j1pg664ch080rvjin27d4bf6uqeki@4ax.com>

File not found.

-hh

>
> My interpretation of DumFSck's "ambiguous" statement has always been
> correct. You attacked with *lies* and he supported you.
>
> This is not in dispute.
>
>>> Which means that
>>> you've been dry-humping that line for more than a decade.
>
> Nope. See above. You both attacked our reasonable position with
> *lies*.
>
>>> FFS, all along he's been a Photoshop defender! Obviously!
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>
>> When one is experienced enough to know what the right tool is for a job,
>> one uses said correct tool if one has it in your toolbox, and if one
>> doesn't have it, if you're also smart .. you go and get it.
>
> Poor -highhorse, pretending to be the "reasonable" one, here.
>
> The cola advocates have *always* been reasonable, on this issue.
> Since we were so clearly correct and reasonable, and you were so badly
> defeated, all you could do was respond with *lies*.
>
>> OTOH, if you're a luzer linux troll fanboy fool, you try to claim that
>> GIMP is "70,000 better" and get humiliated by literally _everyone_.
>
> Check this out, folks. He's so butthurt and desparate that he's
> trying to attck me with something that some other idiot did! He
> thinks that he can "win" with such garbage!
>
> Talk about your luzer lying troll fanboy fools!
>