In article <jtmckee-19A969.18353404042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
you even gave the reference (and, I think, actually quoted) that
release note.
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the Intel
based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with
PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based
Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
Then you've changed the subject.
you even gave the reference (and, I think, actually quoted)
that release note.
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the Intel
based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
"Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post 1hdaprh.5zcpzucov1xfN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/4/06 3:53 PM:
Sure. Now explain how making changes to the OF on a PPC Mac makes difference to any problems with the EFI of an Intel based Mac.
It is unlikely it would. What makes you think otherwise?
For extra credit don't use the words "Mac Zealot".
Gee, do you think he can go longer than you using the much more derogatory term "asshole"? LOL!
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
"Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post
1hdaprh.5zcpzucov1xfN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/4/06 3:53 PM:
Sure. Now explain how making changes to the OF on a PPC Mac makes
difference to any problems with the EFI of an Intel based Mac.
It is unlikely it would. What makes you think otherwise?
Because HE said so,
asshole. Am I supposed to not listen to him all of a
sudden, you indecisive twerp of uncertain heritage?
For extra credit don't use the words "Mac Zealot".
Gee, do you think he can go longer than you using the much more derogatory >> term "asshole"? LOL!
Using asshole for YOU is actually giving you too much credit.
In article <jtmckee-35E2DC.19431006042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the Intel
based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
In article <123674l43l48s74@corp.supernews.com>,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote in message news:jtmckee-F6B62F.19081404042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <12364ifl8atb642@corp.supernews.com>,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
mentionWhich says nothing about Intel multiple reboots and which doesn't
Open Firmware anywhere. Strikes 1 and 2. Can you make it strike 3?
What part of "As I said, it was just a guess at the time as it was the only thing that I had read about a firmware update in 10.4.6." is giving you trouble?
None of it is giving me trouble. What's confusing to me, and I'm sure to others here, is why you went into this bizarre defense of your COMPLETELY WRONG guess.
What defense? I admitted in my second post that it was wrong and stated
that it was just a guess:
"Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post 1hdg1g1.1kj5gzh10yw49kN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/7/06 12:42 PM:
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
"Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post
1hdaprh.5zcpzucov1xfN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/4/06 3:53 PM:
Sure. Now explain how making changes to the OF on a PPC Mac makes
difference to any problems with the EFI of an Intel based Mac.
It is unlikely it would. What makes you think otherwise?
Because HE said so,
I did not see HE say so, but do you believe him?
In article <jtmckee-35E2DC.19431006042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with
PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based
Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
Then you've changed the subject.
No; that was the original question in this part of the thread--why does
it boot twice?
you even gave the reference (and, I think, actually quoted)
that release note.
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the Intel based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <123674l43l48s74@corp.supernews.com>,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote in message
news:jtmckee-F6B62F.19081404042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <12364ifl8atb642@corp.supernews.com>,mention
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Which says nothing about Intel multiple reboots and which doesn't
Open Firmware anywhere. Strikes 1 and 2. Can you make it strike 3?
What part of "As I said, it was just a guess at the time as it was the >>>> only thing that I had read about a firmware update in 10.4.6." is giving >>>> you trouble?
None of it is giving me trouble. What's confusing to me, and I'm sure to >>> others here, is why you went into this bizarre defense of your COMPLETELY >>> WRONG guess.
What defense? I admitted in my second post that it was wrong and stated
that it was just a guess:
Trying to obfuscate that you were wrong IS a (lame) defense. Don't be
such a zealot.
"Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post 1hdg25l.flujn71k1k1wdN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/7/06 1:09 PM:
Trying to obfuscate that you were wrong IS a (lame) defense. Don't be
such a zealot.
LOL! Do you even know what it means to obfuscate? Hint: when someone openly, clearly, and concisely admits to something that are not obfuscating it. Wow... you really are in need of some help.
In article <michelle-B9465D.19082906042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-35E2DC.19431006042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
Then you've changed the subject.
No; that was the original question in this part of the thread--why does
it boot twice?
You provided a reference without reading it?
And this surprises you?
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
In article <jtmckee-35E2DC.19431006042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with
PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based
Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
Then you've changed the subject.
No; that was the original question in this part of the thread--why does
it boot twice?
you even gave the reference (and, I think, actually quoted)
that release note.
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the Intel based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or
penguins.
Right?
No; that was the original question in this part of the
thread--why does it boot twice?
What differfence does it make?
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the
Intel based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
As I said...it was a guess.
In article <jtmckee-C955DF.15461407042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the
Intel based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
As I said...it was a guess.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll be sure
to keep that in mind.
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or
penguins.
Right?
In article <noone-DA5A35.14130307042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:
In article <michelle-B9465D.19082906042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-35E2DC.19431006042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Apple's release notes specifically say that it will happen with PPC Macs, and not with Intel Macs;
Are you sure you're not mixing the two up?
I am absolutely sure I am not mixing the two up:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303411>
"With the Mac OS X 10.4.6 system software update, ****PowerPC-based Macs will restart twice****, instead of once, after the initial installation."
Then you've changed the subject.
No; that was the original question in this part of the thread--why does it boot twice?
What differfence does it make? It only does it the initial time after
the upgrade. After that it starts normally. Obviously it has to install
or update some resources on the initial reboot before it boots to
desktop. BFD.
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or
penguins.
Right?
Because Apple, in the past, has released firmware updates which have
caused Mac users problems (i.e. memory fiasco) without alerting them to
the change which caused said problem. The OP might have been worried
that something like that may happen with this release.
In article <michelle-4E36F4.14503607042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-C955DF.15461407042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
The release note that I provided from Apple referred to the
Intel based Macs.
And said *nothing* about starting twice.
I'll take your word for it. I didn't read it.
You provided a reference without reading it?
As I said...it was a guess.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll be sure
to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original statement, yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
What differfence does it make? It only does it the initial time after
the upgrade.
According to him: "Mac zealots are Mac supporters. It's just their
childish behavior that differentiates them from advocates.
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely
positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll be
sure to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original statement,
yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
That should have been clue one that I was guessing.
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to
specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the
cheap RAM?
In article <jtmckee-E7945B.16220307042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll be
sure to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original statement,
yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
That should have been clue one that I was guessing.
I never bet against the odds, and always try to bet only on sure things--except when I'm at a casino, and I'm gambling for recreation.
Even then, I'll stick to blackjack because I almost always win at that
game.
In article <jtmckee-026EA3.16245207042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely
positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Ah, a very miniscule portion of Macintosh users.
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to
specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the
cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He
saith is the Good and Holy.
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the
Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Ah, a very miniscule portion of Macintosh users.
Maybe. But a disproportionately large number of Mac users in this
newsgroup.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll
be sure to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original
statement, yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
That should have been clue one that I was guessing.
I never bet against the odds, and always try to bet only on sure things--except when I'm at a casino, and I'm gambling for
recreation. Even then, I'll stick to blackjack because I almost
always win at that game.
Regardless my use of those words clearly indicated that what was to
follow was merely a guess.
In article <jtmckee-B5049D.10021208042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll
be sure to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original
statement, yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
That should have been clue one that I was guessing.
I never bet against the odds, and always try to bet only on sure things--except when I'm at a casino, and I'm gambling for
recreation. Even then, I'll stick to blackjack because I almost
always win at that game.
Regardless my use of those words clearly indicated that what was to
follow was merely a guess.
And is a waste of electrons and pixels because that guess was pulled out
of thin air with nothing to base it on.
In article <jtmckee-920EBC.10033308042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the
Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Ah, a very miniscule portion of Macintosh users.
Maybe. But a disproportionately large number of Mac users in this newsgroup.
I assume that you mean the advocacy group; the system group doesn't have them--and since I'm not subscribed to the advocacy group, I don't see
much of them.
But it appears to me that you're an anti-Mac zealot.
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He saith is the Good and Holy.
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought
bad RAM.
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you
bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after
Apple changed the firmware.
Regardless it's understandable why someone may be cautious about
installing another firmware update from Apple. Who's to know what
third part whatever Apple might disable with it.
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to
specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the
cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He
saith is the Good and Holy.
In article <jtmckee-8A6268.09262109042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you
bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after
Apple changed the firmware.
It never met specs;
the firmware update tightened the Mac's tolerance of out of spec RAM.
Regardless it's understandable why someone may be cautious about installing another firmware update from Apple. Who's to know what
third part whatever Apple might disable with it.
There is a difference between caution and paranoia.
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He saith is the Good and Holy.
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought
bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after
Apple changed the firmware.
It never met specs;
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
There is a difference between caution and paranoia.
And this would fall into the category of being cautious.
Are you positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh meets specifications?
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought
bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after
Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
No, it worked fine, because the RAM itself *was* within the specs for
proper operation on Macs. The only problem was that it did not *tell*
the Mac that it was in spec.
In article <jtmckee-92C533.15322309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
It never met specs;
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
There is a difference between caution and paranoia.
And this would fall into the category of being cautious.
Yup, Apple was being cautious. If a computer crashes, people are going
to blame the computer company or the software company (in Apple's case,
it's the same thing); they will not blame the RAM company.
The firmware upgrade was required in order for other upgrades to be installed. Those upgrades were apparently more susceptible to out-of-tolerance RAM.
Are you positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh meets specifications?
Reasonably so; everything in it was put there by Apple. And when I
upgrade the RAM, I'll be using RAM that's certified to meet the specs.
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that
were working fine before their update.
But setting that aside Apple didn't even mention it. People found out
the hard way: By installing the update and finding out that their
third party memory no longer worked whereas it was working just fine
prior to the update.
The firmware upgrade was required in order for other upgrades to be installed. Those upgrades were apparently more susceptible to out-of-tolerance RAM.
Then why didn't Apple make people aware of it?
Are you positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh
meets specifications?
Reasonably so; everything in it was put there by Apple. And when I upgrade the RAM, I'll be using RAM that's certified to meet the
specs.
What spec will you be using?
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He saith is the Good and Holy.
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought
bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after
Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that
were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine.
You can put the wrong oil in your car and it will be working fine for a while.
But setting that aside Apple didn't even mention it. People found out
the hard way: By installing the update and finding out that their
third party memory no longer worked whereas it was working just fine
prior to the update.
If they had read the release notes, they would have known that that
would happen if their RAM was not up to spec.
That's the reason I did not install the firmware upgrade until I found a utility that brought the RAM into spec; I think that there was a minor tradeoff from that utility, but it was so long ago that I forget what it could have been.
The firmware upgrade was required in order for other upgrades to be installed. Those upgrades were apparently more susceptible to out-of-tolerance RAM.
Then why didn't Apple make people aware of it?
they had to click OK on the read-me window of the installer. What else should Apple have done?
Are you positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh
meets specifications?
Reasonably so; everything in it was put there by Apple. And when I upgrade the RAM, I'll be using RAM that's certified to meet the
specs.
What spec will you be using?
The RAM manufacturer's guarantee that the RAM meets Apple's requirements
for my computer.
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that
were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine. You can put the wrong oil in
your car and it will be working fine for a while.
But setting that aside Apple didn't even mention it. People found out
the hard way: By installing the update and finding out that their
third party memory no longer worked whereas it was working just fine
prior to the update.
If they had read the release notes, they would have known that that
would happen if their RAM was not up to spec.
That's the reason I did not install the firmware upgrade until I found a utility that brought the RAM into spec; I think that there was a minor tradeoff from that utility, but it was so long ago that I forget what it could have been.
The firmware upgrade was required in order for other upgrades to be installed. Those upgrades were apparently more susceptible to out-of-tolerance RAM.
Then why didn't Apple make people aware of it?
they had to click OK on the read-me window of the installer. What else should Apple have done?
Are you positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh
meets specifications?
Reasonably so; everything in it was put there by Apple. And when I upgrade the RAM, I'll be using RAM that's certified to meet the
specs.
What spec will you be using?
The RAM manufacturer's guarantee that the RAM meets Apple's requirements
for my computer.
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to
specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the
cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He
saith is the Good and Holy.
If they had read the release notes, they would have known that that
would happen if their RAM was not up to spec.
Can you point me to the release notes that contain this information?
I'm reviewing the 4.1.9 readme and I cannot find it:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75130#English
The RAM manufacturer's guarantee that the RAM meets Apple's
requirements for my computer.
As did a lot of people who's RAM was affected. They were able to get
it replaced free by the manufacturer.
Are you really so sure?
In article <jtmckee-B5049D.10021208042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll
be sure to keep that in mind.
On this particular topic at the time I made the original
statement, yes. That's why I said:
"My bet is..."
That should have been clue one that I was guessing.
I never bet against the odds, and always try to bet only on sure things--except when I'm at a casino, and I'm gambling for
recreation. Even then, I'll stick to blackjack because I almost
always win at that game.
Regardless my use of those words clearly indicated that what was to
follow was merely a guess.
And is a waste of electrons and pixels because that guess was pulled out
of thin air with nothing to base it on.
You might as well as guessed that the Phoenix Mercury
would win the World series this year.
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
Apparently it was working just fine. That's why there were a lot of
upset users who installed that update.
You can debate this all you like and you'll never win.
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
No, it worked fine, because the RAM itself *was* within the specs for
proper operation on Macs. The only problem was that it did not *tell*
the Mac that it was in spec.
In article <jtmckee-92F708.18582709042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
If they had read the release notes, they would have known that that would happen if their RAM was not up to spec.
Can you point me to the release notes that contain this information?
I'm reviewing the 4.1.9 readme and I cannot find it:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75130#English
You want this article:
"http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60839"
The RAM manufacturer's guarantee that the RAM meets Apple's
requirements for my computer.
As did a lot of people who's RAM was affected. They were able to get
it replaced free by the manufacturer.
That is because the RAM didn't meet specs.
Are you really so sure?
I'm not going to buy cheap RAM.
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
Apparently it was working just fine. That's why there were a lot of
upset users who installed that update.
Suuuuure. But once they replaced the RAM, suddenly they had less
problems with their unreliable Mac.
You can debate this all you like and you'll never win.
Thanks for admitting that reality has no chance with you.
In article <1hdlpqu.zle4rk1ct6kj8N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought
bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
Apparently it was working just fine. That's why there were a lot of upset users who installed that update.
Suuuuure. But once they replaced the RAM, suddenly they had less
problems with their unreliable Mac.
From what I've read none of the people affected were having problems.
That's why they were so upset.
You can debate this all you like and you'll never win.
Thanks for admitting that reality has no chance with you.
That's because your definition of reality doesn't match rational
people's definition.
Great projection there, Josh... time for some of that ol' reality...
Perhaps you missed these in the other posts I put them in:
http://www.suggestafix.com/
http://www.winguides.com/forums/
http://forums.techguy.org/
http://www.windowsbbs.com/
http://www.techsupportforum.com/
http://forums.wugnet.com/
http://www.cybertechhelp.com/forums/
I found these sites rather quickly. Plenty more where they came from.
Would like you to read these at your leisure or would you prefer a
public humilia... uh airing?
In article <michelle-830564.17430009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine.
No. They were working fine. That's the problem.
In article <jtmckee-1A1E75.16083610042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdlpqu.zle4rk1ct6kj8N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you >>>>>>>bought
bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after >>>>>>Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
Apparently it was working just fine. That's why there were a lot of >>>>upset users who installed that update.
Suuuuure. But once they replaced the RAM, suddenly they had less
problems with their unreliable Mac.
From what I've read none of the people affected were having problems. >>That's why they were so upset.
Says the guy who so recently claimed:
"As I've said the only people that seem to have difficulty with Windows
are Mac zealots."
You can debate this all you like and you'll never win.
Thanks for admitting that reality has no chance with you.
That's because your definition of reality doesn't match rational
people's definition.
Great projection there, Josh... time for some of that ol' reality...
Perhaps you missed these in the other posts I put them in:
http://www.suggestafix.com/
http://www.winguides.com/forums/
http://forums.techguy.org/
http://www.windowsbbs.com/
http://www.techsupportforum.com/
http://forums.wugnet.com/
http://www.cybertechhelp.com/forums/
I found these sites rather quickly... plenty more where they came from. Would like you to read these at your leisure or would you prefer a
public humilia... uh airing?
In article <1hdjyit.du82uv1d8nhjgN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1hdi4vv.x6puk91ov3o6yN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <1hdg9zw.h6ogmzgan6buN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
You mean the "memory fiasco" that disabled RAM that wasn't build to specs, and caused problems that people blamed on Apple instead of the
cheap RAM?
Oh my. Apple is a jealous God, thou shalt us no other ram than what He
saith is the Good and Holy.
Not Apple's specs, JEDEC's. Go fight it out with them that you bought bad RAM.
The RAM worked fine until Apple's update. It only became "bad" after Apple changed the firmware.
And yet it didn't follow the specs. IF it actually "worked fine".
Apparently it was working just fine. That's why there were a lot of
upset users who installed that update.
In article <michelle-26CDB6.14390507042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or penguins. >>
Right?
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely
positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Josh
In article <jtmckee-92F708.18582709042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <michelle-830564.17430009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that
were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine.
No. They were working fine. That's the problem.
Your problem is you can't prove the statement "They were working fine".
Steve Carroll wrote
(in article
<noone-D22E2C.20394110042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
In article <jtmckee-92F708.18582709042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <michelle-830564.17430009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that >>>> were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine.
No. They were working fine. That's the problem.
Your problem is you can't prove the statement "They were working fine".
That's really not the case.
Anyone on usenet that assumes you
are a liar from the start is not worth debating anyway.
Steve Carroll wrote
(in article
<noone-D22E2C.20394110042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
In article <jtmckee-92F708.18582709042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <michelle-830564.17430009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <jtmckee-50FCC2.18252309042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the
tolerance.
Apple didn't tighten the tolerance; Apple enforced the specs.
It doesn't matter what they did. What they did was break things that >>>> were working fine before their update.
Things that appeared to be working fine.
No. They were working fine. That's the problem.
Your problem is you can't prove the statement "They were working fine".
That's really not the case. Anyone on usenet that assumes you
are a liar from the start is not worth debating anyway.
Mac zealots.
On 2006-04-07 18:24:52 -0400, Josh McKee
<jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> said:
In article <michelle-26CDB6.14390507042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or
penguins.
Right?
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely
positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Josh
Um, you just described someone who goes to another computer's platform
and spew anti-mac statements at any chance you get.
The Mac zealot is one who would go to Windows forums and spew hatred for their computer choice (Windows). This applies to Linux forums and
vis-versa as well. The people here are Mac advocates, not hatred spewing zealots.
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit
into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with
these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion
into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated
personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an
ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with
these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated
personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an
ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day
out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya
coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something
here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
In article <2006041107441616807-fibercut@nospamcom>,
fibercut <fibercut@nospam.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 18:24:52 -0400, Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> said:
In article <michelle-26CDB6.14390507042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or
recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots". >>
penguins.
Right?
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Josh
Um, you just described someone who goes to another computer's platform
and spew anti-mac statements at any chance you get.
Any chance that I get? I don't spew anti-mac statements.
The Mac zealot is one who would go to Windows forums and spew hatred for their computer choice (Windows). This applies to Linux forums and
vis-versa as well. The people here are Mac advocates, not hatred spewing zealots.
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with
these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion into an immature whining session.
Making baseless, unsubstantiated
personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an
ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day
out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something
here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day
out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something
here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
In article <2006041107441616807-fibercut@nospamcom>,
fibercut <fibercut@nospam.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 18:24:52 -0400, Josh McKee >><jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> said:
In article <michelle-26CDB6.14390507042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <1hdg292.1495r2uqqr4ypN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>, >>>>Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:
Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who >>>>>recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
"Mac Zealot" noun. Anyone who does not worship Bill Gates and/or >>>>penguins.
Right?
Mac Zealot: Anyone attacks people who say anything even remotely >>>positive about Windows or even slightly negative about the Macintosh >>>irrespective of validity of said statement(s).
Josh
Um, you just described someone who goes to another computer's platform
and spew anti-mac statements at any chance you get.
Any chance that I get? I don't spew anti-mac statements.
The Mac zealot is one who would go to Windows forums and spew hatred for >>their computer choice (Windows). This applies to Linux forums and
vis-versa as well. The people here are Mac advocates, not hatred spewing >>zealots.
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with
these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated
personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an
ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit >>>into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with >>>these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion >>>into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated >>>personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an >>>ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day
out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya >>coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something
here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
Josh McKee wrote:
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit
into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion
into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
hahah, what, more proof that you are a liar. This weekend you claim you ignore my posts, here you are "replying" to one of my posts.
In article <1144849904.399596.131960@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit
into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion
into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass? What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
hahah, what, more proof that you are a liar. This weekend you claim you ignore my posts, here you are "replying" to one of my posts.
This is the same argument Steve tried to make some time ago too. Always
the literalists you two are. Saying that I ignore your posts doesn't
mean that I will never in the future read or respond to one. There's a
reason I don't kill file you losers. It's because occasionally I may
want to read, and respond to, one of them.
In article <1144849904.399596.131960@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars fit
into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational discussion
into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this.
You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass? What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
hahah, what, more proof that you are a liar. This weekend you claim you ignore my posts, here you are "replying" to one of my posts.
This is the same argument Steve tried to make some time ago too. Always
the literalists you two are.
In article <jtmckee-A7E7BC.17395513042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:
In article <1144849904.399596.131960@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
In article <1144807521.823730.252680@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote:
Josh McKee wrote:
Some people here are Mac advocates. However the majority of regulars >>>>>> fit
into the zealot category. You cannot hold a rational discussion with >>>>>> these people. They immediately drag any attempt at a rational
discussion
into an immature whining session. Making baseless, unsubstantiated >>>>>> personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an >>>>>> ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.
Yet here you are, day after day.
If we are so bad WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE????
How fucking retarded can you be? You get your ass kicked day in and day >>>>> out - with FACTS. Not with pretend "challenges" and Zealot Zealot
Chants. Your arguments, when you make them are weak. You suck at this. >>>>> You think it's our fault? Cool I can accept that. But what keeps ya >>>>> coming back, eh Josh? Think ya might be able to accomplish something >>>>> here? Find a convert? A friend? Do you just enjoy being an ass?
What's in it for you? Why do you post to a Mac.Advocate group? Eh?
Fibercut, I present to you exhibit A.
hahah, what, more proof that you are a liar. This weekend you claim you
ignore my posts, here you are "replying" to one of my posts.
This is the same argument Steve tried to make some time ago too. Always
the literalists you two are.
Says the guy who wrote:
"He associated himself by not having denied it."
Yes, I'll be a "literalist" with any dimwit that would write such a statement. Uh oh, you've been called a 'dimwit', Josh... better hurry up
and deny it or people might just associate you with the word.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 790 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 42:40:18 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Files: | 5,294 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 564,964 |
