• Re: 10.4.6 is available

    From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thursday, April 06, 2006 19:43:10
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-CF57F0.18481304042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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."

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thursday, April 06, 2006 19:08:29
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 21:42:13
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Snit@SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 13:05:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    "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?

    asshole. Am I supposed to not listen to him all of a
    sudden, you indecisive twerp of uncertain heritage?

    Wow, you sure are an angry troll!

    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.

    LOL! Clearly you cannot. You are worse than those you belittle. Sad for
    you, eh? Tee hee.

    --
    € Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
    by anyone other than perverts
    € OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 22:09:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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?

    Welcome to comp.sys.mac.advocacy, Michelle. Meet Josh McKee, who
    recently started a zealous crusade to rid the world of "Mac Zealots".
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 22:09:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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>,
    "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:


    Which says nothing about Intel multiple reboots and which doesn't
    mention
    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 T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 22:11:24
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

    "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?

    Yes, we know you can't read, assshole.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 14:13:03
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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 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?

    And this surprises you?

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Snit@SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 13:36:03
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    "Lars Träger" <Lars.Traeger@epost.de> stated in post 1hdg25l.flujn71k1k1wdN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de on 4/7/06 1:09 PM:

    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>,
    "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:


    Which says nothing about Intel multiple reboots and which doesn't
    mention
    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.

    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.

    --
    € Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
    € Teaching is a "real job"
    € The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"



    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 22:58:20
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

    "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.

    Well, you and Josh obviously know, you're doing now, asshole.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From George Graves@gmgraves@pacbell.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 21:31:56
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    George Graves
    The health of our society is a direct result of the men
    and women we choose to admire.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 14:37:11
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <noone-DA5A35.14130307042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
    Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

    You provided a reference without reading it?

    And this surprises you?

    Yes.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 14:39:05
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 15:46:14
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    But it's not what I was referring to. You even said:

    "you even gave the reference (and, I think, actually quoted) that
    release note."

    The reference I gave was:

    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303567

    You seem to be confused.

    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?

    As I said...it was a guess.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tom Stiller@tomstiller@comcast.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 17:46:15
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    Zealot: one who, having lost sight of his goal, redoubles his effort.

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 14:47:46
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article
    <gmgraves-E0248E.14315607042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
    George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

    No; that was the original question in this part of the
    thread--why does it boot twice?

    What differfence does it make?

    Because that's what worried the OP.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 14:50:36
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 16:22:03
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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..."

    That should have been clue one that I was guessing.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 16:24:52
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 16:28:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article
    <gmgraves-E0248E.14315607042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
    George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 00:39:39
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    According to him: "Mac zealots are Mac supporters. It's just their
    childish behavior that differentiates them from advocates. I'd be hard
    pressed to name half a dozen advocates from those that post here
    regularly."

    Draw your own conclusions who is or isn't a "Mac Zealot" ;-)
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 01:00:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:

    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.

    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?
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 01:00:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:

    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..."

    You lost that bet. Pay up.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From William Mitchell@mitchell@math.ufl.edu to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, April 07, 2006 19:21:49
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net> writes:

    What differfence does it make? It only does it the initial time after
    the upgrade.

    Because inquiring minds want to know.


    --
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics, The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu (352) 392-0281 x284
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 19:45:20
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <1hdg7bn.18he2iauwiwuoN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>,
    Lars.Traeger@epost.de (Lars Träger) wrote:

    According to him: "Mac zealots are Mac supporters. It's just their
    childish behavior that differentiates them from advocates.

    Well, that makes him an anti-Mac zealot, going by his messages that
    seeped through to comp.sys.mac.system

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 19:46:18
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Friday, April 07, 2006 19:47:36
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Warren Oates@warren.oates@gmail.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 07:46:49
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.
    --
    W. Oates
    Teal'c: He is concealing something.
    O'Neil: Like what?
    Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:02:12
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-776A33.19473607042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    Regardless my use of those words clearly indicated that what was to
    follow was merely a guess.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:03:33
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-D0723A.19461807042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    Maybe. But a disproportionately large number of Mac users in this
    newsgroup.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 00:51:15
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 17:26:05
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Saturday, April 08, 2006 17:28:10
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 09:23:29
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-C41D86.17281008042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    I'd like to think that it was based on a little bit more than nothing.
    But that doesn't change the fact that it was merely a guess.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 09:24:29
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-58173D.17260508042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    I am. They give the rest of us Mac users a bad name.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 09:26:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 08:35:04
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@alangbaker@telus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 21:13:58
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article
    <warren.oates-191DA3.07464908042006@nr-tor01.bellnexxia.net>,
    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.

    No.

    But having RAM that follows the specification of the machine for which
    it intended seems reasonable.

    --
    Alan Baker
    Vancouver, British Columbia
    "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
    to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
    if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 15:32:23
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-061723.08350409042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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;

    But it was working fine. That is, until Apple tightened the tolerance.

    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.

    And this would fall into the category of being cautious. Are you
    positive that everything that you use on your Macintosh meets
    specifications?

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 00:28:02
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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".

    Even Edwin gave up that stupid little argument quite some time ago. Yes,
    you are stupid.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 16:44:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Smith@reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 00:16:36
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    --Tim Smith
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Alan Baker@alangbaker@telus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 00:20:26
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article
    <reply_in_group-175E82.17163509042006@news.east.earthlink.net>,
    Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

    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.

    The spec included that that information was a required part of the spec, hence, it was not within specs.

    --
    Alan Baker
    Vancouver, British Columbia
    "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
    to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
    if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 18:25:23
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-84408A.16440009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    But you're forgetting one thing: The systems were working just fine.

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 17:43:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 18:43:26
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    You can debate this all you like and you'll never win. In spec or not
    the RAM was working. That's why people were upset. And to make matters
    worse Apple didn't even alert users to the potential harm. They could
    have at least done that.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 18:58:27
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    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.

    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

    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?

    Can you point to a reference of this read me?


    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.

    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?

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 19:01:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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. You can put the wrong oil in
    your car and it will be working fine for a while.

    So Josh has knowledge of which computers were working fine and which
    were not, particularly as a direct result of out of spec RAM?
    Interesting. You might ask him how he is privy to that... he claims to
    not be reading my posts. If you confront him with too much reality he'll ignore you, too.

    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?


    The only other thing they could have done was to not do the update. If
    they didn't do the update and a bunch of out of spec RAM starting
    causing problems (something that *may* have been happening on some level
    and perhaps Apple took precautions to head it off) then Josh would be
    whining about that. See how it works with Josh now? He's projecting when
    he say things like "Mac zealots"... he is the anit-Mac zealot.

    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.

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From russotto@russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 20:34:14
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <warren.oates-191DA3.07464908042006@nr-tor01.bellnexxia.net>,
    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.

    Actually, the RAM needed only declare itself Good and Holy, and Apple
    would take its word for it.
    --
    There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
    result in a fully-depreciated one.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Michelle Steiner@michelle@michelle.org to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sunday, April 09, 2006 19:48:10
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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"

    This article describes why some third-party RAM (memory) may no longer
    be recognized by the computer after installing the 4.1.7, 4.1.8, or
    4.1.9 firmware updates for iBook, PowerBook G3 and G4, Power Mac G4,
    Power Mac G4 Cube, and iMac.

    The Apple 4.1.7, 4.1.8, and 4.1.9 firmware updates incorporate a number
    of fixes that dramatically improve system stability and performance. The update also includes a check that validates whether the memory installed
    in the computer is compatible. This check was added to help alleviate
    random crashes and stability issues. This memory test disables memory
    DIMMs that are found to be out of specification, and DIMMs that cannot
    be determined to be compatible. As a result, some third-party memory
    that was recognized by previous versions of firmware may no longer be recognized after the updates.

    With this set of firmware updates, Apple is strictly enforcing adherence
    to published RAM specifications. RAM that falls outside of specification
    can cause stability issues with Apple hardware and software, including
    Mac OS X. If out-of-spec RAM is installed in a Macintosh computer, the
    system cannot be expected to perform reliably. Apple has provided RAM specifications to memory developers for some time.

    When purchasing RAM modules for use in Macintosh computers, make sure
    that they conform to the JEDEC specification. Check with your memory
    vendor to ensure that the RAM module supports the correct timing modes
    and that their Serial Presence Detect (SPD) feature has been programmed properly, as called out in the JEDEC specification.

    If you have installed the 4.1.7, 4.1.8, or 4.1.9 firmware update on your computer and some of your third-party RAM is not recognized, contact the vendor of that RAM.

    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.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Streater@tim.streater@dante.org.uk to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 16:36:37
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-C41D86.17281008042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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.

    B O R I N G -ING -ING !!!

    You might as well as guessed that the Phoenix Mercury

    Never heard of them.

    would win the World series this year.

    Never heard of that either. Stop wasting electrons.

    -- tim
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 23:14:06
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lars.Traeger@Lars.Traeger@epost.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 23:14:05
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

    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.

    Not telling IS breaking the specs. Not to mention that if you can't even
    get that right, I'm not going to believe in the manufacturers ability to produce something far more complicated like the timing to spec.
    --
    Lars T.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 16:06:30
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <michelle-1B6982.19481009042006@news.west.cox.net>,
    Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

    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"

    No. I want the release notes that were initially included with the
    firmware update that you said alerted the user to the potential problem.
    Not some article created approximately three weeks later.

    [ snip - article text ]

    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.

    But it was working fine. At least until the firmware update.

    Are you really so sure?

    I'm not going to buy cheap RAM.

    Nor did a lot of people. Many of them bought name brand RAM that offered
    a life time warranty.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 16:08:36
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 19:20:43
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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?

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Jim Lee Jr.@peejster01@insightbb.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 02:12:50
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <noone-5F1EA7.19204310042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
    Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

    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?

    I think Josh would like to be humiliated some more, like his Windoze
    using bosom buddies, like Edwin, Zara, Kadaitcha Man, Tommy Elam, the
    Mayor, et sl.

    --
    Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
    Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
    "VISTA" an acronym for the top five Windows problems: Viruses,
    Intrusions, Spyware, Trojans and Adware.
    As long as the OS was from Apple and not MS I wouldn't care
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 20:39:41
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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".

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From GreyCloud@mist@cumulus.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Monday, April 10, 2006 21:46:45
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Steve Carroll wrote:

    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?


    He won't read them as there is no centerfold.


    --
    Where are we going?
    And why am I in this handbasket?
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From ZnU@znu@fake.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:45:06
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <jtmckee-DFA695.18432609042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
    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:

    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.

    You hear about all the users who had RAM that worked, that was disabled
    by the update. What you don't hear about, precisely because Apple
    released the update, it all the users who otherwise would have had data-destroying crashes because they were using out-of-spec RAM.

    This is always a problem with taking preventative action; it doesn't
    matter whether you're talking about Y2K bug fixing or counter-terrorism.
    You only see the costs of what you do; you almost never gain reliable knowledge of what the costs would have been if you hadn't acted.

    [snip]

    --
    "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
    -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From fibercut@fibercut@nospam.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 07:44:16
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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. Windows
    users in Windows forums that speak highly of their computer system
    choice are also advocates. The zealot is one that seeks out to
    antagonize another persons computer choice, in other's forum. See the difference?

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Lefty Bigfoot@nunya@busyness.info to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 16:33:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.


    --
    Lefty
    All of God's creatures have a place..........
    .........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
    See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 13:33:03
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <0001HW.C061446D019470EDF0407530@news.verizon.net>,
    Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

    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.

    I'd love to see how he expects to prove that statement. I submit that
    he's operation from a faulty premise.

    Anyone on usenet that assumes you
    are a liar from the start is not worth debating anyway.

    Few people I ever saw assumed Josh was a liar from the start. I did,
    however, see Josh prove it often enough... for quite a number of people. Somehow, miraculously, this group is the same group he calls "Mac
    zealots".

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 15:51:42
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <0001HW.C061446D019470EDF0407530@news.verizon.net>,
    Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

    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.

    Hence why I don't respond to many of the Mac zealots. Especially Steve.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Crowley@timmyturmoil@gmail.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 14:55:01
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


    Josh McKee wrote:

    Mac zealots.


    Cause he's a liar and a total idiot. yawn.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 19:13:42
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Crowley@timmyturmoil@gmail.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 19:05:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


    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?

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 21:04:38
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 07:13:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <jtmckee-169DCA.19134211042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
    Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> wrote:

    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.

    Translation:<Josh, with his hands in his pockets, kicking the pavement
    with his shoe> When I make another of my stupid, unrealistic comments
    they challenge it with reality! Damn reality zealots!

    Making baseless, unsubstantiated
    personal attacks against those who they're "debating". Anyone with an
    ounce of intelligence sees right through their childish tactics.

    Translation: I have completely fucked my credibility with my bullshit
    and I write crap like this in an effort to cover.

    Elsewhere, Josh writes:

    "As I've said the only people that seem to have difficulty with Windows
    are Mac zealots."

    To that statement, Josh is given the following response:

    "The "only" people, huh? Care to start looking through some forums with
    me that will show that you aren't looking very thoroughly or would you
    prefer to slink away again? If I find some other people that aren't Mac zealots, you'll retract your statement, won't you? Of course you will
    because you are the honest and honorable Josh McKee... the anit-Mac
    zealot.


    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 in about a minute... I guess that's enough to start with.
    Think I'll have any luck?"


    As anyone can see, Josh has no choice but to ignore the 'irrational Mac zealot'. Any questions?

    Only one: How come Josh doesn't realize he'll reap what he sows?

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 07:23:14
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <jtmckee-CA488D.21043811042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
    Josh McKee <jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net> 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.

    I suggest you read what fibercut wrote again... exhibit A to his
    argument was you not answering pertinent questions. Are you here to
    convert people to Windows? You're certainly not here to advocate the
    Mac. If the landscape is so barren for you, why return? What is the
    upside of having what you consider irrational discussions with immature whining zealots making baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks
    against you?

    fibercut's punchline:
    "The zealot is one that seeks out to antagonize another persons
    computer choice, in other's forum."

    You will reap what you sow, Josh.

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Crowley@timmyturmoil@gmail.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 06:51:44
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


    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. You talk
    out of both sides of your mouth and still duck the question. Why do
    you lie?

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From GreyCloud@mist@cumulus.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:34:07
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Josh McKee wrote:

    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.

    You seem to fit into some kind of zealot category yourself.
    More like a lamer.

    --
    Where are we going?
    And why am I in this handbasket?
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From GreyCloud@mist@cumulus.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:34:57
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    And here is exhibit B: ---->>> Josh, stupid troll.

    --
    Where are we going?
    And why am I in this handbasket?
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Josh McKee@jtmckee@rmac.know-spam-bogus.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thursday, April 13, 2006 17:40:00
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    Josh
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Tim Crowley@timmyturmoil@gmail.com to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thursday, April 13, 2006 19:10:12
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


    Josh McKee 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. 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.



    hahahahahahaha. that's weak.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steve Carroll@noone@nowhere.net to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 07:22:59
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    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.

    --
    "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
    "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
    like myself" - Snit
    "At least you can see my "total lack of ... dishonestly and obnoxiousness" -Snit
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Snit@SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID to comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 09:27:23
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    "Steve Carroll" <noone@nowhere.net> stated in post noone-3DF308.07225918042006@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 4/18/06 6:22 AM:

    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.

    Learn to read for context, Steve. You silly troll.

    --
    € As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
    € If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
    € One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113