What inkjet printer prints the best text?

me too

TJ wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote: *** and top-posted.  Fixed ***

<Arthur's contribution snipped>

Posters are connected to their quotes by the number of '>' at the
start of lines.  That number should be one larger than the count in
the attribution line.

In addition proper posting will help greatly.  I.e. do not
top-post.  Do snip properly.  Read the following URLs, which will
describe the conventions properly.

Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material.  I fixed this one.  See the following links:

Do you have any idea how much self-appointed Usenet etiquette police annoy me? Never mind answering. I know you feel a Noble Calling to fix all that is "wrong" with Usenet, and that you don't really care about what annoys me, only what annoys YOU.

TJ

"TJ" wrote in message
.. .
CBFalconer wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***

Arthur's contribution snipped

Posters are connected to their quotes by the number of '' at the
start of lines. That number should be one larger than the count in
the attribution line.

In addition proper posting will help greatly. I.e. do not
top-post. Do snip properly. Read the following URLs, which will
describe the conventions properly.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:

Do you have any idea how much self-appointed Usenet etiquette police annoy
me? Never mind answering. I know you feel a Noble Calling to fix all that
is "wrong" with Usenet, and that you don't really care about what annoys
me, only what annoys YOU.

TJ


TJ - You read my mind! Between "officer" CBF, "angry authority" Kony, and
"OEM ink uber alles" Moosetripe, you could spend your entire day reading
nonsensical drivel on this NG. Thank the lord for the killfile!!!!!!!!!!!

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:38 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


You may think that your posting is worthy of my tracking down the
original posting you are referring to, but I don't agree.

I never asked you to track down anything, it was you who
made the comment. I was further helpful in suggesting you
use your newsreader like everyone else to see what I'd
replied to.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:13:42 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


I have read this thread through, and what I read was that Tony indicated
a mixture of his personal experience,

.... which is subjective, as I already wrote.


the experiences of those he deals
with on a professional basis,

Incorrect. He cannot provide hearsay as to a comprehensive
analysis of a 3rd party's use of a product. It is quite
likely they do not come to him and converse about this exact
topic so he can report on their sum experiences with Vista,
or much of anything else for that matter. Instead he is
introducing misleading, "supposed" evidence which cannot be
countered merely because it is worthless.

Instead what we do have is the largest backlash against any
version of windows ever, as seen by many online polls. He,
you, and I can all find links to this information. This is
fact, not 3rd party hearsay.



and his informed opinion.

You threw the word "informed" out there as a measure of
bull****. How about sticking to clear facts instead of
fancying yourself a colorful writer? He offered an opinion.
He's entitled to one. That is subjective and does not make
it rational to discount all the opinions of others, not mine
but those easily found by web searches, even linked earlier
in the thread. He choose to discount all counterevidence by
selectively ignoring and declaring it irrelevant
(effectually, I do now forget the exact word used) as if he
can ignore evidence.


Was it without
bias? No, we all have personal biases, including you.

Not necessarily applicable, because some have more ability
than others to isolate any personal bias from a pursuit of
truth. Some people stop and consider whether they are
writing something subjective, and do a bit deeper digging.
That is what the links CBFalconer, or the several online
polls, as well as other sources of information provide.

Incredibly enough, even Tony himself conceded there were
issues people are supposed to wait to have addressed, as if
we are supposed to judge the fitness of a product not based
on what it is now, but what it *might* become, someday.
Another subjective opinion, that if an issue doesn't bother
or effect Tony, then it's ok for everyone else too.

I'm terribly sorry to have to write it, but you are either
deluded or intentionally trying to pervert truth. Writing
pages of text about how right you think you are doesn't
further a conversation, it still ignores the points already
made which is anything except the persuit of truth.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:45:38 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:



kony wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:26:00 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


A couple of things:

1) this posting is misattributed. I did not write any of the text which
was quoted below my name (which I have quoted below).


yes and no. Since I snipped out what you wrote, the rest
was consistent with usenet notation using "" symbol. So
really the thing I omitted was "snip" to show something
was missing.



Actually, everything I wrote was missing.

Yes it was, because you replied to my post but didn't
continue the conversation, instead making a speech. I
replied to your speech post but snipped out the speech body
because it was already out of context, since your speech did
not carry on the prior conversation.

Strangely, having been on newsgroups, and before that, bulletin boards
for something like 20 years now, until this message, where you removed
the full text of my posting, the assorted BBS software and newsreaders
I've used have functioned perfectly well for me. I have been able to
read and reply to postings, quoted messages, etc, without difficulty.

Obviously not, you can't even go back one posting in a
thread to see what you replied to. So you're basically
admitting it's either difficult for you, impossible for you,
or you CHOOSE not to do it (making all your whining a lot of
nonsense).

Since you can't navigate usenet even after 20 years of
BBS/etc, here's a link to Google Groups where you can see
where your initial post strayed from the subtopic:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...1afa fc1156b2

(or) http://tinyurl.com/2pddog

If you need more help using Google or your newsreader you
can search for that help as well.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence with
him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would have to
try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his statements are
level headed evaluations based upon his personal experiences.

However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.

You are an idiot.

Backlash has to do with real use problems.

You pretend you are intelligent but are not. There is no
great body of text you could write that makes a problem
disappear.

I have snipped everything from this post simply so that I can attempt to
recover what I consider to be a thread with many innuendos and
misunderstandings.

The post I originally replied to included the following extract.

"Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
place."

And was followed by some links.

My reply was, and I apologise for reposting this in full.

"All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months and when SP1
comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
other improvements. Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
In many cases the end result was a pretty reliable OS (Windows98SE and Windows
XP with SP2 for eaxmple). Modern OS' are immensely complex and anybody who
thinks they can be released in their final totally stable version is dreaming.
All of the negatives in the above links have been refuted by people just as
expert as the authors. It seems to me that the links have been "cherry picked",
in other words chosen because they are all negative. There are many positive
links about Vista. I have been using Vista for many months with absolutely no
issues as of yet and am looking forward to SP1. I also lived with the Windows
98 XP iterations which resulted in a stable computing experience for me.
On a more specific note the first link is well worth a read, clearly the author
has an agenda. He says that "This document looks purely at the cost of the
technical portions of Vista's content protection" and immediately follows this
with comments that are critical of the OS with little or no relevance to the
subject matter."

I have read my reply several times and cannot for the life of me see why it
upset you.
I was attempting to point out that an implication that Vista is "crap" is an
extreme point of view and that the links that were provided did not convince
me. I have read most of the material despite you suggesting that I have not.
There are many on-line articles that express the view that Vista is not "crap".
I have not provided any links myself because I suspect that would result in
debate about the expertise and bias or lack of bias that the authors have. It
seems to me that would be a pointless exercise. Suffice it to say that any of
us with an interest in this subject could in minutes find any number of links
that would support any view we happen to hold.
You have suggested that I am not "thick skinned", what that has to do with
anything is beyond me and I believe I can debate without being defensive
(another thing you have acused me of without any justification).

I guess the real concern I have is that you keep moving the goal posts, subtle
changes between several posts have occurred which distort the meaning. This is
a common ploy in debates, but not at all difficult to spot.

I have been moved by some people that are "supporting" me but that is not what
this is about either.

The post I answered first was a blanket statement made as if it is a fact. It
is undeniably not a fact, it is an opinion. I expressed an opinion that it was
not a fact and provided some personal views and experience to that end.

I have no agenda with Vista other than that I want it to be a good OS and I
have customers that absolutely need it to be so. Fortunately none have yet had
any serious problems.
I do not recommend operating systems (and only recommend applications that are
printer specific and highly specialised) to my customers (I referred to the
reason for that earlier in the thread) but when friends ask me what they should
buy I listen carefully to their needs and often recommend against Vista at this
time, not because it is useless but because it offers them no advantage over XP
and we would agree that Vista has yet to become a mature OS.

You have accused Art Entlich, quite rudely, of some things that you cannot
possibly justify. I suggest that you read his posts more carefully and search
for his name on the internet. You will find that he has helped thousands of
people over the years for no payment and has a well publicised agenda to assist
in making this planet a fit place to live for future generations.

There is no fan club here, quite simply mutual respect. Art and I sometimes do
not agree; polite disagreement is wonderful otherwise human beings would not be
sentient creatures. Without wishing to inflame this discussion further I wonder
if you could practice the same. In other words, accept that some people will
not agree with you, accept that debate without becoming personal is positive
and that being offensive is counterproductive to your arguments and the real
subject of the debate.

I have a concern that this post will cause you to react once more with
invective, I think that would be a great pity since you are clearly not a
stupid person. It would be terrific if you were to think about engaging in
debate without abuse. I have not been a part of this thread for several days,
that was quite deliberate because I wanted to see things calm down. Maybe you
should consider doing something similar.

Tony

kony wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence with
him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would have to
try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his statements are
level headed evaluations based upon his personal experiences.

However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.

You are an idiot.

Backlash has to do with real use problems.

You pretend you are intelligent but are not. There is no
great body of text you could write that makes a problem
disappear.

And you are becoming more troll-like by the minute. You resort to
name-calling when people refuse to knuckle under to your opinion. That
is hardly intelligent behavior. It is troll behavior, the "weapon" of
someone who knows he can't win an a debate with the merits of his
position.(Note carefully that I am not calling you a troll. I am saying
you are exhibiting troll-like behavior.)

Your bias is anti-Microsoft - that much is abundantly clear. That bias
is so strong that you are unwilling to look at anything Microsoft
produces with an objective eye. No, not unwilling, unable. Microsoft
could produce the perfect OS, and you would still call it crap.

I've heard this kind of anti-Microsoft drivel many times over the years.
As a Linux user, I've spewed the same thing once in a while myself. The
thing is, it was almost always unwarranted. I think Microsoft produces
the worst OS of any of "the big three," and I don't quite understand why
thinking people use it out of choice. But they are entitled to their
opinions, as I am entitled to mine. Doesn't make them idiots. Misguided
perhaps, but not idiots.

There is something I'd like to know, something you've carefully avoided
mentioning. Which OS do *you* use, and has it been trouble-free for
everybody who's used it? If there is such a thing, I'd like to look into it.

TJ

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

TJ wrote:
kony wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:

I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence
with him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he
would have to try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his
statements are level headed evaluations based upon his personal
experiences.

However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and
it had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.

You are an idiot.

ha ha ha
Backlash has to do with real use problems.

You pretend you are intelligent but are not. There is no
great body of text you could write that makes a problem
disappear.

And you are becoming more troll-like by the minute. You resort to
name-calling when people refuse to knuckle under to your opinion. That
is hardly intelligent behavior. It is troll behavior, the "weapon" of
someone who knows he can't win an a debate with the merits of his
position.(Note carefully that I am not calling you a troll. I am
saying you are exhibiting troll-like behavior.)

Your bias is anti-Microsoft - that much is abundantly clear. That bias
is so strong that you are unwilling to look at anything Microsoft
produces with an objective eye. No, not unwilling, unable. Microsoft
could produce the perfect OS, and you would still call it crap.

I've heard this kind of anti-Microsoft drivel many times over the
years. As a Linux user, I've spewed the same thing once in a while
myself. The thing is, it was almost always unwarranted. I think
Microsoft produces the worst OS of any of "the big three," and I don't
quite understand why thinking people use it out of choice.
Because it does the simple things poorly but good enough and you do not
have to have a constant chase for drivers everytime you go buy a new
piece of hardware and because if you buy a dell or a sony etc it comes
preinstalled and everything works. Plus most people use it at work.
There is more formal support for it. There is more documentation (books
at stores) for it.

And yes Linux is more efficient and an all around better OS for people
that know about that stuff. Also the common user will have not problem
if a tech person properly sets it up and they do not continually buy new
hardware and desire new software all of the time.
But they are entitled to their opinions, as I am entitled to mine.
Doesn't make them idiots. Misguided perhaps, but not idiots.
There is a find line between some who are misguided and some who are
idiots. Many make postings on this forum.

There is something I'd like to know, something you've carefully
avoided mentioning. Which OS do *you* use, and has it been
trouble-free for everybody who's used it? If there is such a thing,
I'd like to look into it.
No OS including Linux is trouble free. If there was there would be no
forums.

TJ

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:19:35 -0600, Tony
wrote:

I have snipped everything from this post simply so that I can attempt to
recover what I consider to be a thread with many innuendos and
misunderstandings.

The post I originally replied to included the following extract.

"Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
place."

And was followed by some links.

My reply was, and I apologise for reposting this in full.


Ok, your reply was noted and at this point it seems we've
beaten a dead horse long enough.