Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:09:43 +0100 From: "Jeff Rollin" <jeff.rollin@gmail.com> To: "White Hat" <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> Cc: FreeBSD Users Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: solaris Message-ID: <8a0028260609061309i57066782g74ca063e17b27ca2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060906195937.69700.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8a0028260609061214s2379914naf1af41b9d9b39ff@mail.gmail.com> <20060906195937.69700.qmail@web34405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/09/06, White Hat <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> wrote: > > --- Jeff Rollin <jeff.rollin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 06/09/06, White Hat <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- Jeff Rollin <jeff.rollin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 06/09/06, White Hat > > <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/09/06, White Hat > > > > <pigskin_referee@yahoo.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > Immaterial. the singularly most important > > > > > feature is suitability to task. If it is free > > > > > > and it does not work, what good is it? > > > > > > > > In what way does it "not work"? It's enough for > > > > many people, so why should they pay more? > > > > > > I never said that anyone should pay more. I simply > > > said that it was not suitable for the tasks that > > > both I, and primarily my wife, use it for. > > > > > > No, you said "it does not work." It's up there in > > black and white. > > > > Again, the price > > The inference was if the object is not suitable for a > designated task, then it is not a viable option. > Hence, it doesn't work. I had thought that was > obvious. The inference was certainly there. I did not > spell it out since this is a forum and I had no > inclination to turn this into a thesis. However, it is > also obvious that price is your determining factor. > Nothing wrong with that as long as it is declared up > front. There was no such inference. [...] > > > > > That's a good idea. And I should be able to > > procure > > > > products and settle > > > > scores anyway I want without government > > > > intervention, too. </sarcasm> > > > > > > Way out of line. > > > > > > Not out of line. Thee are many, many examples of > > companies already getting away with breaking the few > > rules that are there: why should those rules be > > relaxed so that they get away with even MORE at the > > expense of the buyer? > > > > No where did I even suggest the idea of retribution. > > > > > > Nor did I, as I noted, that was sarcasm. > > Labeling it as sarcasm does not change the fact that > it was exactly what you meant. I think I'm much more qualified than you to decide what I meant. If I wear a T-shirt > that has emblazoned on it: "touch me an I will kill > you", and someone actually touched me and I make good > on the treat, I cannot claim that they were > forewarned. By the way, what bothers you so much > regarding free enterprise, with the possible exception > that you are not experiencing any monetary rewards > from it? Free enterprise does not bother me. Lies and illegal practices do. I > personally I detest what many corporations proceed to > do. However, it is their money and they have that > right. If you don't like their product, either ignore > it or make a better one. They do not have the right to break the law Bitching is for losers Funny you should say that, given your contributions to this thread. Jeff Rollin -- Proud Linux user since 1998
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8a0028260609061309i57066782g74ca063e17b27ca2>