|
|
Posted by CQ on 01/02/06 14:38
In article <michelle-3541FF.22571001012006@news.west.cox.net>,
michelle@michelle.org says...
> In article <MPG.1e2268b5a544b0459896ac@fe04.buzzardnews.com>,
> isaacq<me@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't have time to argue with the ignorant like that; it's like
> > > arguing with a flat-earther or an "intelligent design" fanatic.
> >
> > So, let me see if I have this right. Anyone who doesn't feel the
> > same way about anything you have decided to completely embrace is an
> > ignorant fuckwit on a par with a scientifically ignorant religious
> > fanatic?
> >
> > That about it?
>
> Nope; If you had actually read his rant with an open mind, you would
> have seen that.
What are you on about now, m'dear? It was my own statement that you
initially responded to. I used the nym "S.I.N." in an obvious (I
thought) reference to Sir. Isaac Newton (you know, the guy who watched
the apple fall?) and the signature of Isaacq in a reference to the same
Sir Isaac and to my own normal nym of CQ.
There ya go. One factoid explained for you. Simple enough?
It wasn't a rant, although I will readily admit it was a delivered in
a bit of an over the top style.
It was intended simply to tweak the mac-heads who are invading the rest
of usenet with this widely crossposted thread about...err, what the fuck
is it about exactly? Oh, yeah, that's right...it's about "millions of
people must be right", isn't it, Michelle?
> It's interesting that extremists tend to put everything in the terms of
> "disagreement" instead of actual content.
Shall we count the number of times you use the word "extremists" in the
next few minutes and then come back to what a good definition of both
"extremist" and "diversion" might be?
No, let's not bother. Point already made.
What terms of "disagreement" am I putting anything in, m'dear? I said
the company is arrogant. Do you deny that? Would be hard. I said they
rely on marketing blitzes, have you seen their advertising budget? I
said they targeted youth. Have you seen their product placement in
television shows and movies targeting the under 25 age groups? Have you
heard how many little children (little, as in under 12) answer the
question of "what do YOU want for Christmas?" with a simple "an iPod"?
Now, here you are arguing and defending things you don't really know much
about like a child, making my point very well for me, thank you. I said
their market is protected and maintained by proprietary practices, every
product they have ever introduced is proprietary, that wasn't a hard
call. There may be some debate to be made over whether or not this
proprietary nature is good or bad, but their is little in the way a
reasonable person can claim it does not exist.
> > > > > Move along; those of us who do know what we're talking about
> > > > > have things to talk about.
> > > >
> > > > "us"? "we"? Hmm.
> > >
> > > yeah, there are more than one of us.
> >
> > Oh, sigh, you seem to be missing the most obvious of points. I hate
> > it when that happens.
> >
> > There are indeed a number of people involved in this thread that know
> > what they are talking about. However... one of them is NOT you.
>
> Ah, the "all or nothing," "black or white" mindset of the
> extremist--someone makes an error, and therefore they don't know
> anything about what they're talking about. Sorry, but it doesn't work
> that way.
The "all or nothing" mind set is the one you yourself have embraced and
continue to attempt to justify. I'm all for people using whatever
service they want, using whatever player they like, listening to whatever
quality of music that satisfies them and paying whatever price they are
comfortable with to access the right to listen to that music. You seem
to be all about "Use the iTMS to load iTunes and your iPod, 12,000,000
people can't be wrong."
That said: There is no way you can claim that the music available at the
iTMS is of good quality, is reasonably priced, is not hampered by DRM,
and is not protected, like the rest of Apple's products, by proprietary
practices. Use it if you like, I would never tell you not to, but don't
try to tell me that you use it because it is good quality or because you
are capable of making informed decisions about your own consumerism based
on facts and value rather than what you have been told is the right thing
to do or what is simply the most convenient way to use the over-hyped,
form-trumps-function, portable music player you own.
"12.5+ million people use it" is not an argument that will convince
anyone of anything other than that the company is successful in its
marketing, either.
> > > Wrong; you can. Just burn it to a CD and reimport it.
> >
> > Ah, yes, I see. The fact that you have then paid for something in
> > mediocre quality and immediately been forced to further lower the
> > quality of the product before you can use it is lost on you, then?
>
> Mediocre quality in your opinion. But like most extremists, you can't
> distinguish fact from opinion.
The fact is, even the makers and sellers of those files make absolutely
no other claim. They say they are comparable to a 160Kbps MP3 file which
is, simply put, mediocre. It isn't *bad*, but it is far from the best
possible and is far from the original product that the artist produced.
The fact is that decompressing any compressed music file and burning it
to CD, then recompressing it another time (which is what the lovely
little term "re-importing it" means you are doing) is going to diminish
the quality. I'm not making this up to suit my argument, it is simply a
fact of the technology. The original compression has tossed out some of
the original product that is simply unrecoverable. The second generation
compression simply didn't have the same available information and is
therefore helpless to be anything less than lowered in quality.
Now, what was *your* opinion on this again? Oh, that's right,
"12,600,000 people can't be wrong", right?
> > > > YOU: "Oh, point taken. My bad."....OOPS.
> > >
> > > In response to the humorous remark that you can't listen to it on a
> > > kitchen appliance. Or are you so anal retentive
> >
> > A person who just used a long involved metaphor about moving a house
> > to justify having to jump through hoops to play music so she could
> > circumvent the fact that the person she was speaking with had not
> > implicitly used the word "directly" is going to call someone else
> > "anal retentive"?
>
> Nice try, but your attempted diversion from the context of "Oh, point
> taken..." didn't work.
Howzat again? I'm attempting to divert from the context of..." what?
What does that mean, exactly?
> Just like most extremists, you have no
> discernible sense of humor.
Arthur C. Clarke once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." I imagine a lot of life is like that for
you, isn't it Michelle? I do indeed have a sense of humor. The fact you
fail to discern it concerns me very little.
> > > that don't understand that "any device" in context means "any audio
> > > device"?
> >
> > I understand that the poster who called your claim that music bought
> > from iTMS could be played on any (audio) device "rubbish" is the same
> > exact poster you began this post by claiming as an ally and as part
> > of the "us" and "we" you were using and that I was questioning.
> >
> > Do you?
>
> Yes, but like most extremists, you seem unable to understand that even
> people on the same side of an issue don't have to agree on everything.
I've yet to see anyone agree with you on much of anything. I'm sure
somebody somewhere sometime stood up and said, "oh, that Michelle, she's
just so goddam right all the time" but so far since you have popped up
here in this mp3 group you have been full of, err, shit.
> > > And are you so anal retentive that you're now going to say that
> > > they can't be played on a turntable?
> >
> > Geepers, you've got me there. If asked, I would indeed have said
> > that the music purchased from iTune Music Store could not be played
> > on a turntable, right.
> >
> > You are simply too quick for me, michelle.
>
> I can't claim that that's a great achievement; I'd have to be as slow as
> molasses not to be too quick for you.
See, I just knew my sense of humor was going over your head.
Let's put the last part back you snipped out back, shall we?
> > Unlike you, I'm not an arrogant, supercilious, offensive jerk who can't
> > admit making an error.
> I see your lips moving. . .
A good friend of mine used to use that saying all the time. The entire
this, as she used it, went: "I see your lips moving but I don't hear a
goddamned thing you are saying." What she meant was "You are talking
but you aren't making a bit of sense".
I'm thinking that anyone who takes a thread on usenet as seriously as you
have, making numerous reckless statements about things they know little
about, being willing to sling epithet and unconsidered insult around
seven widely divergent newsgroups without either knowing very well what
the subject matter of the thread is (aside from the "lots of people agree
with me" argument you seem to be coming up quite at a loss for any real
knowledge) or at whom they are aiming their insults and attempted slurs
should really consider a few things herself.
Her own arrogance, perhaps?
Her own offensiveness, perhaps?
Her own extremism, perhaps?
Of course, since 12,600,000 people obviously share the same well
considered, finely researched and carefully thought out opinions that you
cling to I am quite sure you will consider none of the above.
Have a nice New Year, Michelle. I wish you well.
--
CQ
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|