|
|
Posted by Gene E. Bloch on 04/27/06 22:42
On 4/27/2006, Fred Liken posted this:
> "Gene E. Bloch" <spamfree@nobody.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.da757d6453a13911.1980@nobody.invalid...
>
>>>>> They don't want you to be. If you're equipped, then they can't charge
>>>>> you to fix your sad Mac.
>>>>>
>>>>> Macs are for sheep.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I've been trying to figure out how this relates to my post, but so
>>>> far without success.
>>>>
>>>> I think I managed to parse it, though.
>>>
>>> Oh, don't worry. I fear it's the least of your challenges for the day.
>>>
>>> COURAGE
>>> pass it on.
>>
>> Actually, no offense intended, but it was one of the worst-written
>> sentences that I had to parse that day.
>
> Which sentence was poorly written?
>
> In response to you saying you weren't equipped to fix a Mac, I respond...
>
> "They don't want you to be."
> "If you're equipped, then they can't charge you to fix your sad Mac."
> "Macs are for sheep."
>
> None of those sentences are poorly written. All three are proper sentences.
> Maybe, just maybe, you aren't real great at parsing English? Perhaps they
> were just too complicated for you or you don't understand the words in the
> sentences? That's more likely, since you can used any linguistic syntax
> system you want and those sentences parse.
>
>> And I still don't know how it relates to the fact that, since I don't know
>> Mac S/W and systems, I can't help my friends who have Macs.
>
> Because you are obviously not able to comprehend the sentences. I'll give
> you the benefit of the doubt and give it another go...
>
> You can't help your friends, because Apple doesn't want you to be able to do
> so. They want to keep it so you can't fix your sad Mac
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Mac) without paying someone to do it.
> Hence, Macs are for sheep.
>
> "Oh, they are so much more user friendly" was a common statement, which was
> complete rubbish post Windows 95. Post people who said that did little
> actual work with the Macs and never supported the Macs. What difference did
> it make that they were magnitudes more difficult to maintain? These weren't
> real computer owners. They ran to the service center whenever there was a
> problem, and there were plenty of them.
>
> Macs are for sheep is even more evident the last, what, five years where the
> Mac was completely inferior to even an eMachine. They're no more superior to
> an eMachine than a pair of RL Jeans is superior than a pair of Dickies.
>
> Just take the latest Mac, load Adobe on it and see if it can beat a same
> priced Dell, or something.
>
> Hint... it won't even get close.
Such a long post, it makes me wonder if you're getting piqued.
I apologize for having been too subtle for you to understand what I
posted. Tell you what, I'll stop annoying you now.
Kind of too bad - this thread is getting close to 500 posts now (mostly
OT!), and I wanted to help it get there.
G.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|