Life imitating art? Part 2

Stosh · June-15-09, 04:37 PM

What? No canned response to my posts CC? I'm surprised.

Why can't you wrap your arms around the fact that your premise is wrong? That your whole philosophy is just one big fat mistake in judgement? That Macs and PC's are equal? That OS X can be hacked to make it run on a PC? That Apple and Steve Jobs have jobbed you [[pun) out of the extra bucks that you shelled out for a quality lie?

**Detroitej72** · June-15-09, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

If only Walmart is available in your local municipality, then you have only what Walmart has to offer.

When monopolies are encouraged by federal policy drawn up by republicans [[i.e. libertarians, fascists, whatever) you get fewer choices. And fewer quality choices.

Try reading the book: "Walmart- The High Cost of Low Prices" and you'll better understand the concept.

Piggybacking on monopolies and Walmart:

Walmart forces companies to build products in places like China. A few years back, there was a famous case with Huffy Bikes, and Walmart dictated to them that in order to sell in their stores, they would have to be sold at a certain price. Huffy then closed their U.S. plant, and moved operations overseas. In effect, they were forced, under duress by Walmart to kill American jobs.

Also, as far as monopolies go, we all know with less competition, its easier for one large company to censor what products we have access to. An example is that Walmart frequently refuses to sell music that it deems morally questionable. If a company is doing that, one is left to wonder where the line is drawn?

Do they start to sell only books by right-leaning authors? [[this would help all the ditto heads in their quest to proclaim best sellers!) Censorship of any kind is wrong, and monopolies should not be allowed to practice it.

**rb336** · June-16-09, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Peer reviewed consensus Rb...not data.

no, bats, you reject any study, peer reviewed especially, in a knee-jerk fashion simply because it provides evidence that your silly dogma is dead wrong.

ccbatson · June-16-09, 11:54 PM

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

Lorax · June-17-09, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

Why do you always answer a question with another question? Obviously you have rejected peer reviewed studies, or he wouldn't have said so. Read your own posts and figure it out yourself.

**rb336** · June-17-09, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

virtually every global warming study out there. hell, you dismissed a list of over 100 peer-reviewed studies i posted with one of your trademark delusional/paranoid rants about conspiracy

ccbatson · June-17-09, 11:12 PM

Could you be a bit more evasive and vague Rb? "A list of over 100 peer reviewed studies I posted with one of your..... posts [[over 20,000 of them)?

Give me one to rip apart, or refer to the bibliography from Chris Horners book on the subject to see them get shredded by real scientists.

**rb336** · June-18-09, 07:55 AM

funny, when the old forum ended, i had less than half that. and it wasn't just one, look at any of the gw threads over there. you were given ample opportunity, which you squandered by throwing discredited heartland org/fossil fuel-funded crap instead of real studies. you don't get to play that game, boy

ccbatson · June-20-09, 02:46 PM

Bring it here if you have the guts Rb...otherwise, you are spitting in the wind.

**Detroitej72** · June-20-09, 02:51 PM

Why should he, since you never bother to offer anything other than the tired and debunked retoric favored by right wing radicals.

ccbatson · June-20-09, 11:57 PM

If he wants to score points in the debate, he can't just vaguely allude to something not even he can produce.

**rb336** · June-22-09, 07:37 AM

why do you keep on insisting I can't produce it? everyone who was here at the time knows it

Lorax · June-22-09, 09:53 AM

Because he uses the shape-shifting rethugnican method of confusing the line of questioning by asking another question. Maddening, really.

He, like others, demand proof and tedious research to either clarify or prove a point that has already been made, and do it ad nauseum, in order to deflect the point and purpose of the thread to begin with.

When pressed to do the same to prove one of his points, he shrinks into the woodwork.

Stosh · June-22-09, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Stosh

What? No canned response to my posts CC? I'm surprised.

Why can't you wrap your arms around the fact that your premise is wrong? That your whole philosophy is just one big fat mistake in judgement? That Macs and PC's are equal? That OS X can be hacked to make it run on a PC? That Apple and Steve Jobs have jobbed you [[pun) out of the extra bucks that you shelled out for a quality lie?

Still no response to the above either. I wonder why?

ccbatson · June-22-09, 11:18 PM

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior [[Mac).

Stosh · June-23-09, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior [[Mac).

Due to the operating systems. Not to the hardware. And the Mac OS is just ass backward in some respects.

**Detroitej72** · June-23-09, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior [[Mac).

Why is that?

Enlighten me, as I'm thinking of updating my system.

ccbatson · June-23-09, 10:37 PM

Absolutely correct Stosh...the OS is the reason. The hardware and packaging is somewhat superior, but not as much as is the OS [[10.5 coming soon).

Detroitej72...the best way to find out is to go to an apple store, and bring a list of some of the applications and uses you have for personal use. Try it out for about 45 minutes...you will be sold [[not meaning the price, as that i e biggest obstacle at 2-3 times what a Windows only machine will cost you).

**Detroitej72** · June-23-09, 10:40 PM

Thanks, I'm not exactly a tech savvy sort of guy.

ccbatson · June-23-09, 10:42 PM

If the price doesn't stop you, it will be a move that you will kick yourself for not having made it sooner.

Stosh · June-24-09, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Absolutely correct Stosh...the OS is the reason. The hardware and packaging is somewhat superior, but not as much as is the OS [[10.5 coming soon).

Detroitej72...the best way to find out is to go to an apple store, and bring a list of some of the applications and uses you have for personal use. Try it out for about 45 minutes...you will be sold [[not meaning the price, as that i e biggest obstacle at 2-3 times what a Windows only machine will cost you).

Which is my point all along in this price vs quality issue. Not the lowest price, OR quality. And the OS is restricted by the makers of the software to only run on their machines [[but can be cracked to run on PC).

Monopolistic practices, just like you know who...

And the OS may be slightly faster running, but the more it's used, the more threats are found. Safari browser exploits are more common now. Apple just recently had to patch their OS for vunerability to zip files, in respect to trojans.

ccbatson · June-24-09, 04:44 PM

Monopolistic? Owning the rights to your own software is NOT monopolistic. Even if it were, the only harmful monopolies are the coercive government type that abound.

Stosh · June-24-09, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Monopolistic? Owning the rights to your own software is NOT monopolistic. Even if it were, the only harmful monopolies are the coercive government type that abound.

But yet you defend them as they were the best thing since sliced bread. It's a monopoly if you restrict use of a product to a proprietary device.

Quit deflecting the obvious failure of your logic. It doesn't make you look good.