Hey Mr. Curmudgeon, do you actually know what the word "inflammatory" means? There are times when I honestly believe that you don't. Accusing someone of flame bating, or characterizing my posts as "absurd", isn't THAT inflammatory?
So if something does not jive with your logic, it's flame bating? This deduction of yours, is not very sound, Sir. There are also times when I believe that you confuse deduction for induction. Anyway, my ability to reason is quite good actually. That you are unable to recognize it, is your problem not mine. Transition was not a sudden issue for Apple. It had been going on a bit longer than the time VoiceOver came to be. Here is a bit of reasoning for you. We can assume as a given that Apple's resources are finite. Your claim is that Apple's resources have been diverted to transition, drawing from VO development for that period of time. Then we can assume that Apple would do the same with other new development projects. Well, flash back to WWDC. According to Steve, they've been hard at work on new development. Wish it was geared toward making iTunes Accessible. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Access Curmudgeon Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:32 PM To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by theblind Subject: Re: RE: iTunes' Inaccessibility and VoiceOver On 9/25/06, Abdul Kamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The transition to intel was not the problem. Abdul, you start to sound like you are interested in reasoned discourse, and they you make these absurd, unsupportable, inflammatory assertions. I do not believe you to be so uninformed that you think transition an operating system to a wholly different chip architecture is trivial. I therefore deduce you are flame baiting. Trolling is boorish behavior on any list.
