In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jesus X says...
>
>JTK wrote:
>> So you also do not know what fixed and variable costs are.
>
>No, I understand it perfectly.
No, you don't...
> There is nothing more variable than intangible
>assets.
>
..as you've just proved yet again.
>> > You've done no such research to attempt to help your case in these
>> > arguments.
>> Um, I think a minor in business counts as "research" in this particular case,
>> rabbi.
>
>But even an MBA can know nothing about software programming.
*Even* an MBA? Whoah, now *that's* crazy-talk!
> And despite your
>minor is Econ., you don't seem able to differentiate between being in business
>and making a profit.
I'd have to check the definitions, but actually I don't think there is a
difference. There certainly isn't one in the long run.
> And when I corrected your error in relation to Redhat's
>profitability, you never responded.
>
What error again? You said something about Red Hat never having turned a
profit, is that correct? I have a hard time keeping all these false accusations
straight you know. I tend to attract them like a magnet. Don't hate me because
I'm beautiful, savior.
>> > You've made not only under- and mis-informed
>> > remarks,
>> Such as?
>
>Comments to Mozilla's 'bloat',
So you are going to tell me Mozilla is *not* a complete pig?
BAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!
But can you get a witness? I said can you get a witness brother!
> speed relating to the use of XUL, to start with.
>
I long ago proved that XUL was a major factor in Mozilla's slowness. Well
actually K-Meleon did. And from the few non-private posts that leak into
performance, it sounds like I'm not the only one who knows it.
>> > but patently untrue remarks,
>> Quote please.
>
>After being corrected about XUL, you persisted.
How can you correct an already-correct statement, complete with proof?
> Your comments on the market
>penetration of both Mozilla, and Linux, plus additional projects based on
>Mozilla technologies. All patently untrue.
>
Again rabbi, quote please. And no nitpicky "whaaaa! You said Mathuzilla had
only 3% market share when it's really a whopping 3.00001%!" crappola.
>> > and ones of total opinion (with no bearing
>> > on fact) and stated THEM as fact.
>> I only state facts. Nobody here cares about my opinions, and I certainly don't
>> care about anyone elses. But of course it should be easy for you to find a
>> counterexample, right?
>
>I already have. Here's a verbatim quote:
>
>"Just two at last count: you and the Savior, jesus X. I suspect the rest of the
>crew here has had at least a few years of college and taken an Econ 101 class,
>and hence knows the difference between fixed and variable costs."
>
>I've taken Economics.
You're either lying or you slept through it. You have demonstrated on two
occaisions now that you do not know the difference between fixed and variable
costs. IIRC, that's in the Remedial Econ 101 book just before the preface.
Regular Econ 101 expects you to have already consulted a dictionary and figured
it out before the first day of class.
> I know exactly what you're discussing,
No, you don't.
> and find that it's
>riddled with factual errors
List one.
> doe to being under informed and willful ignorance.
Well shoot, at least I'm not lying aboyt having taken econ.
>The fact that I disagree with you doe snot seem to register with you as anything
>other than being ignorant.
Come on now, let's not bring the nasal secretions of female deer into this.
Disregarding that, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and now lying
about it. I think that if I indeed am 'registering your disagreement as
ignorance', I am being rather magnanamous.
> A person who disagrees with you is not necessarily
>ignorant.
Technically no, practically yes.
> In the matters going on pertaining to Mozilla, I'd say I'm much more
>qualified to discuss the technical details than you are.
>
How much of the Mathuzilla code have you written?
Ok then, how much code of any sort have you written?
>Further more, you insist that Mozilla is Netscape, and vice versa. This is also
>not true,
It is true, and you're simply fooling yourself if you can't see it.
> and your insistence otherwise is not fact, but willful ignorance.
>
Willful acceptance of an ugly truth. A truth you yourself see as too ugly to
even consider.
>> Right?
>> Hellooo?
>
>I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
>
Me neither. What was the context?
>> > Should you not endeavour to follow your own
>> > advice?
>> Done and done.
>
>No, as has been demonstrated in this post.
>
Hey, you're the one lying about the econ class.
>> Now, could you look up the definitions of fixed and variable cost and report
>> back to Mr. Lag, since his school library is apparently lacking?
>
>No, I am not his teacher, nor do I endeavor to be.
>
Well that's a load off your back, let me assure you.
>--
>jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
--
JTK
"When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
