Now go ahead and toss out a silly little insult, in the hopes that you can distract people from the fact that you're a loser who threatens people over the internet.
What did you think your silly little threat would scare me off?
I imagine you hoped it did so your pathetic behavior wouldn't continue to be discussed.
YOU threatened ME over the internet, loser. Now you're so rattled, incoherent, and incapable of replying intelligently that the best you have is "Oh, you're still here?"
What happened to the hard man who threatens other people over the internet? Well tough guy?
And you should look into some reading comprehension classes moron, the last reply you made didn't have anything to do with my post, it was just another pathetic attempt to draw attention away from your sad little internet threat.
So yes loser, I'm still here. Unlike you, an internet threat doesn't make me shake in my boots (like you've already admitted doing, like the bitch you are).
"The problem is that Apple's contractual language is vague."
I completely agree, but it isn't THAT vague, and the idea that a court will find "Apple labeled" means "has a customer applied Apple sticker on it" is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, courts do stupid things all the time, bit something that stupid is rare even for the courts of today.
In other words, it doesn't matter how vague you think it is, it isn't so vague that op's line of reasoning isn't plainly dumb.
"Apple made the sticker, Apple provided the sticker, the sticker is of Apple's trademarked logo."
DId they apply it? No.
"Obviously, the sticker is intended..."
Please prove this with something other than your useless opinion, as that is all you have and it is wrong. YOU don't get to decide what Apple's intent was, so you're wrong.
"No, I'm fucking NOT pretending those two phrases are equivalent!"
Yes you were, you just don't read well enough to realize it.
"I am, however, claiming that the phrase "Apple-labeled" -- you know, the ACTUAL FUCKING TEXT IN THE EULA -- is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way."
And just exactly where would I "look it up", seeing as there Constitution doesn't discuss what rights we have, but the restrictions placed on those rights for the purposes of governance.
I looked at the 4th and 5th, and didn't see any statement saying you DO NOT have a right to privacy, thereby making your point wrong.
In the future, if you plan to discuss "rights" make sure you understand what you're talking about.
"While you're there, ask him if he has a dictionary."
I did, I looked up "loser" and it had as an example "someone who threatens others over the internet see: Hognoxious"
Unfortunately for your idiot ass, calling me a "stalker" doesn't make your pathetic internet threat any less pathetic, or make you any less of a loser for issuing it.
Lastly, the "tell the teacher" garbage illustrates that you know you've made a fool of yourself. I'm HERE talking to YOU telling YOU to follow up. I didn't email anyone about you, or tell the fucking FBI about your silly little virtual threat, I CAME TO YOU. And you ran away, hid, and starting whining about a "stalker".
Which pretty much says all there is to say about you.
"On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase."
You're a fucking moron. It is not, in any way "just as valid an interpretation of that phrase".
The law is about semantics, and the difference is vast. If the phrase is "Apple labeled", then the question is "did Apple do the labeling". As your phrase is "labeled with an Apple logo", which you're pretending is equivalent to "labeled by Apple" (which IS a valid interpretation of the phrase) you need to answer, is putting a sticker on something equivalent to being labeled by Apple and no one with a whit of intelligence would say yes.
The funny part is that you and a host of other idiots who modded you up think that your shitty reading comprehension somehow translates into a valid argument, while those of us who aren't morons know you'd be laughed out of court.
"Apple labeled" doesn't, in any way mean "has an Apple logo on it" and no amount of ignorant blathering on your part will change that.
Because "jumping through hoops" is a colloquialism meaning "more difficult than necessary".
"You must be doing it wrong...."
You must be a prototypical mac fanboy."
I guess the truth hurts, huh mods? God forbid someone express an opinion that you mactards have no answer for, you just mod them into oblivion so no one will see it, just like your favorite company does any time there's criticism on the mac forums.
"I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote"
You need to stop doing that retard, you've been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.
"I'm going to contend that what your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct."
Until you stop "assuming" what you want to see from my posts, you can't do much to avoid looking like an idiot.
"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. "
And it wasn't moron. But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair. Only NOW you're losing track of what you were lying about.
"Why don't you just let go of the straw man "
Because I didn't use one you fucking ignoramus you're just possessed with shitty reading comprehension. You have yet to prove I did, you just quote me then assume what you inferred is accurate. That doesn't make it a straw man, it makes you a dumbass.
"Oh, I know why."
You do, I never used one. That's why.
"Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. "
And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.
"With your karma I guess you get what - two posts a month? And you used one for little old me."
You're not very bright or informed are you?
"As I recall, you were wrong, got proven so, and resorted to THREATENING ME OVER THE INTERNET at which point, you ran away and hid like the pathetic, cowardly piece of trash you are.
Keep in mind, douche, NOTHING I do will make me more pathetic than that. "
"Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?"
No, I'm going to contend that waht your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct.
"I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. "
No, you're a liar.
Here, let me quote your comment for you, just in case you forgot what you said.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention
NO actually, it wasn't.
I'm waiting for you to do what you said, fuckstick. That quote doesn't prove what you said, you fucking moron. It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said. YOUR inability to read worth a fuck doesn't make you right, it makes you a shitty reader.
"Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you."
Why would you think YOU assuming something because your reading skills suck ass is proof of anything other than the fact that you're too stupid to comment before someone else reads what you're commenting about and explains it to you?
Now, tool, I requested you follow up your lie with a quote that show I said what you claimed, not that you inferred from my comment but that I actually SAID IT.
You didn't, which is an obvious admission that you know you're a liar.
It must suck knowing you're caught lying and can't screech your idiot ass out of it, but you're not helping yourself by making moronic assumptions and pretending they're points I made. That shit might work on the brain damaged imbeciles you normally converse with, but I'm not your family, and I have no intention of letting you get away with it.
Real quick, are you so stupid you didn't realize we'd know you just logged out to post AC, or do you realize you have no credibility and your opinions are moronic, so logging out and posting AC is actually good for you?
Besides, YOU threatened ME. I'd say the term "stalking" is so wrong that using it definitively proves you're too stupid to use the language.
"Wow, you get a verbal pasting and now you're stalking me. What a loser!"
No, I was giving you a chance to follow up on your internet threat.
YOU threatened me over the internet and are now trying to portray ME as the loser for allowing YOU the opportunity to actually DO what you threatened?
I guess that same kind of retarded thinking got you believing you actually had the intelligence to "verbal*(ly) paste" anyone.
As I recall, you were wrong, got proven so, and resorted to THREATENING ME OVER THE INTERNET at which point, you ran away and hid like the pathetic, cowardly piece of trash you are.
Keep in mind, douche, NOTHING I do will make me more pathetic than that. Well I guess I could threaten YOU over the internet, but I'm not useless pile of shit, so I'll let you corner that market.
You lose, again. Nothing will ever change on that front.
In this case, does "unintentional" mean "I didn't know the correct phrase, and once corrected, was forced to backpedal in a lame attempt to portray my ignorance as a mistake instead of the simple ignorance that it was"?
Because that's the only way you'd be telling the truth when you say "It was unintentional".
And it doesn't matter to the mods that he's making shit up, so no mater how many times you and I and others like us insist on requesting real evidence in place of a strongly worded opinion masquerading as evidence, we'll be ignored.
I, however, have no intention of letting these people get away with making shit up.
As I've already said, you did nothing but fire off unsupported, unsourced opinions with not one single shred of evidence making your case.
"businessmen, like politicians, very frequently do really dumb things,"
Well, in case YOU failed to notice, that was not your point. Your point was that you THINK what eBay has done is influencing their bottom line negatively, but again, provided not one single shred of evidence to demonstrate that you are doing anything more than talking out of your ass.
Some people here eat that up, but some of us see right your commentary as the empty useless ranting that it is.
"The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like."
And the only thing you've proved is that when caught lying, you'll continue to do so.
I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.
As to my "poor grammar", don't pretend your shitty reading skills are a result of my grammar. I find it humorous that you're so self assured that you attack my grammar when your posts are both incoherent logically and grammatically. Hell, I hope English isn't your first language, at least then you'd just be ignorant, not moronic. It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.
As to the "ad-homs" which isn't even a fucking word, are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?
I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying. At least you can continue to misuse the language, fail to read correctly, and demonstrate your obvious retardation. At this point, no one would expect anything else from you.
So go ahead, demonstrate your stupidity again. I insist.
"You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong."
No, imbecile, I didn't. READ what you're trying to pass off as a "straw man"
The exact quote is
"for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?"
Please show where in there I claimed you "said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal"?
Slashdot Mirror
"It's lend to and borrow from. Forgive me if that makes me think that you're a tripe spouting "
So what are you for threatening people over the internet, like you did to me?
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=606465&cid=24100855
Oh, right, pathetic. Still.
Now go ahead and toss out a silly little insult, in the hopes that you can distract people from the fact that you're a loser who threatens people over the internet.
What did you think your silly little threat would scare me off?
I imagine you hoped it did so your pathetic behavior wouldn't continue to be discussed.
YOU threatened ME over the internet, loser. Now you're so rattled, incoherent, and incapable of replying intelligently that the best you have is "Oh, you're still here?"
What happened to the hard man who threatens other people over the internet? Well tough guy?
And you should look into some reading comprehension classes moron, the last reply you made didn't have anything to do with my post, it was just another pathetic attempt to draw attention away from your sad little internet threat.
So yes loser, I'm still here. Unlike you, an internet threat doesn't make me shake in my boots (like you've already admitted doing, like the bitch you are).
"The problem is that Apple's contractual language is vague."
I completely agree, but it isn't THAT vague, and the idea that a court will find "Apple labeled" means "has a customer applied Apple sticker on it" is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, courts do stupid things all the time, bit something that stupid is rare even for the courts of today.
In other words, it doesn't matter how vague you think it is, it isn't so vague that op's line of reasoning isn't plainly dumb.
"Actually, I think your interpretation is not quite correct."
Actually, it is, and what you think doesn't matter. Also, your analogy is retarded.
"Apple made the sticker, Apple provided the sticker, the sticker is of Apple's trademarked logo."
DId they apply it? No.
"Obviously, the sticker is intended..."
Please prove this with something other than your useless opinion, as that is all you have and it is wrong. YOU don't get to decide what Apple's intent was, so you're wrong.
"No, I'm fucking NOT pretending those two phrases are equivalent!"
Yes you were, you just don't read well enough to realize it.
"I am, however, claiming that the phrase "Apple-labeled" -- you know, the ACTUAL FUCKING TEXT IN THE EULA -- is ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way."
And you're wrong.
"There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY, look it up. "
And just exactly where would I "look it up", seeing as there Constitution doesn't discuss what rights we have, but the restrictions placed on those rights for the purposes of governance.
I looked at the 4th and 5th, and didn't see any statement saying you DO NOT have a right to privacy, thereby making your point wrong.
In the future, if you plan to discuss "rights" make sure you understand what you're talking about.
"While you're there, ask him if he has a dictionary."
I did, I looked up "loser" and it had as an example "someone who threatens others over the internet see: Hognoxious"
Unfortunately for your idiot ass, calling me a "stalker" doesn't make your pathetic internet threat any less pathetic, or make you any less of a loser for issuing it.
Lastly, the "tell the teacher" garbage illustrates that you know you've made a fool of yourself. I'm HERE talking to YOU telling YOU to follow up. I didn't email anyone about you, or tell the fucking FBI about your silly little virtual threat, I CAME TO YOU. And you ran away, hid, and starting whining about a "stalker".
Which pretty much says all there is to say about you.
"Yes"
I'm glad you agree, you should have just stopped there and avoided making a fool of yourself with the rest of your moronic comment.
"I can't conceive how you ever post to slashdot"
I can't conceive how you think your opinion is worth sharing.
Fuck off now, you admitted I was right which is all you needed to do.
"On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase."
You're a fucking moron. It is not, in any way "just as valid an interpretation of that phrase".
The law is about semantics, and the difference is vast. If the phrase is "Apple labeled", then the question is "did Apple do the labeling". As your phrase is "labeled with an Apple logo", which you're pretending is equivalent to "labeled by Apple" (which IS a valid interpretation of the phrase) you need to answer, is putting a sticker on something equivalent to being labeled by Apple and no one with a whit of intelligence would say yes.
The funny part is that you and a host of other idiots who modded you up think that your shitty reading comprehension somehow translates into a valid argument, while those of us who aren't morons know you'd be laughed out of court.
"Apple labeled" doesn't, in any way mean "has an Apple logo on it" and no amount of ignorant blathering on your part will change that.
"Open terminal"
Hoop.
"sudo pico /etc/hosts"
Hoop.
"How is that jumping through hoops???"
Because "jumping through hoops" is a colloquialism meaning "more difficult than necessary".
"You must be doing it wrong...."
You must be a prototypical mac fanboy."
I guess the truth hurts, huh mods? God forbid someone express an opinion that you mactards have no answer for, you just mod them into oblivion so no one will see it, just like your favorite company does any time there's criticism on the mac forums.
"I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote"
You need to stop doing that retard, you've been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.
"I'm going to contend that what your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct."
Until you stop "assuming" what you want to see from my posts, you can't do much to avoid looking like an idiot.
"I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. "
And it wasn't moron. But that's not your follow on contention which was SPECIFICALLY ""You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong." and ids irrefutably a lie. I never SAID that or IN ANY WAY claimed it, you are a lair. Only NOW you're losing track of what you were lying about.
"Why don't you just let go of the straw man "
Because I didn't use one you fucking ignoramus you're just possessed with shitty reading comprehension. You have yet to prove I did, you just quote me then assume what you inferred is accurate. That doesn't make it a straw man, it makes you a dumbass.
"Oh, I know why."
You do, I never used one. That's why.
"Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. "
And look at you responding because you're wrong, know it, and can't avoid doing so.
"With your karma I guess you get what - two posts a month? And you used one for little old me."
You're not very bright or informed are you?
"As I recall, you were wrong, got proven so, and resorted to THREATENING ME OVER THE INTERNET at which point, you ran away and hid like the pathetic, cowardly piece of trash you are.
Keep in mind, douche, NOTHING I do will make me more pathetic than that. "
That is still true, no matter what you say or do.
"Open terminal"
Hoop.
"sudo pico /etc/hosts"
Hoop.
"How is that jumping through hoops???"
Because "jumping through hoops" is a colloquialism meaning "more difficult than necessary".
"You must be doing it wrong...."
You must be a prototypical mac fanboy.
"Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?"
No, I'm going to contend that waht your idiot ass assumes IS NOT what I said. My contention is irrefutably correct.
"I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. "
No, you're a liar.
I'm waiting for you to do what you said, fuckstick. That quote doesn't prove what you said, you fucking moron. It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said. YOUR inability to read worth a fuck doesn't make you right, it makes you a shitty reader.
"Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you."
Why would you think YOU assuming something because your reading skills suck ass is proof of anything other than the fact that you're too stupid to comment before someone else reads what you're commenting about and explains it to you?
Now, tool, I requested you follow up your lie with a quote that show I said what you claimed, not that you inferred from my comment but that I actually SAID IT.
You didn't, which is an obvious admission that you know you're a liar.
It must suck knowing you're caught lying and can't screech your idiot ass out of it, but you're not helping yourself by making moronic assumptions and pretending they're points I made. That shit might work on the brain damaged imbeciles you normally converse with, but I'm not your family, and I have no intention of letting you get away with it.
"is this one of those times when you call someone a liar because you're the one doing the lying? "
Not really, seeing as I didn't lie, I'd have to say this is one of those times when you know you're wrong and can't find an out.
I told you to demonstrate your stupidity, and you did. Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?
"Honestly, a small part of me feels sad that you feel the need to boost your ego by throwing shit at strangers over the Internet."
HEY RETARD, HOW THE FUCK DOES AN ANONYMOUS SCREEN NAME THAT NO ONE PAY A SINGLE BIT OF ATTENTION TO boost my ego?
Right, it doesn't, you're just caught lying and need a way to attack me, so that was the best you could do.
You lied. I caught you. Nothing you say will ever change that, and you know it, which is why you keep replying.
Only now you're replying because I told you to. And you will again.
Nope.
Real quick, are you so stupid you didn't realize we'd know you just logged out to post AC, or do you realize you have no credibility and your opinions are moronic, so logging out and posting AC is actually good for you?
Besides, YOU threatened ME. I'd say the term "stalking" is so wrong that using it definitively proves you're too stupid to use the language.
No one cares about opinions of AC's who have no life and resort to stalking people who've proven they're idiots.
"Wow, you get a verbal pasting and now you're stalking me. What a loser!"
No, I was giving you a chance to follow up on your internet threat.
YOU threatened me over the internet and are now trying to portray ME as the loser for allowing YOU the opportunity to actually DO what you threatened?
I guess that same kind of retarded thinking got you believing you actually had the intelligence to "verbal*(ly) paste" anyone.
As I recall, you were wrong, got proven so, and resorted to THREATENING ME OVER THE INTERNET at which point, you ran away and hid like the pathetic, cowardly piece of trash you are.
Keep in mind, douche, NOTHING I do will make me more pathetic than that. Well I guess I could threaten YOU over the internet, but I'm not useless pile of shit, so I'll let you corner that market.
You lose, again. Nothing will ever change on that front.
And you still make shit up and post it without references.
I'll stop when you do.
"It was unintentional."
In this case, does "unintentional" mean "I didn't know the correct phrase, and once corrected, was forced to backpedal in a lame attempt to portray my ignorance as a mistake instead of the simple ignorance that it was"?
Because that's the only way you'd be telling the truth when you say "It was unintentional".
And it doesn't matter to the mods that he's making shit up, so no mater how many times you and I and others like us insist on requesting real evidence in place of a strongly worded opinion masquerading as evidence, we'll be ignored.
I, however, have no intention of letting these people get away with making shit up.
As I've already said, you did nothing but fire off unsupported, unsourced opinions with not one single shred of evidence making your case.
"businessmen, like politicians, very frequently do really dumb things,"
Well, in case YOU failed to notice, that was not your point. Your point was that you THINK what eBay has done is influencing their bottom line negatively, but again, provided not one single shred of evidence to demonstrate that you are doing anything more than talking out of your ass.
Some people here eat that up, but some of us see right your commentary as the empty useless ranting that it is.
"The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like."
And the only thing you've proved is that when caught lying, you'll continue to do so.
I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.
As to my "poor grammar", don't pretend your shitty reading skills are a result of my grammar. I find it humorous that you're so self assured that you attack my grammar when your posts are both incoherent logically and grammatically. Hell, I hope English isn't your first language, at least then you'd just be ignorant, not moronic. It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.
As to the "ad-homs" which isn't even a fucking word, are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?
I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying. At least you can continue to misuse the language, fail to read correctly, and demonstrate your obvious retardation. At this point, no one would expect anything else from you.
So go ahead, demonstrate your stupidity again. I insist.
"You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong."
No, imbecile, I didn't. READ what you're trying to pass off as a "straw man"
The exact quote is
"for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?"
Please show where in there I claimed you "said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal"?
OH RIGHT YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT, I DIDN'T.
You fail at life, and are still wrong loser.
Hey bitch.
I've been patiently waiting for you to follow up on your pathetic internet "threat".
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=606465&cid=24100855 [slashdot.org]
I notice you're still a loser and I'm still laughing at how ridiculous you are.
So, any more stupid internet threats I can laugh at you about?