Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > Woody <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Not much correlation between `palace' and `moat'.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > No, I was thinking of castle.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I've not met many castles with moats - at least, not with
> > > > > >> > moats containing water.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I have been to castles with moats containing water, and
castles
> > > > > >> that used to have water, although most moats were dry so you
> > > > > >> could shoot people in there. I spent most of my childhood
being
> > > > > >> dragged from one castle to the next. My dad was keen on the
> > > > > >> things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was keen on them as a child and still am. Never saw many
moats
> > > > > > containing water.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hated them with a passion when I was a child. Nothing worse
than
> > > > > having to go round another castle.
> > > >
> > > > I've always found that kind of claim really, /really/ stupidly
witlessly
> > > > moronically wrong and annoying.
> > >
> > > Its a figure of speech. Get over it.
> >
> > My opinion has not changed: you're just going to have to deal with it.
>
> Fair enough, I will try and ignore it when you say things like 'most
> people prefer..' then.
<puzzled> I have no idea what you mean by that.
> > > > (`Always' dating from the time when I was capable of understanding
that
> > > > sort of claim - yes, really.)
> > >
> > > So it irritated you when you were what, 2 or 3 years old when you
could
> > > understand it?
> >
> > Something like that, yes - from re****ts that I have heard. Yes,
really.
>
> If you say so.
It's what I've been told. <shrug> It's not like I remember sitting in
a pram myself. Well, except perhaps a few times when many years too old
for a pram and playing silly buggers like you do.
> > Even when still in a pram, I apparently didn't take kindly to baby
talk
> > and things like that, showing a marked tendency to look at adults as
if
> > they were - or so I am told.
>
> As if they were... what?
<heh> Idiots, so I'm told. The expression apparently said something
like `What is this fool playing at?' - when I was lying in the pram,
which I was not in for much of my life, oh no, my mother wanted me up
and walking and generally looking after myself as soon as possible so
she could spend more time playing netball and squash and not having to
look after this horrible baby thing (my mother is quite open about
disliking babies). I had to grow up strong and self-reliant, I did,
which generally meant I had to do everything for myself as soon as it
was possible for me to do so. I did not have kind, loving, sup****tive
parents: I had parents whose interactions with me were generally limited
to telling me what to do and then destructively criticising the outcome
of everything and anything I ever attempted.
`Do it yourself.' `Sort it out yourself'. No guidance, no help,
nothing but demands that I do everything for myself and violent
criticism if I attempted something and failed to do it perfectly first
time (and I always had to do without assistance).
Yes, that is partly why I'm the wreck I am today. On the other hand, I
was one of the few kids in the reception class at infants' school who
could tie his own shoe laces.
<rolls eyes> I can remember the contempt I had for those who insisted
that the teacher did up their laces even now, 36 years later...
(some things stick in the mind, y'know?)
> > > > > Now I have no real feelings about them either way. I certainly
don't
> > > > > have the hatred for history I had when I was young.
> > > >
> > > > Curious.
> > >
> > > What that I don't hate it any more?
> >
> > Curious that anyone should hate history.
>
> <shrug> don't see why. People like and dislike all sorts of things.
<shrug> back.
And I don't see how anyone could dislike acquiring useful knowledge.
Some things - history, mathematics, psychology, physics, economics,
sociology, and so on - are all vital to understand to some extent in
order to understand society and the world and make reliable plans for
the future. I can't understand how anyone could dislike learning about
anything, let along the vital things that everyone /needs/ to
understand.
And history is knowledge that's easy to acquire - surely no-one dislikes
acquiring knowledge? - when it can be done without the major brainache
attached to (say) quantum mechanics (the maths - oh, the maths is
really, really nasty)?
> By
> history in this context I mean things like old buildings, insignificant
> chunks of wood, those sort of things.
If that's what you mean by history, you're mad.
btw, there's no history in an insignificant lump of wood. If there's
any history available from a lump of wood, it becomes `not
insignificant' straight away. And I for one am absolutely fascinated by
prehistoric human archaeology.
Old buildings are all about people and events involving those people and
how they lived - you have no interest in that?
I have seen the loft hatch that Samuel Crompton used to hide his
prototype Spinning Mule to protect it from Luddite wreckers - would that
not excite you, to see his loft hatch in his workroom in his house, the
very same that he actually used himself?
(I meant to go back one day when they had access to the loft space
itself allowed - but missed it)
(Hall i'th Wood, Bolton - easy access from the A58; a short walk from
Hall i'th Wood station)
<shrug> Your weird ideas on this are most likely connected to your lack
of reading.
> History of people, told by people can be interesting.
So the only history that you are interested in is that which is within
living memory, yes?
> > > > > > [snip]
>
> > I really haven't a clue what you're on about. An ftp site is how to
> > make your installer available; an ftp site isn't a software installer
in
> > itself.
>
> Yes, thanks.
So if you want to download `things to do with TeX' piece by piece, you
can: it's all available separately via CTAN. You may download stuff at
any level of granularity you like: single files, whole directories,
whatever. They'll even sup****t you in running a CTAN mirror if you want
to so you can have an automatically up to date mirror of everything in
the TeX world, constantly available on your own server.
For you personally to put together something like MacTeX from the
available separate unpackaged components would take you personally on
your own more than a year of full time work - /after/ you'd made
yourself a TeX and LaTeX wizard, not before.
Best download a prepared distribution, matey. It's a lot less bovver
than anyfin' else.
> > > > Unless you are a TeX expert, it's much better in general just to
use the
> > > > standard big installer.
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Just seemed a bit big for one little editor and a
> > > processor.
> >
> > Yes, if that's the view you have of MacTeX, you would be puzzled.
>
> OK, I am puzzled. Is it not a processor?
MacTeX is a full modern TeX distribution. It is not `a' processor: it
is a very large collection of many very varied and sometimes wonderful
things. All that they have in common is that they all have
applicability in a world of TeX.
I was under the impression that no-one who'd bothered to read anything
at all about MacTeX could have failed to understand this point.
The actual TeX processor, as I explain below, is a tiny lump of code
compared to the total size of the distribution. The rest of it is
sup****t files to extend and expand the range of things that you can do.
You get more than 700MB of sup****t files - and you complain about it!
Weird.
> > If you were to read the readmes that explain what's supplied, you
would
> > understand better and so not be puzzled.
> >
> > I shall not attempt to explain since I have learnt that you prefer to
> > reject my explanations without making any attempt to understand them
on
> > the whole, and this one would take a lot of effort.
>
> Shows how little you learn!
<puzzled> Go on then. What does?
I am aware of reality: I'm just mirroring your use of dishonest
hyperbole in my paragraphs above that you just commented on.
It's a reaction to your behaviour: just mirroring the **** you hurl at
me, that's all.
> I always enjoy your explanations, assume by explanations you don't mean
> your normal way of repeating what you just said again until i agree.
> I don't enjoy those as much.
But I've met plenty of examples of you just not paying any attention at
all. Because of that, I decided to use your method of arguing this sort
of thing which is to ignore all the evidence that contradicts the attack
on me that you wish to make, and only to pay attention to that evidence
which backs up your claims.
> Anyway, not really bothered. I downloaded it, and when I get a chance I
> will have a look. Although at this rate it may be a while which is a
> shame as I am interested in looking into it.
If you are going to look into it, let me tell you that the only good way
to learn how to use TeX is by reading the manuals first, and searching
until you have found good do***entation that suits you, possibly by
getting a real life actual `made out of paper' type book or three.
If you do not read the do***entation, you will be unhappy with all of
it.
[snip]
> > > but yes, I get the point, the
> > > binary is always small.
> >
> > <rolls eyes> I checked the PPC binary because it was the obvious one
> > that I could find. So I didn't check the Intel version - so what?
> >
> > The fact that I'm talking about something not absolutely identical to
> > what you see has nothing whatever to do with the matter.
>
> Apart from not needing to know the exact size would be fine. For someone
> who thinks that double a network bandwidth is about the same 'less than
> half a meg' would have been fine. And beyond that I don't see what the
> size of TeX has to do with anything.
You complained about the size of TeX. That was to demonstrate that TeX
is in fact really very tiny by modern standards.
I was trying to point out that the complaint is not about the size of
TeX, but about the size of one particular TeX distribution.
> > > > The rest of it is sup****t files to enable one to do things other
than
> > > > just have access to the raw typesetting engine. You'll not get
far
> > > > without a huge stash of fount sup****t files, unless you want to
use
> > > > XeTeX only. But it's all dealt with for you by the installer.
And you
> > > > complain because you'd rather have something smaller to download -
makes
> > > > no sense to me.
> > >
> > > So you are saying that everything in that download is directly
useful?
> >
> > As any reasonable person could tell from what I wrote above, I am /of
> > course/ not making that rather general claim.
> >
> > The point of the MacTeX installer is to install everything that is
> > likely to be found useful by more than a handful of people.
> >
> > That means it's meant to install lots of stuff that any single given
> > user will have no interest in at all.
>
> Yes. That is what I was saying about. I would have prefered a download
> of the core im****tant stuff that most people would use,
<puzzled> TeX's not like that. The core stuff that any given person
wants to use depends entirely on what they want to do with TeX.
Some `basic' LaTeX users cannot do without ImageMagick. Some absolutely
must have a way of displaying dvi files directly - which is missing from
MacTeX entirely.
<shrug>
But if you really want a basic TeX distribution, MacTeX is not for you:
you should get OzTeX instead. But it's harder to bolt stuff on to the
OzTeX TeX distribution for various reasons, and many people use the
OzTeX application simply as a front end to the TeX that's installed by
MacTeX.
Which makes sense for some, 'cos OzTeX does have a dvi driver that'll
let you print and preview dvi files, and more.
I would say that OzTeX doesn't make sense for you because you'd find it
too awkward to find out about the extra stuff, and too awkward to add
it.
Putting together `the bits and bobs that people use in a TeX
environment' is not at all trivial, even for people who know roughly
what's going on and you currently haven't much of a clue and wouldn't be
able to get one at all quickly.
So if you got a basic TeX distribution such as plain ordinary OzTeX, you
would very soon conclude that TeX and LaTeX were hopelessly
old-fa****oned, limited, and of no practical use in a modern world for
you at all.
>and then when I
> had tried and put some effort researching what I wanted I could find out
> that I needed to get X or Y added on.
Why?
> > The reason it takes that approach is that the days of needed to
whittle
> > down the data so that you could download it in a reasonable time are
> > gone, as are the days when you needed to whittle down the data so that
> > it'd fit on your hard disc drive.
>
> They may be going, I really don't think they are gone.
> By doing it that way it stops a lot of people using it.
Like who? I don't see it.
Small TeX distributions exist - I pointed you at OzTeX, which is a `less
than 15MB download' and is an old-fa****oned minimum `classical' TeX
distribution.
> > It's no bother for the average user to download MacTeX - you're
unusual
> > in complaining about it. MacTeX's just the efficient way of doing it.
> >
> > The point here is that MacTeX does it the `efficient from the point of
> > view of the human' way, and you seem to be arguing that you'd rather
> > have *LOTS* of human time wasted to save a bit of disc load and a few
> > download minutes (which are irrelevant since they are purely machine
> > time).
>
> No, I think it would be more of interest if people got the bits that
> most people needed, and then addons if you want more specialised things.
Why?
> However, disk space (which I never actually mentioned)
No, you complained about the size.
There are two possible problems with size, and I looked at both of them.
I looked at it from all the angles I could think of, you see, not just
the one that you mentioned. It's how I go about thinking: cover all the
bases that I can think of, look at it from all angles, consider all
facets. *ALL* of them - that I can think of as being relevant, that is.
I don't see the size of MacTeX as any sort of problem: it downloads
quickly enough via broadband, takes up a trivial fraction of a modern
HDD, and fits onto a DVD with room to spare.
>and download
> minutes are not irrelevant as they have to be paid for.
> Maybe you don't have to pay for them, other people do.
I seriously doubt that anyone who's downloading a 700MB file is paying
for it `by the minute'. If you have a slow connection, or one that'll
cost you a lot to download that much data, then you'll go for a smaller
TeX distribution, won't you?
> > And it does take a lot of time to download and bolt on each extra
goodie
> > you want with TeX. In some cases, you have to configure the stuff
too.
>
> Well, that I didn't know.
Oh dear god. What else did you think was out there? If you get a new
LaTeX package, you've got to install it, read the do***entation,
configure it in many cases, and so on. And that's just a plain ordinary
unremarkable LaTeX package, nothing fancy, no code compilation or
anything (although there is usually a `split the do***ented source into
separate code and do***entation files' step. See Docstrip for more
details; it's actually quite neat).
Look, OzTeX: less than 15MB compressed; MacTeX over 700MB compressed.
Think about it! MacTeX is more than 50 times bigger than OzTeX.
It's all freeware written by different people, mostly for use with Unix
brands of TeX with the assumption that the local sysadmin expects to
compile and configure stuff before use.
That's where most of this stuff comes from - hence the usefulness of a
pre-packaged installer with all the tricky bits like that sorted out.
Look, back in the 1980s, when you installed your Unix TeX, the usual way
was to do it on a Friday so you could run a script to prod Metafont into
building the bitmap fount files from the vector sources /optimized for
your printer/ over the weekend.
(the fact that it'll be optimizing the bitmaps for your printer is why
they weren't distributed centrally - far too many different printers
around. Yes of course there was and still is provision for having
Metafont build founts for different printers inside a single TeX
installation, being able to select whichever set you need for a given
job at printing time)
Metafont is still the way to get the highest possible quality output, in
the case of using Metafont described founts (most of which have PS T1
equivalents; in the case of the base CM set, we get a set of hand-hinted
founts that used to be commercially sold - top quality PS T1) on
anything but a very high resolution printer.
It's just that these days, building a fount bitmap doesn't take very
long at all because computers are a lot faster.
> > > Even though earlier you said it had image magik?
> >
> > Which is directly useful to the applications that many people use
LaTeX
> > for, yes: that's an excellent example of a non-TeX component that has
> > direct uses for many TeX users.
> >
> > I don't understand your obsession with Image Magick
>
> What obsession? Is it like your obsession with disk space?
You keep mentioning that you have it so you don't want it - I don't know
why you keep saying this thing that is self-contradictory. It seems
that you have an obsession with it.
As for me and disc space - well, that comes out of you complaining about
the size of MacTeX. Why complain about that? Two problems that I can
think of: download time, and disc space usage, so I address the obvious
one.
> I have no obsession - I used it as an example of something I didn't need
> but downloaded anyway.
But you have it installed - that means it's something you want, yes?
> > Image Magick is useful for you whatever, yes?
>
> Not specifically at the moment, no.
So what? You installed it because you wanted it. You complain that
MacTeX has it because you already have it. Now you claim that you don't
need it now; well, if you're going to explore MacTeX, you never know,
you might well find that ImageMagick would be useful for some things
that you might like to do with TeX - seems crazy to install a crippled
TeX distribution if you want to find out what can be done with TeX. Why
would you want to do that?
> > You find it useful even without TeX being installed, so why keep on
> > about it?
>
> Huh? Keeping on about it? You have mentioned it the same number of times
> that I have, so I will stop 'keeping on about it' when you do!
I mention it *in response to you mentioning it*. You see, you mention
something about ImageMagick, and I comment on your remark.
So what you're saying is that you'll stop talking about ImageMagick when
you stop talking about ImageMagick - but you've expressed yourself in a
fa****on that's critical of me for some reason. You're really weird, you
are.
Following any sane interpretation of events, you're the one with a bee
in his bonnet about ImageMagick and I'm the one trying to find out what
that bee is, if you see what I mean.
> > I don't get it at all. You're objecting to an installer
> > because it's got software on it that you find useful? Huh?
>
> What the hell are you talking about? How do you know I find it useful?
You said you've already got it.
> I
> don't, it is not useful, as I explained when you 'kept going on about
> it' earlier.
No you didn't - you kept repeating that you didn't want it because you
already had it installed, which is nonsense to my mind.
>It wasn't useful the first time I got it, it isn't useful
> to me the second time,
You have only just made that clear.
But so what?
I really don't understand the problem. If you've got no shortage of
disc space, what's the problem with having ImageMagick installed?
If you really want a slim-line TeX distro, you shouldn't have downloaded
MacTeX. But I'd suggest that for a TeX novice, you want a full distro,
not a slimmed down version.
[snip]
> > (You seem to be objecting to the fact that Beamer exists because it's
> > not something that you personally have a use for. Well, Woody, I've
got
> > news for you: things that you personally have no use for are often
very
> > useful for - wait for it! - other human beings who have different
needs
> > to you. Can you get your head round that, Woody? Not everyone is the
> > same as you! Blimey, bit of a shock to the system, eh? How about you
> > sit down with a cuppa until it sinks in properly?)
>
> Amazing. In that case it is a shame you can't download the bits that are
> im****tant to you, rather than the bits that are im****tant to people that
> think a powerpoint replacement is awfully clever.
But anyone can do what you say cannot be done.
Beamer is merely one of thousands of LaTeX extra packages and cl*****
which are installed by default with MacTeX. I just happened to mention
it because it was the first /flashy/ class that came to my mind - it's
flashy in a way that most LaTeX bolt-ons are not.
Thousands of 'em - got that? You don't want to have to examine them
all and download the ones you want when you need 'em - I've done it that
way in the past, and the MacTeX way is just so much better.
Beamer is not meant to be a PowerPoint replacement. It's meant to be a
LaTeX tool for creating slide presentations. It was created - initially
- without reference to PowerPoint, as I understand it. Since then I
don't doubt that it's picked up features that PowerPoint users have
asked for - but it's as well to understand that TeX is sideways from the
GUI world, and that those who develop `things for TeX' generally do not
feel any need to refer to MS applications.
Quite a lot of us have, for example, never used PowerPoint or Excel and
haven't ever used MS Word seriously. We just sit down and write stuff
to do what we want.
Yes, I am one of the people who contributes to the body of available
LaTeX add-ons.
> > You seem to be complaining that MacTeX installs what TeX users find
> > useful. You don't even seem to understand what TeX is for, so why are
> > you offering opinions? If you were a TeX user, then you'd be in a
> > position to comment - but you don't even seem to understand how to use
> > TeX or what to use it for.
>
> Ahh, ok. I have no right to have an opinion as to what I want to do,
> because I haven't used it.
>
> Gotcha.
No, you misunderstand me totally.
The point is that you can't have an opinion on what you might want to do
with TeX until you've learnt what TeX can do for you.
Got that yet?
> > <shrug> So what? Pick another of the tens of thousands of cl*****
and
> > packages etc until you find one that is.
> >
> > > > Check out the Basic
> > > > interpreter written to run via TeX (or maybe not - that one's a
bit of
> > > > silliness done simply because the programmer could).
> > >
> > > umm.. ok, so that isn't much use either.
> >
> > Argh. Yes, I know. The point is that there are tens of thousands of
> > cl***** and packages and other assorted bolt-ons available for TeX
that
> > let you do things that someone with a naive understanding of TeX -
i.e.,
> > you - would not think /could/ be done.
>
> How would I not think it could be done?
You tell me. You gave me the idea that you considered TeX to be merely
a text processor. It's not.
What TeX is is a macro processor that takes an input stream of
characters and acts on it, interpreting the code, executing it, and
doing the things that it's told to do just like with any other
programming language.
It's just that it's optimized for the job of typesetting text.
TeX is insanely powerful for a thing used mostly for formatting text -
and some people have exploited this power in ways that are not at all
obvious. Sometimes, these odd things on the side are very useful.
Not many people write heavy duty TeX code because it's a real sod of a
language to write things in, and even worse to read and understand once
written.
> I am sorry that I don't find a basic interpreter or a powerpoint
> replacement mind blowing,
<grinds teeth> <bangs head against wall> <suppresses scream>
How can anyone be as dense as you claim to be?
Look, read and learn - if you can:
They were examples of *what can be done using TeX*. The point is not
to entice you into using TeX because it'll interpret Basic programs for
you, or even because it'll let you produce nice slides for your
presentation.
No, my point was not that.
What my point was was this:
I was trying to illustrate something about the *range of things that can
be done with TeX*.
Do you understand that concept?
You see, TeX is not used simply for producing scientific pre-prints or
similar do***ents. It is a lot more flexible than that, and I was
giving you some examples to give you an idea of the range of things that
can be done.
Do you get that yet?
The idea is `Look! These things are do-able with TeX - think about the
huge range of other stuff that's out there if this is do-able!'
Or are you incapable of thinking in open-ended ways like that? If you
do have a specific cognitive problem in that area, I apologise.
> or one of the miriad of other things I didn't
> want but downloaded anyway, but I never even thought about them, let
> alone decided they couldn't be done.
I see no point in mentioning any of that. So what if you don't think
you have any use for most of it?
> > I did this not to give you an example of something useful, but to give
> > you an idea of how flexible things are so you would understand that
TeX
> > lets people do a much wider range of things than you currently can
> > imagine.
>
> Huh? I can imagine a hell of a lot of wider range of things than that,
My mistake: `imagine can be done using TeX' is what that should have
read.
> so I really don't know what you are banging on at.
See above.
> > Many of these things are silly. Almost all of them are brutally
> > practically useful.
>
> Well, yes, practically useful to someone somewhere.
To quite a lot of people, actually.
> > Unfortunately, for some reason, you failed to understand that I was
> > trying to open your eyes to a world of richer understanding. A shame,
> > but there you go.
>
> Unfortunately, for some reason, you fail to understand that it is clear
> what you are saying, and that almost all of it was irrelevant to the
> basic point.
Unfortunately, you are wrong as you demonstrated with your remarks some
way above - and too blinkered to admit it as the paragraph before this
response demonstrates.
> The basic point was something that I said that was trivial and
> unim****tant.
I don't know what that means.
> All I said was 'It is a big install that I didn't have time to download
> at the time', to which you go on a full explanation of all the
> completely random things I could do with it.
I don't think that's the case.
> I never said it didn't do anything, or that it wasn't the most
> wonderful, versatile pice of software ever written by mankind, I just
> said that it was too big to download at the time, which is entirely true
> and undisputable.
That's not the only think you mentioned.
I'm not going to bother trying to get you to understand my point here:
you're being far too dishonest again.
I recall you accusing me of trying to wriggle out of things - I don't do
that, but now I know why you came up with that accusation: because it's
the sort of thing you do, so you assumed I was doing what you'd have
done in my position. As you are doing above, for example.
> > > > TeX is used by some as a fully automated and `user invisible' back
end
> > > > for typesetting XML and HTML for print. Some people use it to
generate
> > > > HTML for use on the Web.
> > >
> > > Yes, some people do odd things,
> >
> > It's a very sensible use for TeX if you think about it in full context
-
> > if you think it's odd, that's only because you don't understand what
TeX
> > is for and how people integrate it into their workflows in order to
save
> > time and effort in producing output of the highest possible quality.
>
> Of course not. Apart from you and some people asking you here, I have
> never met anyone in 26 years of full time employment (and one year of
> the dole) that has mentioned it.
<shrug> Naturally - businesspeople don't trust anything that doesn't
cost money, and almost all businesspeople in this country don't trust
computer stuff that doesn't come with the MS seal of approval.
And, for example, almost all academics outside the fields of maths and
physics seem to /prefer/ the use of MS Word for text work - even those
whose subject involves complicated work on the bibliography (BibTeX's
great, especially with BibDesk as a front end to create the
bibiographical database).
How come? Because they learnt how to use MS Word, that's how come, and
they want everyone to use what they already know about and don't want to
have to learn anything else and in any case mostly don't understand that
there are other ways of doing things and would reject the idea of using
a non-GUI anti-wysiwyg application on spec in any case.
TeX's never going to have mass appeal for all those reasons and more.
So what? Despite TeX having always been a minority pursuit, it's going
stronger than ever - 25 years on from the release of TeX 3 in 1983 (the
current version is 3.141592; that's v3.6 using a sensible numbering
scheme. Blame Knuth; he's odd.)
> > > > TeX's tiny - but TeX distributions aren't small because of the
huge
> > > > range of sup****t files for it.
> > >
> > > Fair enough. It was only a comment, you don't need to make a big
thing
> > > out of it.
> >
> > You made a big thing out of it - you made a huge complaint about that
> > point.
>
> You have gone off on one again. I said:
And you then selectively quote a small fraction of your remarks that I
responded to, in typical dishonest debater's fa****on.
> > I almost downloaded TeX at one point but I looked and it was huge -
many
> > hundreds of meg and it was the first time I had got close to my
download
> > limit so I didn't.
>
> So I can understand how you have problems with ordinary people if you
> think that that was a huge complaint.
You have severe problems with reading comprehension if that really is
your conclusion.
> Maybe you could explain how that is a huge big noisy complaint?
> No, of course you can't
Maybe if you were being a bit less dishonest, we could have a
discussion.
> > So I shot down your point using big guns because of the hugely
> > big noisy complaint you had been making out of what I considered an
> > irrelevancy.
> >
> > And now I've responded to your hugely big noisy complaint in a fa****on
> > that shoots down your ideas, you decide to change tack to a personal
> > attack on me - again.
>
> No, you have dripped on at length about how brilliant tex is.
Have I? Hmm - seems that you've badly misunderstood my intentions.
> Which is
> completely irrelivant to the point above.
>
> And I haven't made any attack on me.
Why on Earth did you make that statement? It makes no sense in context:
no-one has suggested you did, have they?
> > You're a deeply dishonest debater, aren't you?
>
> Unlike you with your stupid attacks like above.
That is a very nasty bit of utterly unjustifiable personal abuse from
you - how about an apology, you thin-skinned hypocrite? I don't suppose
I'll get one.
> > > > > As you say, it has image magik. I didn't want that, as I already
> > > > have it.
> > > >
> > > > But you are lying again!
> > >
> > > I am not lying for **** sake. Learn how to talk properly.
> >
> > But you are blatently lying for ****'s sake you lying ****ing tosser.
> >
> > btw, just how far up do you want me to crank the offensive rudeness
> > level? I don't have an upper limit on that kind of thing.
>
> I know.
So how about you try to keep your typing decently civilised and try to
avoid making remarks intended to insult and offend and abuse, eh?
You seem not to like spikey, sharp comments from me - well, if you keep
a civil mannner, I will treat you in a civil manner.
If you become uncivil to me, I shall respond in kind - but generally
cranking up the level of bile a notch or two. Do you understand the
process?
Treat me in a civilised fa****on, and I'll treat you in a civilised
fa****on. You only ever get insults from me in response to behaviour
from you that deserves an insult.
> > Observed fact that you cannot reasonably deny:
> >
> > If you didn't want Image Magick, you would not have installed it.
>
> Mr hard of thinking. I installed image magic to help someone out with
> something.
Right - so you had a use for ImageMagick, like I said. <shrugs
helplessly>
What can one do with someone like this? The man's completely mental!
> > Observed fact that you cannot reasonably deny:
> >
> > You /THEN/ claim that you didn't want Image Magick because you already
> > had it - huh?
>
> Why on earth would I want to get something that I already have? That
> would be stupid.
<still puzzled> You don't need another copy, but if you've got it, it's
because you want it. <helpless shrug>
You're making no sense at all.
> > How can you expect anyone to believe something that's as obviously
> > untrue as that?
>
> How can someone of reasonable intellegence come up with such a barkingly
> stupid comment?
Well, for starters, it is not even slightly stupid of me; and it is
gratuitously insulting and offensive of you to throw such abuse at me
and I'm most offended by your totally unacceptable behaviour at this
point.
(that was me engaging `local government pomposity' mode - mostly for my
own entertainment. I also mean exactly what I wrote.)
> Ooh - hang on, I need word. Lets download it again as the version I have
> isnt' enough.
I really don't understand your point. You claimed that you didn't want
ImageMagick - at the same time as explaining that you did want
ImageMagick, because you installed it.
Once installed, /of course/ you do not need a second copy, but that is
an entirely unrelated matter.
Hence the idiocy of your comments on this subject.
> > I'm just not that stupid
>
> No?
Yes.
> > and I'm amazed that you thought I was
>
> I didn't but I am prepared to change my mind!
>
> [snip childish rants about lying]
Ah, the way you deal with me making criticisms of your lying is to hurl
grotesquely offensive insults at me. Well done, sir! Your erudition is
most impressive!
[snip]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Obviously, it is a processor rather than an editor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MS Word processes as you edit.
> > > > >
> > > > > It does, like pretty well any editor.
> > > >
> > > > Text editors don't process text as you edit - they just display
the
> > > > data.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of processing of text going on as you edit. Whether
you
> > > see it or not.
> >
> > Not with an traditional plain text editor, there's not.
> >
> > If you're talking about one of these modern fancy `it's really a WP
but
> > it calls itself a text editor', you're talking about something other
> > than what I'm talking about and so your point is irrelevant.
>
> No, I am talking about something like textedit
No, you mean `Yes, I am talking about something like TextEdit'.
Textedit is exactly one of those` it's really a WP but it calls itself a
text editor' gadgets. In fact, it's the one that first came to my
mind.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > > And in any case, DeBabelizer always felt a bit dodgy to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > DeBabelizer was possibly a bit more flakey than graphic
converter,
> > > > > but it was the only thing that did the job I needed it to do for
a
> > > > > while, so that is what I went for. Then I got photoshop 1.9, and
> > > > > that was great.
> > > >
> > > > I've never much liked Photoshop when I've tried it. I can't say
Digital
> > > > Darkroom impressed me either.
> > >
> > > I don't think I know digital darkroom. Was it an old thing? Sounds
> > > familiar from somewhere.
> >
> > Digital Darkroom is what Photoshop was before they changed the name to
> > Photoshop.
> >
> > Do you get my point yet?
>
> Did you have one?
>
> Your point being you know more than I do because you know what photoshop
> was called before the 90s?
You are barking up the wrong tree on the wrong planet - you shouldn't be
barking at trees in any case: you should be reading sociology in a
different galaxy entirely. I don't see any way to achieve communication
here.
Nor do I expect you to understand my above analogy - I wrote it purely
for the sake of amusing myself and myself alone.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
|
