Re: Ancient wares and present values

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

bobryan9@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <395b9e53.48571683@news>,
>   CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney) wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:30:23 -0400, "Quantum_Cat"
> > <anonymous@cotse.com> wrote:
> > I've been wondering that myself for quite some time.  What exactly
> > would these people do if they did know who you were, QC?  If they
> > wouldn't do anything different than what they are doing now, why do
> > they need to know?
> >
>
> Whew, Some people.  I know who quantum Cat is now,

Inquiring minds wanna know. While curiosity may have killed the cat, I'm not
a feline, but I'd love to know: 1) who he is, 2) how you know (or think you
know). Esp in light of the continual guessing game from DrTom et al.

> and I am suprised
> you developers have such a crappy attitude towards the people you try
> to develop software for.  You developers have your heads shoved so far
> up your asses that the smell of shit

I thought you didn't like the posts QC makes. This isn't any different that
what you complained about.

> is clouding your judgement.
>
> > Also, as you implied, how does anyone know that my name is actually
> > Jeff Blakeney?  That's the name I typed into my news reader but does
> > that mean it is actually my name?  In this case it is my real name but
> > I could just as easily have put John Smith (which is what I've done
> > with my web browsers to avoid getting any more spam that I already do)
> > and it would take a fair amount of effort on someone's part to find
> > out whether I was telling the truth or not provided it is possible for
> > them to find out.
>
> I could get your IP numbers as simple as 1-2-3, as you could mine.
>
> It's nice to know that Jeff Blakeney defends scum.

In the words of Pirate supporters, "that's your opinion." All I saw Jeff
doing was expressing an understanding of why QC might not wish to have his
real identity known. I can understand that too, esp. as I haven't hidden
mine.

> I understand your
> anti-piracy attitude and beliefs.  Your defense of an Apple II
> developer

So QC is a developer, and R.A. Guy is wrong? Or are you mistaken? BTW, I've
seen people guessing on Delphi, and no one seems to know (or will admit that
they know) who he is.

> posting crap to this newsgroup anonymously is just ridiculous.
>
> Oops.  He hasn't released anything for a time now, so I guess he's not
> an active developer.  I guess I can split the hairs before you get to
> them.  Now, can you split a split hair?  That is the question.

Come on Bob, that was petty. I expected better of you.

>
> > The whole argument that someone who uses an anonymous poster is a
> > coward is ridiculous.  Heck, I don't even post my correct e-mail
> > address here to avoid spam.  You need to CUT the obvious from my
> > e-mail address that I post here to e-mail me.  Does this make me a
> > coward in some way?  I don't think so.
> >
> >
>
> Is it?  Thats your opinion.  I can see why you don't want spam.  You
> don't want to deal with it.  I can see why someone posts anonymously,
> because they are a coward.
>
> If you want to post anonymously, go to dejanews.  Don't check your mail
> for the fairytale mail bombs "quantum cat" mentions.

>
>
> My opinion of some of the "elite" of the apple II has been drastically
> lowered today.  You are a major source of noise on this newsgroup.

But, as you say below, you aren't offering any proof, so all of the above is
just hot air. If you know something, if you can prove something, then do so.
If not, can all the noise, because you have only added to it.

>
> quantum cat is playing games,

Is he having fun?

> and anybody with a mind of their own can
> draw their own conclusions based on YOU defending him.

I didn't understand Jeff as defending him, I understood Jeff as
understanding him. There's a world of difference between understanding why
someone (for instance) kills someone, and defending their actions. Perhaps
Jeff did intend a defense, but it didn't seem so to me.

>
> I don't endorse piracy.  I don't download things I don't legally own
> (unless it's hardware drivers I "need").
>
> I'm not taking either side, but your side is looking pretty sorry.

Again Robert, you make statements, but there is no reason to accept them. No
proof for your assertions. I *try* to keep an open mind, but you have to
give me a reason to believe.

>
>
> I am not offering you any proof.  You know it's true and I do too.

Still baseless. That's sad.

>
> What a sorry bunch of losers.
>
> Robert Ryan

Thank you.

Roy