Re: IMPEACH JOBS

[joe.ragosta@dol.net (Joe Ragosta)]

In article <353B2607.3F73DF29@milestonerdl.com>, mark@milestonerdl.com wrote:

> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> 
> > In article <353A9047.BD0C1EAE@milestonerdl.com>, mark@milestonerdl.com
wrote:
> >
> > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > > was the Newton group.... according to 'a source' I talked with. 
Myself and
> > > others are actually trying to get this nailed down as truth or rumor.
> >
> > Really? You've had months and have never produced a shred of evidence.
> > ("sources" don't count unless you can name them and provide some real
> > facts).
> 
> Nice attempt at an argument here Joe.  *IF* I come up with 'hard proof'
(A standard
> that I would hold anyone to) I'll be sure to let you know.  At least
when *I* post
> something that is a 'rumor', I state that up front.  Something *YOU* Joe
Raosta does
> not do.

Bullshit. I provide sources for most of what I post--I'm still waiting for
your first.

But, in other words, you've admitted that what you posted was FUD--pure
and simple.

> 
> 
> > >
> > > The Newton was killed by Steve Jobs, CEO of cartoon maker Pixar,
because of
> > > simple spite.
> >
> > Apple stated that Newton had never made money. I suspect that they have
> > better knowledge of the matter than you do.
> >
> > When you find some facts, feel free to post them. Until then, Apple's
> > statements have to stand.
> 
> http://www.maccentral.com/news/feb27.shtml
> The Newton division, though its products have been selling well recently, have
> historically not been profitable.
> 
> And I can't find the same quote on Rik Ford's page.
> 
> The key word is historically.

Hmmm. "They have historically lost money". And somehow you are
interpreting this to mean that they're making money now? Talk about
twisted logic.

> 
> > > > But Apple is not a charity. Newton was not making money and there was no
> > > > sign that it ever would.
> > >
> > > Well Joe, if Apple is not a charity, then why are you happy to have
> > allowed the
> > > Mac to leach off the Apple ][ lines profits all them years?
> >
> > What kind of nonsense is this? Apple introduced a new product (the Mac).
> > Both the Mac and the Apple II were profitable. No leaching involved.
> > Even during the development stage when the Mac wasn't making money, your
> > point is irrelevant.
> 
> Really?  A replacement? Is this the same book of history that has Steve
Jobs as the
> creator and supporter of the Mac from the start?

You don't think the Macintosh was a replacement for the Apple II?? Then
where are all the Apple II sales?

> 
> [I SOOOOO look forward to seeing the response to the above line.  You
see, it's bait
> for Joe.]
> 
> And, wasn't the Newton project supposed to be a replacement for the
MacOS?  Except,
> the attitude of "If it's not MacOS, it's not Apple" kept the project
from moving in
> the direction of it's design concept.

The Newton was _never_ supposed to be a replacement for Mac OS. You really
ought to try getting a clue some time.

> > >
> > > And how do you know if the Newton made a profit or not?
> >
> > I rely on Apple's statements--not unnamed "sources".
> 
> As this is SO fun.
> http://www.maccentral.com/news/feb27.shtml
> The Newton division, though its products have been selling well recently, have
> historically not been profitable.
> 
> I look forward to your acknologement of Apples statement.

This is just one of the statements I'm relying on. Apple has said in this,
and other statements that Newton was not profitable. Only a twisted mind
would interpret this to mean that Newton was profitable.

-- 
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm