Re: Apple, IBM and PCs (Re: Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it)

[PCUser <netslacker@MSmustdie.com>]

Bill Garber wrote:

> "PCUser" <netslacker@MSmustdie.com> wrote in message
> 3fe2b9d2_5@corp.newsgroups.com">news:3fe2b9d2_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
> :
> : Bill Garber wrote:
> :
> : > "Paul R. Santa-Maria" <paulrsm@buckeye-express.com> wrote in
> : > message 3FE27CD5.1FB66208@buckeye-express.com">news:3FE27CD5.1FB66208@buckeye-express.com...
> : > : Bill Garber wrote:
> : > : > "Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
> : > : > : 2. IBM did target the home market. Several times.
> : > : > Again, those machines, short of the Jr, were ALL
> targetting
> : > : > the business market. I should know. I freaking used them,
> : > : > AT WORK.
> : > :
> : > : Sorry to disagree with you, Bill.  The original IBM-PC had
> 64K
> : > : and a cassette interface and was targeted at the Apple II
> in
> : > the
> : > : home market.  Business users, seeing "IBM" on the case,
> : > immediately
> : > : purchased them and upgraded them to be usable in business.
> : >
> : > I know Paul, but that Roy has rubbed me the
> : > wrong way for some time now and I just went
> : > crazy. I hate know-it-all types and he strikes
> : > me as that type and I can't tolerate it.
> : > From now on, anyone who makes me nuts
> : > will go on the blocked sender list and he's
> : > there now. Constructive critism I can take,
> : > such as you've displayed,
> :
> : How is Paul's disagreement with you any different from Roy's?
> That is,
> : how is proving you were wrong by Paul more "constructive" than
> being
> : proven wrong by Roy?
>
> Simply this. Paul has viewed my statements as they are,
> my opinion. Then he proceeded to "disagree" with that
> opinion. Roy viewed my statements as factual and considered
> them merely mistakes, and attempted to correct me. 
<snip>
There
> are those who care to share opinions and facts 

I don't understand how those two statements can both be true. Care to 
enlighten me?

and those just
> out to upgrade their own sense of accomplishment by merely
> downgrading anothers views, and this is the bare truth. 

However, to attribute that to someone, when you can't read their mind is 
to impugn their motives. In short, since no one can know what someone 
else is thinking, to think this of someone is to be guilty of the same 
crime/sin/error one would charge them with.

My
> view on personable behavior is what is in question here, not
> who was first, the IBM or Apple.

However, Roy didn't challenge your view, but your facts. If he was 
right, even slightly, that doesn't invalidate your opinion, nor would it 
be a personal attack. Perhaps your "hate" (your word above) has blinded 
you to the degree that you have attributed to him something that isn't 
there. Is that not possible?

> Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
> Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
> Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
> Remove - SPAM and X to contact me
>
>
>
> ---
> This email ain't infected, dude!
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----