Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[Nat!]

I get the feeling you're just typing random stuff to prolong your  
losing argument. But anyway...

Am 04.10.2007 um 17:39 schrieb John C. Welch:

> On 10/03/2007 15:29 PM, "Nat!" <nat at mulle-kybernetik.com> wrote:
>
>
> Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb John C. Welch:
>
>> On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" <nat at mulle-kybernetik.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it
>>>> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and
>>>> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post
>>>> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge
>>>> logistics large scale project right there too.
>>
>>> Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless.
>>
>>> Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big
>>> Projects
>>> Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established
>>> Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An
>>> Operating System Release
>
>> It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was
>> making.
>
> You're the one who tried to compare the Postal Service with Mac OS  
> X. You
> don't like me laughing at your strawman and silly analogies, don't  
> make
> them.

I compare your assumed different emotional involvement in companies  
(Apple / Postal Service). It's obvious. And your try to evade that is  
also very obvious.

>
>>> everyone else's"
>
>> No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show
>> that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities.
>
> No, because the nits who insist that Apple never ever cut off any  
> hardware
> are never in c) or a). A) in fact LOVES it when Apple cuts off older
> hardware, that's financially advantageous for them, and c) don't  
> really care
> that much. It is only b) and e) that get whiny because their Iisi  
> can't run
> Mac OS X 10.4.

You fail at logic. I ain't drawing you a Venn diagram.
Your "nits" are most likely to be in c).

>>
>>> "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good
>>> for General
>>> Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is
>>> too big.
>>> It goes with the welfare of the country."
>
>> Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't  
>> intend.
>> No.. Wait...
>
> No, it just shows you can't be bothered to understand the quote you're
> mining.

Ridiculous. The extended quote makes the point even stronger than the  
shortened version. It's not like that Brecht quote:
"Imagine it’s war and nobody takes part", where the full quote  
"Imagine it’s war and nobody takes part– the war will come to you!"  
gives it a completely different meaning. Interesting how I cleverly  
mined that as well, I must be good at that.

But I am interested to read your interpretation, how the two versions  
make a difference to what I was trying to convey.

>
>>
>>> The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's
>>> statement, and
>>> your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever
>>> made just
>>> so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar.
>>
>
>> The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a
>> thing.
>> You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater.
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't complaining that Apple should never update
> hardware requirements thus possibly "making" you buy new hardware?  
> So you
> don't actually have a problem with it? Because if you're now saying  
> that, I
> have some fascinating bits of email you sent to the list that would
> contradict this new position.
>

Cool. Show me the email where I said that Apple should never update  
hardware requirements. Do it or kindly shut up.

P.S. I know, you aren't reading my mails very carefully.  
Nevertheless, maybe check how I use the expression "arbitrary  
hardware requirement" from the beginning and ponder how it differs  
from just "hardware requirements".
------------------------------------------------------
This is your life
and it's ending one minute at a time.  -- Palahniuk