Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CC PS+ LR for photographers : why limit it to the owners of previous Photoshops?  (Read 6557 times)
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« on: September 11, 2013, 05:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I get it: Adobe is finally recognizing that the photographer market, pro  and amateur, is a business segment that is worth throwing a bone to.

I read their PR. I read their blog. I read the experts' opinion. I watched the video interview of Thomas Knoll (thank you Michael for the informative interview... And thank you Thomas for being our advocate internally).

All points to the fact that Adobe is structuring a deal for photographers. Thank you.

I am eligible. Many are. Because we own PS CS3 or beyond.

Many are not, and many more will not be. Think of new photogaphers graduating this year, new retirees jumping into commercial portrait photography, egineers tired of writing code in cubicles jumping into a photography business.

If Adobe is truly honest to their word, they should not price this as an "upgrade" , but rather as a photographer price to a limited set of tools (PS + LR). Kind of a-la carte pricing, if you will. Ad why this limit of having to start by december? What if a student is graduating in June next year?

My interpretation: Adobe is not yet coming clean with this. It is a stopgap to limit the uproar, but not a solution that is sustainable for fellow photographers.

Nadim

Ps - although i am eligible, I am Will probably not jump in. I already purchased alternative tools and i started using them (aperture, ...). I don't like subscription or rentals in general. I think the model optimizes profits for Adobe (good for them) but hurts consumers on the long run. For me, The train has left the station, and i cannot bet the future of my photography on the whimsical zig-zag of few Adobe executives.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 05:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

 Good points.  The first views I've seen even somewhat similar to my own which I wrote about here: 
"Betcha Adobe Didnít Think of That.. Photoshop CC Subscription Model
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 06:06:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, thank you for pointing to your blog. Very interesting blog.

I totally agree with your article. Short term view hiding the long term. They simply opened the door to a more robust competitive landscape, after they owned the digital photography market.

Competition is good. Corel is jumping in. I hope Apple will at some juncture. Google started with Picasa (img management ) and Nik for processing. Microsoft should re-awaken its own efforts (photo editor? ICE?). All these are formidable competitors.

For, Aperture + Pixelmator are satisfying 95% of my needs. For the remaining 5%, i fire up my old PC and photoshop them. Hoping soon to become 100% independent from Adobe.
Logged
W.T. Jones
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2013, 07:14:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice article Steve, I liked your take on it. As do I like the OP's. This may be the first post I have made regarding this whole CC thing

Like many things happening these days, the whole thing is perplexing, but I cannot shake the feeling that other software companies are going to jump on the band wagon and do the same thing very soon. It also appears that the days of the PC are coming to an end, where all we will have is a terminal and an internet connection. Renting, just like cable TV boxes. It is all very disheartening really. I like to own things & have control over how I use them. 

I have no idea what I will do once once CS-6 fails to work for me, or LR becomes a CC only thing. Will I get on the bus? Dunno. By then perhaps an alternative solution will present itself. Where will still imaging be when that time comes? Maybe I will just say Screw it and be happy with my Fuji Jpegs or quit photography all together? I know one thing for certain, I am not going to spend countless hours fretting over it or complaining on internet forums. I also doubt Adobe is going to change their minds about this. I'll keep an eye on things & see where the whole thing goes. Making adjustments as things progress. I don't see any other option.
Logged

Warren
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 359


« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2013, 08:28:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting article, Steve. 

I think few amateur photographers (or professionals with intermittant income) like the rental model.  And I get rather fed up reading patronising posts explaining it all, and saying how it's really in our best interests, and "proving" that it's such good value.  I just don't like renting software.  When I stop paying, I want something still to be there.  End of.  As Steve says, I don't want to pay Nikon to stop them taking my camera away, and I don't want to pay Adobe not to take my software away.  Call that an emotional, irrational view: I don't care.  It's my hobby, and dammit, I'll think about it however it pleases me. 

Given that I have CS5 and LR5, I might (just might) take out the offer, on the basis that I can revert to those perpetual licences later.  But I'm not happy about it. 

I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?
Logged
SunnyUK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2013, 10:30:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?


Unless they're tied in to a single customer, suppliers most certainly also have a choice to take their business elsewhere.  Good business deals come from win/win situations, and win/win situations come from both parties understanding each other. I'm sure the customer in your anecdote found it satisfying to demean his supplier, but if that's how he treats all his suppliers, he might not be in business for very long.
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 359


« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2013, 11:55:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Unless they're tied in to a single customer, suppliers most certainly also have a choice to take their business elsewhere.  Good business deals come from win/win situations, and win/win situations come from both parties understanding each other. I'm sure the customer in your anecdote found it satisfying to demean his supplier, but if that's how he treats all his suppliers, he might not be in business for very long.
I don't think we're talking about business deals of the sort you describe.  What you say is true for relatively symetrical deals with two knowledgeable parties to a deal, the way ideal markets work in Economics 101. 

That's not how it works, in my view, for mass-market suppliers, especially in the consumer market.  This is the situation where there are multiple suppliers (not a monopoly supply), but many more customers than suppliers. 

In these circumstances, customers choose suppliers (given the choice), suppliers don't choose customers.  Suppliers want every customer they can get without too much trouble, leisure customers are often buying exactly once (on any particular occasion), and (if there's a choice) will shop around.  Suppliers need to be reasonably nice, rational and predictable to customers (obviously this doesn't apply to de facto monopoly suppliers) but customers don't need to be nice, and can be irrational, awkward and quixotic.  (Obviously, the supplier will walk away if the customer is too awkward.) 


Logged
SunnyUK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2013, 02:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

You're absolutely right in a mass market situation. I just don't normally see suppliers sitting down with customers and explaining themselves in such situations. So I assumec(maybe wrongly) that we were talking about a B2B deal rather than B2C
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2013, 06:17:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, thank you for pointing to your blog. Very interesting blog.

I totally agree with your article. Short term view hiding the long term. They simply opened the door to a more robust competitive landscape, after they owned the digital photography market.

Competition is good. Corel is jumping in. I hope Apple will at some juncture. Google started with Picasa (img management ) and Nik for processing. Microsoft should re-awaken its own efforts (photo editor? ICE?). All these are formidable competitors.

For, Aperture + Pixelmator are satisfying 95% of my needs. For the remaining 5%, i fire up my old PC and photoshop them. Hoping soon to become 100% independent from Adobe.
1.  Thank you.  9 of my 11 blogs are geared towards people new to photography or old film guys wanting to get their feet wet with digital. The other 2 are more for fun and to provoke thought. 

2.  Absolutely.  There's no doubt Adobe is huge and they make great software.  But each and every time a manufacturer forgets there is competition right outside their door waiting for a way in.. they pay a heavy price.  Often complete loss.   And really, I can't think of a more prefect "open door" to other manufacturers than this subscription model.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2013, 06:40:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice article Steve, I liked your take on it. As do I like the OP's. This may be the first post I have made regarding this whole CC thing

Like many things happening these days, the whole thing is perplexing, but I cannot shake the feeling that other software companies are going to jump on the band wagon and do the same thing very soon. It also appears that the days of the PC are coming to an end, where all we will have is a terminal and an internet connection. Renting, just like cable TV boxes. It is all very disheartening really. I like to own things & have control over how I use them. 

I have no idea what I will do once once CS-6 fails to work for me, or LR becomes a CC only thing. Will I get on the bus? Dunno. By then perhaps an alternative solution will present itself. Where will still imaging be when that time comes? Maybe I will just say Screw it and be happy with my Fuji Jpegs or quit photography all together? I know one thing for certain, I am not going to spend countless hours fretting over it or complaining on internet forums. I also doubt Adobe is going to change their minds about this. I'll keep an eye on things & see where the whole thing goes. Making adjustments as things progress. I don't see any other option.

This might be because we've lived with subscription models our entire lives.  Ma-bell might have been the first for many of us.  One fee for all your local calls?  Then cable tv, bug spray services, virus software subscriptions?  They're everywhere.   AAA auto club?  Internet access.  Insurance?  Music clubs? Monthly account fee for your bank?  Your mortgage?  Everywhere we look there are more.  And more are coming.  In the business world fresh monthly fees coming in are the gold standard or holy grail of business.  Icing on the cake is being granted access to your bank account or credit card so they can automatically debit your account.  The less you have to do to pay for your subscription, the higher chances for them to keep it going.

Every business, each one out there, dreams about getting a subscription with an automatic debit agreement.  It's golden.. glows.  So sure, all companies want this.    But, only a relatively few reach this level.

Me?  Years ago I saw  this happening and have made an active effort to keep all subscription models out of my finances if at all possible.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2013, 06:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Why only CS3 and above?  Why do only owners of previous versions of PS get to pay just the upgrade fee?  Same principle, really.  It's a reward for loyalty.  It's the same principle for any software, really.

WRT the 'used' software market, there really isn't a comparison to the used gear market.  I've never bought software second-hand but I do buy a lot of gear that way.  There just isn't the same market for used software.  The linked article posited the idea that Adobe would he hurt by the idea of a drop in the, virtually non-existent, used software market.  How?  How does Adobe benefit from it now?  Adobe doesn't make any money when software trades between users.  Upgrade fees?  How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?

I'm certainly not a fan of this shift in practice by Adobe, although I did eventually sign on; but the lack of logic and reasoning that so many display in their opposition is astounding. 
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2013, 08:46:58 PM »
ReplyReply



I was on a customer visit once, and my colleague started to say "you have to see it from our point of view..." and the customer cut him off: "Listen, pal: me customer, you supplier.  You have to see it from my point of view, I don't have to see it from your point of view." 

'Nuff said?

While business talk and act that way, certainly if a business listened to and did only what it's customers wanted they may find themselves in financial ruin.  Sometimes a business does something some customers don't like because they have to (been there, done that), and they lose some customers. Some time in the future it can be determined if management did the right thing.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2013, 10:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Why only CS3 and above?  Why do only owners of previous versions of PS get to pay just the upgrade fee?  Same principle, really.  It's a reward for loyalty.  It's the same principle for any software, really.

WRT the 'used' software market, there really isn't a comparison to the used gear market. I've never bought software second-hand but I do buy a lot of gear that way. There just isn't the same market for used software.  The linked article posited the idea that Adobe would he hurt by the idea of a drop in the, virtually non-existent, used software market.  How?  How does Adobe benefit from it now?  Adobe doesn't make any money when software trades between users.  Upgrade fees?  How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?

I'm certainly not a fan of this shift in practice by Adobe, although I did eventually sign on; but the lack of logic and reasoning that so many display in their opposition is astounding.  

1.  So, because you never have personally or seen it personally, then it doesn't exist?  I love it when someone uses the word "logic" while breeching a couple fallacies in the process.  It pretty much sets the table.

2.  If the software market were non-existent than you wouldn't see millions of copies being sold on Amazon, about the same on Ebay, and used software stores near every college campus.  You might want to consider visiting one for your next software purchase.

3.  I was shocked by your apparent inability to connect the dots.  My bad..    Anyway, upgrade fees as you mention would be one t though you must be careful the copy you're buying hasn't already been upgraded from.  But mostly people starting out with an old bike often graduate to new bikes as they become more successful.  Old cars to new cars.  Small houses to big houses.  It's a way IN that gives people a chance to love photography and prioritize it in their expenditure lists.  It's also a smart buy for those who are otherwise strapped and buying new now.. they could have saved enough for a new lens or strobe or whatever.  Software is a necessary piece of equipment just like a camera, computer, or anything else you use for business.

4.  That sir is just plan rude..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2013, 10:43:07 PM »
ReplyReply

1.  So, because you never have personally or seen it personally, then it doesn't exist?  I love it when someone uses the word "logic" while breeching a couple fallacies in the process.  It pretty much sets the table.

I didn't say it didn't exist at all.  I didn't say I'd not seen it.  Read what was written. 

Quote
2.  If the software market were non-existent than you wouldn't see millions of copies being sold on Amazon, about the same on Ebay, and used software stores near every college campus.  You might want to consider visiting one for your next software purchase.

What you see is software being offered.  And yes, I'm aware of it.  Again, I didn't say completely non-existent.  But just because software is being offered, doesn't mean it's being sold.  Frankly, I wouldn't buy used software.  There is no way to know if it's legitimate or not.  Or if the seller has, as is often required, properly deregistered the copy being sold so that the new user can properly register it.  And before you respond I'm not saying all are like that. 

Quote
3.  I was shocked by your apparent inability to connect the dots.  My bad..    Anyway, upgrade fees as you mention would be one t though you must be careful the copy you're buying hasn't already been upgraded from.  But mostly people starting out with an old bike often graduate to new bikes as they become more successful.  Old cars to new cars.  Small houses to big houses.  It's a way IN that gives people a chance to love photography and prioritize it in their expenditure lists.  It's also a smart buy for those who are otherwise strapped and buying new now.. they could have saved enough for a new lens or strobe or whatever.  Software is a necessary piece of equipment just like a camera, computer, or anything else you use for business.

No, I did address it.  Your shock is entirely misplaced.  I posed a question which you did not answer.  Probably because you don't have an answer.  I wouldn't expect you would.  I don't either.  Which makes your old to new argument quite a bit weaker and your 'often' supposition just that, a supposition.  There are also people who also always buy a used car.

Quote
4.  That sir is just plan rude..

Oh bloody hell.  "Betcha didn't think of that Mr. I Want A Steady Income Stream so badly I didn't even see that coming..  "  That's a pretty rude comment.  As is this, "Betcha never saw it coming because your eyes were only looking ahead to your next annual investors report,"
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2013, 02:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How many people who buy used software, of the few who do already, are going to then upgrade via Adobe rather than wait for someone to offer up the next version on the second-hand market?
Most of my Adobe licences started as second hand purchases. Photoshop 4 which I continued to upgrade until CS4, Creative Suite I bought as a s/h Mac version CS2 then did a cross platform upgrade to CS3 and finished at CS4, Premiere Pro I bought s/h at version 1.5 and upgraded to CS5.
Yes, Adobe had lots of cash out of me for upgrades, even though the only product I bought from new was LR1.

It made lots of sense to buy an old copy then upgrade to the latest version as required. That option has gone now and I won't be giving them anything for CC.
Logged
Wayland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2013, 04:15:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I started with shareware like PSP then made the change to a used copy of PS5 long ago it seems. Over the years I have worked my way up to the latest software.

Although the new offer is very attractive I still have reservations and I am building my own exit strategy through alternative software like PhotoLine ( Not widely known but very powerful and excellent value.)

I'm not a wealthy man, never have been, probably never will be. I made choices that lead towards quality of life rather than a fat bank balance. I have no problem with my choices but it does mean I have no wish to be tied into a perpetual drain on my financial resources in the future.

One of the many things that I do is teach a diverse range of people how to get more out of their photography. Up till now that has largely involved PSE, LR AND PS with a bit if PSP and Gimp as a side order. Now I am structuring my lectures towards more affordable, perpetual licence software and my principal recommendation to people starting on the editing path is now PhotoLine with PS near the bottom of the list.

Small beans perhaps but how many of those people are customers that Adobe will never see? I don't know.

My initial anger at Adobes decision has abated somewhat since the announcement but I still cannot see my future with Adobe products beyond the licences I hold now. I understand that I am not part of their core customer base. That's unfortunate for me but no skin off Adobes corporate nose.

It's a shame, I love PS and I have invested a lot of time learning it's ways but I cannot tell what my future will bring and I cannot commit to such a subscription no matter how paltry some may feel that cost to be.

Eric Chan posted very reassuring words on another thread about preserving backward file compatibility with CS6 and the like which calmed some of my fears but the problem still remains that ten years down the line the computers we use then will probably not run such ancient software.

I need a product that will grow with me and my hardware but not vanish when I am no longer able to pay the rent. Is that too much to ask?

Logged

Wayland.
aka. Gary Waidson
Enter theWaylandscape...
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2013, 05:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I didn't say it didn't exist at all.  I didn't say I'd not seen it.  Read what was written. 

I did.  I think my response was fair given what  you wrote.

Quote
What you see is software being offered.  And yes, I'm aware of it.  Again, I didn't say completely non-existent.  But just because software is being offered, doesn't mean it's being sold.  Frankly, I wouldn't buy used software.  There is no way to know if it's legitimate or not.  Or if the seller has, as is often required, properly deregistered the copy being sold so that the new user can properly register it.  And before you respond I'm not saying all are like that. 


Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart business move. 

Quote
No, I did address it.  Your shock is entirely misplaced.  I posed a question which you did not answer.  Probably because you don't have an answer.  I wouldn't expect you would.  I don't either.  Which makes your old to new argument quite a bit weaker and your 'often' supposition just that, a supposition.  There are also people who also always buy a used car.

To be honest I don't usually don't honour a rude response by responding to their answer to my question with a question of their own.   It wouldn't matter anyway as I can see from the rest of your responses, you would just deny deny deny anyway..  which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.. even if it is misplaced.

Quote
Oh bloody hell.  "Betcha didn't think of that Mr. I Want A Steady Income Stream so badly I didn't even see that coming..  "  That's a pretty rude comment.  As is this, "Betcha never saw it coming because your eyes were only looking ahead to your next annual investors report,"

And now you can't see the difference between responding to a large corporation via editorial and responding directly to a person because you didn't agree with them.  More of your "logic" via convoluted syllogism at work.  Hint:  "Reasoning" is different than "logic."  It's okay to reason all you want, it only shows an individuals train of thought, right, wrong or different.  But when you label it "logic" then it needs to follow the rules.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5468


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2013, 06:08:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart business move.

Sorry...but the odds are real good in the case of Ebay and Amazon (not Amazon direct) the "used" or OEM software you buy is bogus and pirated...

To be clear, it's real difficult to buy legit used software...the seller has to jump through hoops and sign a "letter of destruction" (LOD) and the new buyer needs to register the software to be able to move forward with upgrades. Many users sell off an upgrade as a full version or sell their full version after upgrading their license. Both of which are bogus...

Yes, there was a market for used software, but by and large it was grey or black market and resulted in the buyer getting burned...

And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.

Software is, at it's root, intellectual property and as an author of IP (photos, software and books) illegal pirating is a scourge...

Buying "used software" is nowhere close to buying tangible personal property...it's far more complicated and more likely to be a shady deal.
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2013, 10:29:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry...but the odds are real good in the case of Ebay and Amazon (not Amazon direct) the "used" or OEM software you buy is bogus and pirated...

To be clear, it's real difficult to buy legit used software...the seller has to jump through hoops and sign a "letter of destruction" (LOD) and the new buyer needs to register the software to be able to move forward with upgrades. Many users sell off an upgrade as a full version or sell their full version after upgrading their license. Both of which are bogus...

Yes, there was a market for used software, but by and large it was grey or black market and resulted in the buyer getting burned...

And, yes, that will be irrevocably changed with Adobe selling subscriptions...personally, I have no problem with bogus and pirated software getting screwed by the subscription model.

Software is, at it's root, intellectual property and as an author of IP (photos, software and books) illegal pirating is a scourge...

Buying "used software" is nowhere close to buying tangible personal property...it's far more complicated and more likely to be a shady deal.

Jeff is right here. Often, You cannot re-sell your "purchased" software because it was not "purchased" technically, rather "licensed for a specificuse". These EULA areso well writtenthese days. Furthermore, reselling hardware that has embedded software follow the same rules. Technically, Apple can issue a cease-and-desist for every reseller of iPhones, for example. Users have the right to resell the hardware, but not the accompanying software (iOS).

That said, we expect businesses to do the "right" thing, and not alienate their user base. Adobe can't miss a beat these days, they keep alienating their base. Even when trying to "do it right" with the $9.99 offer for "photographers".  We later learned that it is not for photographers technically, but rather for previous owners of PS (CS3 and above). Not all photographers own PS. Many will become photogaphers in the near future. They cannot use the "photographer offer".

Bottom line: Adobe still can't figure out how they grow without alienating their base. We've all seen how this play in the long run.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2013, 12:01:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I did.  I think my response was fair given what  you wrote.

No, not really.
 

Quote
Sorry, but when used software is being offered in such huge markets as Ebay, Amazon, used books stores worldwide, not to mention LARGE stores set up just to sell used software.. you just can't say their products aren't being sold.  They're at least being sold enough to make them worth these rather large venues.  Which would be considerable.  I'm happy for you that you never needed to buy used software, but there are an awful lot of people out there who do either because they cant afford it.. or only because its a smart]
business move. 

OK, don't believe me.  Believe Jeff, who responded after me.  Or not.....

Quote
To be honest I don't usually don't honour a rude response by responding to their answer to my question with a question of their own.   It wouldn't matter anyway as I can see from the rest of your responses, you would just deny deny deny anyway..  which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion.. even if it is misplaced.

Obfuscation.

Quote
And now you can't see the difference between responding to a large corporation via editorial and responding directly to a person because you didn't agree with them.  More of your "logic" via convoluted syllogism at work.  Hint:  "Reasoning" is different than "logic."  It's okay to reason all you want, it only shows an individuals train of thought, right, wrong or different.  But when you label it "logic" then it needs to follow the rules.

Heavy sigh.  More obfuscation.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad