That is so weird, since I never made the argument about Leap year that he described and I never would.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WayTools' TextBlade Keyboard to Start Shipping to Test Group Users Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
That is so weird, since I never made the argument about Leap year that he described and I never would.
So you just pointed out that you have a strange definition of lie, since I, as well as the rest of the english speaking will use a dictionary definition. And that is:
2: to create a false or misleading impression
Doesn't say with intent.
Trickflow 1 : DBK 0
Nice try, but this is why I gave an example showing that your meaning makes every mistake into a "lie". Now, you are free to take that position, but if that is the case, then every example of false/misleading statements made by various critics here and on the WT forum that have been pointed out are also lies. I don't think you are helping them!
And it would also mean you lied when you claimed no one else requested I ask a question of WT.
Glad you straightened that out! I mean, someone might have though you just made a mistake with your false assertion.
Your interpretation, which I don't accept, but since it is yours, you have to.
The alternative is worse.
Perhaps We are waiting for a product who have sat down at a table every Monday for 53 straight weeks and said:
"I have a good feeling about this weekend guys, this week we definitely will be finished."
I'd be shocked they haven't started leaving the company if that were true.
Hang on a minute.
***
I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[doublepost=1456534319][/doublepost]make that 54
https://forum.waytools.com/t/treg-ship-update/1451
***
I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
I am not sure words can describe what is happening here without getting banned from the forum.
These guys are jokers.
[doublepost=1456542316][/doublepost]..... and I canceled. Guess this was my final straw.
Yep, another few days, at least. However your description above is unlikely since almost all of the past year+ the estimates were a month apart. So it would actually be more like, "We think we can have it done this month" rather than a particular week. This actually matters and even the critics have essentially admitted it.
Pretty much anything, the longer the timeframe is, more more likely something can happen. Take TREG for example and how it effects regular shipping. When February started, it was at least possible to get the TREG people chosen, get their units, and if no problems were found, have that testing only take a week - thus regular shipping could have started this month.
However, based on their own explanations for how TREG would work (Request selection, be invited, sent out the agreement, sign agreement, ship the units, get the units - all before the "best case" scenario of just one week of actual testing, it didn't take long to reach a point where it was no longer possible to do regular shipping this month - so it got changed.
So if anyone said, "This week looks good for regular shipping" when all those other things had to be done first, obviously that would be ridiculous. But if they said at the start of the month, "Looks good to be doing regular shipping this month", that may have been reasonable at the time.
As I said, critics support this without knowing it - every time one of them complained about the monthly delays, the typical suggestion was to make the projections be to ship in three months. Why, considering they would all have been missed too? Simple. Because it was easier to see the POSSIBILITY of reaching the goal with a longer time period.
Therefore, it is important to describe this accurately - as monthly decisions, not weekly.
TREG shipments delayed! Yet another event supporting MR's decision to suspend coverage. The hilarious thing is that there will be, I am sure, an extremely lawyerly parsing by WT zealots of how ambiguous the terms "this week" and "shipping" actually are in their view.
Here's something to read during, however one chooses to interpret WT's own words, the next "few days":
"Are You In A Codependent Relationship?
I prefer to think of codependent relationships as a specific type of dysfunctional helping relationship. Broadly speaking, in dysfunctional helping relationships, one person’s help supports (enables) the other’s underachievement, irresponsibility, immaturity, addiction, procrastination, or poor mental or physical health.
The helper does this by doing such things as rescuing the other from self-imposed predicaments, bearing their negative consequences for them, accommodating their unhealthy or irresponsible behaviors, and taking care of them such that they don’t develop or exhibit competencies normal for those of their age or abilities. Although these unbalanced relationships can go on for some time, they are ultimately unsustainable due their consumption of the helper’s physical, emotional, or financial resources, and because they lead to resentment and relationship strain."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/presence-mind/201307/are-you-in-codependent-relationship
We've all seen this movie before, actually...
"Depends on what you mean by 'compete'. "
Bill Gates
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing."
Bill Clinton
Here's something to read during, however one chooses to interpret WT's own words, the next "few days":
"Are You In A Codependent Relationship?
I prefer to think of codependent relationships as a specific type of dysfunctional helping relationship. Broadly speaking, in dysfunctional helping relationships, one person’s help supports (enables) the other’s underachievement, irresponsibility, immaturity, addiction, procrastination, or poor mental or physical health.
The helper does this by doing such things as rescuing the other from self-imposed predicaments, bearing their negative consequences for them, accommodating their unhealthy or irresponsible behaviors, and taking care of them such that they don’t develop or exhibit competencies normal for those of their age or abilities. Although these unbalanced relationships can go on for some time, they are ultimately unsustainable due their consumption of the helper’s physical, emotional, or financial resources, and because they lead to resentment and relationship strain."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/presence-mind/201307/are-you-in-codependent-relationship
We've all seen this movie before, actually...
"Depends on what you mean by 'compete'. "
Bill Gates
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing."
Bill Clinton
Last edited:
1. You are mistaken as this simply means a longer period of time where we could have had Juli gathering hands-on info about the device before anyone else even gets started - which we now don't have because of some of the critics attacks.
As for "parsing", etc, you are always free to actually show any descriptions given are wrong. Or you can do what you just did, make a snide remark and leave out the actual analysis.
Wait, so when was TREG announced, and when did the selection process start? Because if selection didn't start until the beginning of February, then saying they may be able to start regular shipping within February was not just overly optimistic, but more like delusionally unrealistic. If selection started in January, and they were going to ship out the testing units toward the end of Jan / early Feb, then a general shipping date of end of February is still too optimistic rather than realistic. That deadline can only be met in the best case scenario, where no issues are found during testing.
If they so consistently miss their own deadlines, does it matter if the decisions are made weekly or monthly? It's the little decisions made weekly (like let's test the firmware a little bit more before sending out test units) that lead to the monthly delays.
[doublepost=1456546129][/doublepost]
Please. What good does Juli's hands-on impressions do if the product doesn't ever ship?
Well, a number of people, including me but also others who don't defend WT, have looked at all the info we had and we felt this not about, "We have this device and we know it needs debugging so we need some more testers to find the bugs". That just didn't seem to fit in with what we knew. What did fit was more like this: "We have had the hardware working fine for some time and we've been getting rid of the little quirks in the firmware. We think we have just about finished that - a few days of testing - and then we can ship out what we think will past muster. But the TREG testers will confirm that".
While I think a week isn't much time, it is possible to say, "If our regular testing and a couple hundred TREG testers don't report significant issues, that's enough". It also fits what they said many months ago - that when they got to what they hoped was the final version, they would test it for another week before shipping.
So it really isn't like saying, "One week simply isn't enough testing". It is more like, "We've successfully passed all our normal testing, but to be sure, let's do this extra week". Might be unusual, but not unreasonable at all - though it pushes shipping back another week.
As for exact timing, I was doing a number of posts about that this month on their forums, taking any detail they provided - such as the steps (post the info to sign up, review with whatever system they wanted to use, invite some, send out the acceptance and have it returned and, finally, there was the last part before shipping where we were to be contacted about shipping. That was always a mystery, but now we know that was another really badly described step. It never was about actual shipping info. It was simply Knighton calling a small number (seems to be mostly - maybe only - people the WT forum who were selected) to talk to them about a variety of things. But not about shipping info.
I started a thread "Testing timeline" at the end of January on their forum all about his, periodically updating possibilities as time moved forward or we were given more info. Lots of detailed analysis which, as I recall, you said I should apply to WT. Well, I did.
I still have no idea what you keep babbling about. I can see you're desperately trying to score a win, because that's all that matters to you. But you're unable to use a simple tool to extract the quote you keep mentioning. Are you able to use the search feature on your browser? If so, find the quote. I'm actually genuinely curious. If not, you are completely cracked my friend.
WT not having "zero" reason to kill off regular shipping units is not FACT. What you alone think and hope is not fact. Is that your definition of fact?
But let's see, what reason do they have for not shipping test units to testers, even though they've sent one to Juli? What reason do they have to cancel people's order, only to make an offer to reinstate them (which I felt was marvelously magnanimous of them BTW), what reason do they have for constantly comparing themselves to apple and tesla when they've done nothing like them (like shipping their first, sole product), what reason do they have for constantly blaming some evil competitors for blocking their release, but in the same breath say they're sorry it's taking long, but it's because revolutionary products take a long time and they want to get it right?
Your search for reason from WT and that they'll do the right thing seems like a fool's errand. Over the 13 months, what I see from WT is mostly irresponsible and unreasonable actions. On top of this, your misguided definition of a simple word like FACT leads me to believe you'll always go around in circles (like you're doing now here, and on WT forum).
And I could care less about your conspiracy theories. Why don't you stick to the topic? What is it with you and your incessant need to go off on a tangent?
Free advice for your own good. Just thought you should know you come off looking like an effeminate, obsequious, sycophantic troll motivated only by fear of some paranoid conspiracy. Thinking of it all as negative description is your interpretation. I just call it as I see it.
The quote was easily tracked back. I laid it out for you. You even quoted me using the word YOU used in the post where you said you didn't say, "challenge". So you already know.
Oh good, then you can tell us why they would do it!
Yet you are the one who thinks WT may kill shipping TB???
TREG was first announced around second week of January. They stated that they plan to have test units in testers' hands by end of January, with estimated plan of general shipment by end of February. No one, not even the biggest pro-WT lackeys believed the schedule will work.
And now here we are, near the end of Feb, no testing unit shipped, jury's out on when they will. Could be a "few days", weeks, months, who knows? When this TREG will be wrapped up is anyone's guess. And then there's general shipment. How long could they delay that after TREG is history? I can see them coming up with all kinds of excuses to drag it on til second coming.
I have no trouble going back and documenting all this. It will, of course, be boring and some may even get confused - but I suspect that was the idea when you tried to pass this off as being about a totally different post. Still, no problem giving the info. It's easy when the facts support the claims made:
From your post 221:
> He will start by being confrontational (or challenging), then pick apart what you say <
That was talking about me and it is where this matter of the word starts.
I responded in post 225. I quoted what you said above - so there is no question as to the flow of context here. And then I said:
> Ooooh, I'm "challenging". Imagine that, daring to challenge arguments or claims people make that I disagree with. How terrible! <
Which obviously was a play directly off your use of "challenging" and, again, a direct link to the parts that came before.
And then in your post (228) you actually include my statement above which, again, makes it easy to trace the arguments back to specific posts and statement. Yet you made this nonsensical response:
> "Challenge" is not the word I used. <
Which was weird all by itself since I didn't say you did! So why were you quoting me, which was based on the word you did use, and then declare you didn't say something else? It made no sense so I pointed that out in post 232.
Then you get you being misleading, when in post 238 you tried to say it was about a totally different post - amazingly one you weren't using in these particular and connected exchanges. You referred to post 215 out of the blue.
But it is worse than just that because not only did you try to twist the context of these exchanges, you also:
1. In trying to connect it to post 215, you were connecting it to one that had ME using the word "challenge" to a different poster. That is, NOT to you. And not about you using that word anyway. Not about anybody using that word. So it would make zero sense to respond by saying you didn't use that word even if we didn't know the connection to the post I listed above.
2. And then, if you really want to play this game of changing the posts that apply in this case, I would point to post 226 where, yep, you did use the word "challenge".
So, that leaves you pretty much with three strikes.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure I know what kind of responses some of the critics will make. They will prefer things like, "to long, didn't read" or "you need to stop worrying about what people say" (even as they are fine with people saying misleading things as long as they are mad at WT). That is, pretty much anything except pay attention and acknowledge that you tried to twist the context.
Or, the more industrious may try to further twist the context pattern of posts figuring most people won't take the time to follow it and see for themselves.
Well, can't help that. So, people should just read 221, 225, 228, 232, 238. They will see one leads to the next. 215 doesn't fit in. 226 doesn't either, but that is just to show that if you are going to twist the context, you are wrong anyway.
Knew what. What is it that you're trying to say? What words are you trying to put in my mouth and failing? Are you so devoid of proof and FACTs and reason you need to make stuff up, and failing again?
Of course that was about you. How much more do I have to spell it out for you? And you're playing out my description to a tee. You have a simple pattern and it's very predictable.
No, you're not "challenging", you're definitely "challenged". This yet another long piece of yours about who used what, where and why only gives proof of that.
But ultimately, you haven't proved your case. Your facts are weak, almost non-existent. You have not provided nearly enough quotes - you need to provide more, a LOT more. At best I'm afraid I can only give you a D-. It seems you only spent 30 minutes going through the discussion history and doing the search and grepping I told you to do. Obviously, that is not enough time for you. Try again. This time spend AT LEAST two hours, focus and be more careful in formulating your case. Use:
grep -C 4 "challenge|challenging" your_wall_of.txt
to bring up some context. I think that will help you a lot. I think you only searched for the word and are confused about how it was used. And this time, try to present your case in a chronological fashion, instead of jumping all over the place. Do you have spell-check? You know how to use it? Well, use it then. Bad spelling instantly ruins your credibility.
But I'm honestly fascinated by the point you're trying to make, so please try again, and let's see if I can give you a better grade next time.
You, instead of making a rational argument, mislead people. To save space, I'll focus on a particularly good example of that:
You see - and anyone can go back and see for themselves - I went through the pertinent posts in, ta-da, chronological order.
In case you have trouble understanding that, a good way to figure it out was to read the post numbers - 221, 225, 228, 232, 238. Oh, wait, maybe you think the posting numbers don't match chronological order. Like maybe there was a time warp or something making 232 come before 221!
Yeah, I can ridicule too - but also back it up with examples showing it fits what you did.
That covered the main crux of the issue.
Oh, and I know what your next game will be - to say that I talked about post 215 and 226 after those. Yep. Because they were somewhat separate issues. There were, after all, three things to deal with to show how consistently misleading you were (might make people think it wasn't an accident) and I handled each in turn and, within each, in chronological order.
You see - and anyone can go back and see for themselves - I went through the pertinent posts in, ta-da, chronological order.
In case you have trouble understanding that, a good way to figure it out was to read the post numbers - 221, 225, 228, 232, 238. Oh, wait, maybe you think the posting numbers don't match chronological order. Like maybe there was a time warp or something making 232 come before 221!
Yeah, I can ridicule too - but also back it up with examples showing it fits what you did.
That covered the main crux of the issue.
Oh, and I know what your next game will be - to say that I talked about post 215 and 226 after those. Yep. Because they were somewhat separate issues. There were, after all, three things to deal with to show how consistently misleading you were (might make people think it wasn't an accident) and I handled each in turn and, within each, in chronological order.
And how do I do this? Examples. Examples. Examples. Don't just say it, show it. You pride yourself in quoting, pulling out facts. Do it.
Also, how many times must I tell you... Get the quotes in context. If you need remedial course on how to do this on your mac, get some. I'll wait. I don't have the time or the patience to educate you (on top of educating you on other basic things) on simple things like how to use a mac. Surely you can do this on your own. Whatever. Just get the quote and facts then we'll talk. It's quite frustrating.
You have reached rock bottom - and are still digging. I nailed you for your misleading statements about the words used. You tried to "defend" by using unsupported ridicule and misleading again by saying I didn't use chronological order.
Now you say I have to provide quotes - yet I did exactly that in the prior post where I pointed out the actual quotes that proved you tried to mislead people of what the context was.
As was also done, since I gave everyone the number of every post so they could see all the context they wanted.
I'm sure it is for you, since you can only defend now by making up more stuff.
I've dealt with a lot of people who make pretty pathetic arguments - taking things out of context, mindless ridicule, even falsehoods. But it is really rare for even those people to, when faced with the proof of their falsehoods, to go ahead and use more falsehoods as a defense! So usually they try to change the subject instead. Maybe you should try that instead before people decide your comments aren't just "mistakes".
It also makes it look like your "exaggerations" of claims on the first page may also have been intended to mislead.
I've been sitting here wondering when DBK will finally line up all the relevant posts, but since he seems unwilling or unable to do so, and this is taking up way more space than it's worth, below are the sequence of posts that I believe led to this dispute over the use of the word "challenge."
If I'm understanding correctly, ericpeets' position is that DBK is the one that first brought up "challenge," and when he wrote that DBK is "confrontational (challenging)" he meant challenging in the sense of DBK likes issuing challenges. When DBK responded with "Ooooh, I'm challenging," I think he meant challenging in the sense of "trying, aggravating."
Ok, go ahead and spend another 3 pages telling me I got everything wrong.
And btw, referring to posts by post# without providing links is not a good idea, as post numbers can change if the mods decide to delete any posts. This forum has a multi quote function. Please use it.
If I'm understanding correctly, ericpeets' position is that DBK is the one that first brought up "challenge," and when he wrote that DBK is "confrontational (challenging)" he meant challenging in the sense of DBK likes issuing challenges. When DBK responded with "Ooooh, I'm challenging," I think he meant challenging in the sense of "trying, aggravating."
Ok, go ahead and spend another 3 pages telling me I got everything wrong.
And btw, referring to posts by post# without providing links is not a good idea, as post numbers can change if the mods decide to delete any posts. This forum has a multi quote function. Please use it.
Last edited:
That's weird, because I did. And I went further and gave the post numbers so other people could see the full context.
You go back to post 215 as well, but as ALREADY pointed out, that was never part of what he said to me that I responded to. We know this because he didn't quote from it. The post he quoted from and then responded to was quite different.
I do agree on what he meant when saying "challenging", but that isn't the issue and never was.
As for posts changing numbers, nice to know, but unless it has actually happened, it doesn't matter. Besides, since I was making sure there could be no confusion over context, quoting them in full instead would make a long post vastly longer - something your next to last paragraph would seem to not want.
Should I predict the next attempt he will use to avoid the truth? Most likely he'd like to point to your post and say something like, "See how Night Spring provided quotes" - implying I didn't. Or he'll say you provided longer quotes and somehow it was just the right amount.
Yet none of your quotes actually change anything I said.
If people want to see the full context, all they have to do is click the arrow after "xx said:" and it takes you back to the quoted post. Much easier than trying to locate the post by post number.
Also, unless it happens, it doesn't matter? I bet you are the kind of person who doesn't take out insurance, because since an accident hasn't happened yet, it doesn't matter!
It was funny how when I asked for proof, you must have re-read all the past posts to stitch together something on your behalf. You know, sarcasm is funny only if you don't have to explain. But since you don't seem to understand...
You know what? Fine. You win. I honestly still don't know what you were babbling about. But you win. You basically killed this thread with your stink (as you seem to do with many threads on waytools forum). But sure, you get a cookie.
I usually reread things anyway when someone says something I don't think is right. You know, to confirm that I am correct. Occasionally I will misremember things or even have misread something.
You could have avoid most of this if, as I wrote in message 239:
> I think it is darn dishonest of you to now claim it is about a different statement. Unless you just made a mistake. You can always trace it back like I did and see the context flow and acknowledge you were not correct. <
Or you could have said, "I quoted from one post, but I was also thinking of this other post and didn't make that clear." Now, in this case, there would still be the problem that the other post didn't fit in with your response anyway, but we'll skip that for now.
You see, people make mistakes - which is why I so often reread things before responding. And I may still get something wrong.
Heck, I remember a battle on another forum once that lasted for days where I reread the referenced post every day "to be sure". And you know what? I was wrong! And once I caught the error, it was easy to see what happened. The poster had set up the noun/verb in an unusual way, making misreading almost natural. Once I caught it, I apologized and explained what happened. Was rather embarrassing though.
An example of how your eyes can mess up, something like this:
John and Bill wanted
to drive their car to the
the store yesterday.
A LOT of people, reading that, will completely miss the fact that there are two "the" words in a row. And they may miss it over and over again. Once they catch it though, they have no trouble seeing it every time.
So, if I'm provided a real counter argument with substance, I'm likely to reread again. On rare cases, I've been wrong.
I find this hard to believe. Judging by the FACT that you have so soundly defeated me with some impeccable reasoning and your powerful (I must say) rational arguments, you're obviously never wrong. I think you do yourself injustice saying this, or shows how humble you are.
But just out of curiosity... what was it that I'm accused of?
You've played that card before. Been answered before. It's an old tactic to pretend you don't know after trying to confuse the issue yourself.
- Status