No they haven't. Trading Standards don't interfere with subjective superlatives, only factual claims, and even then it'll more likely be the Advertising Standards Authority. Stop spreading this nonsense please.
Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.
you are right, "Editorial" was a bad chooice of words. But it doesn't change the fact that Apple took 4 paragraphs to say what an average person would take 2 sentences to say. Come on, this is Apple, masters of simplicity and communicating. It shouldn't take them 4 paragraphs to say that the courts found that Samsung did not infringe.
Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court. Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.
...as you guys were.
They absolutely can find that there was infringement in that case. They cannot enforce their judgement in this instance but they can and did find infringement. The UK decision might legally override the German injunction, but that doesn't go back in time and change history such that the German court didn't decide what they did decide. The UK ruling make the German decision obsolete. It doesn't erase it from having happened. Unless the UK courts are using time traveling tech now. because if they are, you could be right. And that would be super cool. Super cool.
So yes, there was a finding of infringement. Apple stated this fact.
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer...
It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach.
For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement? I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.
For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement? I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”
The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and replace it with a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments.
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that, or what it refers to. Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.
I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.
Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.
And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour? Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out? And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do? Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.
Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation? I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation. I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?
Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others
Have to answer your question along the lines of how you answered mine:)
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed? - Maybe
That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that. Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.
Better luck next time.
Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.
You mention you saw described as "non-compliant". I will guess you took that from the Guardian or a site that took from them.
The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.
Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?
I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.
Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?
I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.
Except for the fact that the non-compliance is detailed further on in the article, as described by Sir Robin Jacob, and Darren Smyth of EIP Partners. Nice try for misdirection there, but it's hogwash, and there's no double standard.
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.
Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim. Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.
And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour? Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out? And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do? Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.
Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation? I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation. I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?
Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others
I think the UK judges are buffoons because:
1) The order for the notice was ridiculous to begin with. Even the appeal court recognized that.
2) The order was punitive against Apple for having the gall to exercise their legal rights in Germany
3) because they subsequently supported the notice, even acknowledging it is flawed, because of the notoriety of a single comment from original buffoon.
4) because the supported the order for he notice, stating it was not intended to be informative and not punitive, yet it is clearly punitive
5) because they made false claims in their reasoning of Apple being in breach, likely because they felt personally slighted.
Your other question:
No, I actually do not think these cases are helping Apple's reputation. What is their alternative? Sit back and let the lawsuits come to them? Nokia sued them before they ever sued a mobile competitor. The Motorola lawsuits were initiated by Motorola. Prior to the "smartphone wars" Apple was one of the least litigious tech companies in the world, in terms of initiating lawsuits. They quickly learned the wireless industry is litigation obsessed and they couldn't just sit back and take it in the ass and do nothing. Should they continue to work and try to be innovative while Samsung uses them for their R&D lab? Samsung was blatant. They were not shy about it. How would it benefit Apple to sit back and release products that would simply be copy catted?
So no, I don't think these lawsuits are doing Apple any good from a PR perspective and is hurting them. I'll ask you, what was their alternative? Exit the mobile business?
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Not a clue who the QC is but doesn't appear to be one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim. Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.
How can you know understand it is attributed to the court?
"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"
Otherwise they could have saved themselves the effort and just left off the quotes. There is only one subject in the sentence to which those quotes could be attributed.
But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing.
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point. Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.
Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.
So either way, you're wrong. But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.
Fantastic. Two words, devoid of any context, in separate quotation marks are entirely valid examples as the unworthiness of the court. Your standards for "exact" are very low.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They've been doing it for years.
No they haven't. Trading Standards don't interfere with subjective superlatives, only factual claims, and even then it'll more likely be the Advertising Standards Authority. Stop spreading this nonsense please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Where did they editorialize? They added 4 paragraphs. Three directly referenced the UK decision and the judge's own words. The forth mentioned two other court decisions. Those are facts not opinion, thus not editorialized.
you are right, "Editorial" was a bad chooice of words. But it doesn't change the fact that Apple took 4 paragraphs to say what an average person would take 2 sentences to say. Come on, this is Apple, masters of simplicity and communicating. It shouldn't take them 4 paragraphs to say that the courts found that Samsung did not infringe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Very last try: The German court cannot find infringement where a final EU-wide ruling finds there was none. So NO there is no finding of infringement by a German court. Apple's legal counsel understands and is not arguing that there's a finding of infringement by the Germans and thus legitimate to state. If you had legal training I've no doubt you could grasp the distinction as well. Heck, I understand it and didn't need legal training to do so.
...as you guys were.
They absolutely can find that there was infringement in that case. They cannot enforce their judgement in this instance but they can and did find infringement. The UK decision might legally override the German injunction, but that doesn't go back in time and change history such that the German court didn't decide what they did decide. The UK ruling make the German decision obsolete. It doesn't erase it from having happened. Unless the UK courts are using time traveling tech now. because if they are, you could be right. And that would be super cool. Super cool.
So yes, there was a finding of infringement. Apple stated this fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer...
It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach.
For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement? I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
For the third time, can you back up this claim that the court has said Apple have made a false statement? I have only seen them describe it as non-compliant.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html
Quote:
Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”
The U.K. Court of Appeal in London ordered Apple to remove the statement within 24 hours and replace it with a new notice acknowledging the inaccurate comments.
“I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this,” Judge Robin Jacob said today. “That is a plain breach of the order.”
That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that, or what it refers to. Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.
Better luck next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
I ask simple questions which you guys don't seem to be able to answer, at least not with resorting to making up facts.
I'll answer your question: did Apple intend their notice to be a middle finger to the UK courts? maybe. And if the UK courts were convinced that it was, then say that and do something about it. It is unbecoming for them to instead make up reasons, like Apple making false statements, and then using that to claim breach. If they have to resort to make believe, then that shows they probably couldn't find an actual reason to find them in breach.
Apple lawyers are complying now because it has been demonstrated that the UK courts are out of step and out of line. They realize they are going to continue to be the nail with the UK courts hammer, so bend over and take it once and for all. They are punishing Apple for a disagreement they have with the German courts. Apple had every right to continue their legal activities in Germany. But since the German courts were showing up the UK courts to be a bunch a buffoons, they punish Apple for that. Further, the punishment that Apple make the notice was observed by the UK appeal court to be wrong, but retained only because of statements made by the buffoon judge in the original proceedings getting so much press. The German and US cases were not irrelevant, they were very much related to to the case at hand. They added context to the UK decision. They might have pissed off they UK judges, but they still need to base their decisions on fact, not make believe.
And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour? Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out? And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do? Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.
Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation? I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation. I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?
Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others
Have to answer your question along the lines of how you answered mine:)
Simple question: Did a german court find that Samsung infringed? - Maybe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
That is an unsatisfactory reference; it's not clear who is saying that. Hardly just cause for criticising the entire legal process and integrity of the judges.
Better luck next time.
Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.
You mention you saw described as "non-compliant". I will guess you took that from the Guardian or a site that took from them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/01/apple-samsung-statement
Quote:
The acknowledgement put up last week, linked from the home page by a tiny link, was deemed to be "non-compliant" with the order that the court had made in October. The court has now ordered it to correct the statement – and the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob, indicated that they were not pleased with Apple's failure to put a simpler statement on the site.
Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?
I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Note the basically identical use of quotations in the first sentence. Even though they don't hold your hand and explicitly clarify who exactly said those words, the sentence is structures to ensure you know it is a quote from the court. You picked up on that, as you mention you saw it described as such. But you apply a different standard to a quote you don't like. Double standard much?
I wish you luck with the rest of your endeavours if that is the best you can do.
Except for the fact that the non-compliance is detailed further on in the article, as described by Sir Robin Jacob, and Darren Smyth of EIP Partners. Nice try for misdirection there, but it's hogwash, and there's no double standard.
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Are all references you don't agree with unsatisfactory? They clearly state, in the very first paragraph that they are referring to the UK judges. The quotation marks designates quotes from the subject, being the courts.
Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim. Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
And what about the many worldwide cases that haven't gone in apple's favour? Surely they too would add context to the uk decision rather than putting comments which imply the england verdict is the odd one out? And are the English judges baffoons because they ruled against apple or is there something I don't know that you do? Agreed though that Apple should have bent over & took it once & for all which they may have finally done.
Another question for you that is off topic - do you believe that this legal case & the other worldwide ones are helping apple or harming their reputation? I sure think they're repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with so much publicity over aggressive patent litigation. I know they're not the only ones at it & won't be the last but to get to the stage where some commentators class them as a patent troll isn't good is it?
Can't remember who called me a jackass for referring to apple as patent trolls but to be a patent troll doesn't just mean you buy up as many patents as possible to glean cash from others
I think the UK judges are buffoons because:
1) The order for the notice was ridiculous to begin with. Even the appeal court recognized that.
2) The order was punitive against Apple for having the gall to exercise their legal rights in Germany
3) because they subsequently supported the notice, even acknowledging it is flawed, because of the notoriety of a single comment from original buffoon.
4) because the supported the order for he notice, stating it was not intended to be informative and not punitive, yet it is clearly punitive
5) because they made false claims in their reasoning of Apple being in breach, likely because they felt personally slighted.
Your other question:
No, I actually do not think these cases are helping Apple's reputation. What is their alternative? Sit back and let the lawsuits come to them? Nokia sued them before they ever sued a mobile competitor. The Motorola lawsuits were initiated by Motorola. Prior to the "smartphone wars" Apple was one of the least litigious tech companies in the world, in terms of initiating lawsuits. They quickly learned the wireless industry is litigation obsessed and they couldn't just sit back and take it in the ass and do nothing. Should they continue to work and try to be innovative while Samsung uses them for their R&D lab? Samsung was blatant. They were not shy about it. How would it benefit Apple to sit back and release products that would simply be copy catted?
So no, I don't think these lawsuits are doing Apple any good from a PR perspective and is hurting them. I'll ask you, what was their alternative? Exit the mobile business?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Not a clue who the QC is but doesn't appear to be one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co
So that was the Samsung counsel making the remark ref untrue?
Henry Carr is one of Samsung's attorneys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Until there's a name against it then it's unclear of the source of the "untrue" and "inaccurate" claim. Samsung claimed that, but I've not seen anything that definitively attributes it to a judge.
How can you know understand it is attributed to the court?
"Apple Inc. (AAPL) was criticized by U.K. judges for posting a notice on its website about a lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) that was “untrue” and “incorrect.”"
Otherwise they could have saved themselves the effort and just left off the quotes. There is only one subject in the sentence to which those quotes could be attributed.
But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever71
I think this shows who made the comment ref untrue info. Admittedly this was off the dailymail so in no way can i guarantee this isn't made up! Looks like it was the Samsung lawyer who made the comment, not one of the judges that gave the slap
The ruling came after a lawyer representing Samsung today told Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob that Apple had published a notice on its website on October 26 - in 'purported compliance' with a Court of Appeal order.
But Henry Carr QC said Apple had added an account of court proceedings in Germany and the United States which was 'inaccurate and misleading'.
'This has received enormous publicity and has perpetuated confusion as to Samsung's entitlement to market the Galaxy tablet computers in issue,' he said, in a written statement given to judges.
'It has created the impression that the UK court is out of step with other courts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2226214/Apple-reprimanded-Samsung-apology--claims-WEEKS-replacement-web-site.html#ixzz2B56Jw4Co
While related in meaning, "inaccurate" and "misleading" are not the same words as "untrue" and "incorrect". A quote is meant to be exact. Otherwise it is paraphrasing. No doubt those are Carr's words. But the Bloomberg article quotes the court.
Find me a proper attributed quote and we can argue the point. Until then, it's just a couple of words in a sentence.
Besides which, I think it's been quite clearly established that Apple's claim that a German court had found it infringing is not true because the finding was invalid (an invalid finding being no finding at all), and the claim about the US court was at best misleading, because the Galaxy Tab was not included in the judgement, and could reasonably be called incorrect given the context it was displayed in.
So either way, you're wrong. But I'm sure you'll find a new argument to shift to now, that seems to be the way you operate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
A quote is meant to be exact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
But I guess it has come down to parsing and semantics. Always a sure sign you've got nothing.
"But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic argument?
You were very quick to throw around an accusation of double standards (dropped that one now, right?), trying applying it to yourself.
How about you folks shelve this issue until an actual transcript is posted? You're just chasing your own tails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
"But what Apple wrote was true" isn't an attempt at a semantic argument?
You were very quick to throw around an accusation of double standards (dropped that one now, right?), trying applying it to yourself.
What Apple wrote was true. In no way was it untrue or incorrect. That's not parsing. It was a statement of fact. No parsing required.
No double standards on my part. I look at facts. They work better than fiction, fantasy, parsing and weaseling.