But you rewrote his words for him, to make a much more unreasonable statement, that is implicitly ascribed to him through quotes -
“You can’t prove they haven’t started it.”
Which sounds more like something Al Capone might say.
But he didn’t say what you wrote. Nevertheless you criticized him for it.
Oops, I just messed up myself, but to make a point about how that can happen, I'm going to leave my original intact and post the correction at the end:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
I think there has been some confusion. A common thing with wild accusations flying around! I did, in fact, say, "You can't prove they haven't started it". So let me clarify my point:
The claim was that the Android version had NOT been started. So my first point was that there was no way anyone (outside of WayTools, of course) could know that. IOW, why is an assertion presented as fact justified when the key fact is the person making the assertion can't really know.
I then move to related points, such as, even if at some point you said you wouldn't start it until GR, situations change so that may no longer apply.
And, finally, the obvious point that there is a video of the app on an android device. So I moved from questioning how someone could claim an unknown as a fact, to why prior beliefs may no longer apply anyway, and finishing with real evidence that the original assertion was wrong. I try to cover all aspects
====================
Correction. WayTools was correct. At least technically. Maggie correctly included my actual statement, but further on sarcastically (imo) asked if I was taking the POV that "You can't prove they haven't started it".
But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this - that is, that the use of quotes was not referring to my precise words, but to a tactic of arguing. Certainly that is subject to a belief that she was falsely quoting. I just chose not to take it that way (and she is always free to clarify).
In the meantime, I will point out that wasn't what I was doing. In fact, I was arguing against a view that had to be based on the same thing, applied in reverse - that being that they haven't started it unless they prove they have. Fortunately, we have proof that they have in the videos.
An aside - dabikahuna is a paying customer, who likes to speak his own mind, and is very keen about principle. He will criticize or defend based on whatever he objectively thinks is true and fair. He’s obviously not shy of responding to statements with his own lengthy reply. If someone picks a fight, he clearly won’t roll over. In looking at his record of posts, there is one thing that stands out - It matters who initiates, and who responds. These lengthy back and forth debates have a genesis, outside of him. He pushes back when someone asserts what he sees as untrue, based on his own direct knowledge as a user. We’ve not seen him argue where there’s no assertion. For the initiator to blame him for his response - that seems a bit contrived, and unfair to him.
You may want to refrain from saying something like this. You see, there's an unstable individual in this thread accusing some members of creating multiple pseudonyms/alter-egos (5 of them, to be exact), agreeing and supporting one another in effort to "prove" their point.
The same individual accused me of being Rolanbek, who I've never met. It's also the same individual who claim that some long-time Macrumors members "attacked" writer Juli Clover about her Waytools and Textblade articles. Apparently these "alter-egos" had planted themselves in MR for years, or even a decade (easily checked by their profiles) before they rose up at the same time and tried to derail the article in an effort to sabotage Waytools. So many alter-egos, so many years in hiding...
Fair warning, lest you be called one of these "alter egos".
In all seriousness, do you really feel you need to speak for kahuna because he can't by himself? He's written over 4900 posts on your own forum, which he trolls an average of three times a day for the last 4 years, 448 posts at Macrumors before being banned from there, and that's just from what I can gather in 5 minutes. With all that, do you still think he needs additional meta data from you? Makes you wonder what you think of him.
Or is this another one of your tactics to veer off the subject?
In all seriousness, do you really feel you need to speak for kahuna because he can't by himself? He's written over 4900 posts on your own forum, which he trolls an average of three times a day for the last 4 years, 448 posts at Macrumors before being banned from there, and that's just from what I can gather in 5 minutes. With all that, do you still think he needs additional meta data from you? Makes you wonder what you think of him.
Only 4900+? I better get busy over there!
I don't troll. I do respond. A lot. Usually the number matched the number of posts I see that I disagree with. Often depends on how many trolls are posting. You know, like people who make an issue of "fora" vs "forums" for no good reason. And I start some discussions (much less often). And occasionally have consolidated lots of information, covering years, into one area. Something which many people like since it makes things clearer. The forum page - along with a number of other websites - is one I have open in my browser pretty much 24/7. So?
I believe he is one of what Kathleen Bailey would call "Useful Idiots" -- a rather unfortunate term she coined. You can easily identify all of them on this thread.
So, once again attacking people instead of making meaningful counter arguments?
You seem to read word by word, and become fixated on one particular word.
I didn't come up with it. The term was coined by Kathleen Bailey -- an interesting scholar who was deputy director for the US Information Agency. I myself would have chosen another word, hence my mentioning it as "unfortunate". It's a term she used in her interviews and in official documents she wrote.
The facts aren’t complicated. We affirm that we started it, (as demonstrable in video on Samsung), and then paused while we focused on advancing the iOS releases.
We posted that we expect it some months after we put the iOS version in general release. That’s our strategy to focus our effort. There’s no mystery there, we explicitly stated it many times before.
There was mention in your forums that yes, it will work on android devices, but the Textblade must be initiated by and iOS device? And that certain features of Textblade can only be configured with an iOS device.
For example, I have multiple devices -- both ios and android. So I don't mind having to have to initiate the Textblade once. But if I had to do that over and over, it would be quite annoying. And for people with only android devices, it would be a problem, unless they have a friend with an ios device.
Is that still true, or has that been fixed and updated?
While I'm at it: how long after GR do you think android version will come out?
Knock yourself out. I'm not going to be lowering your posting privileges or shadow banning you.
You know, like people who make an issue of "fora" vs "forums" for no good reason.
I'll say this only once, so please listen carefully.
I've discussed and asked about a dozen things on that post, and this is the only thing you (and Waytools) are fixated on, meaning neither of you can fault the rest of it, or even address it properly. It also says a lot about your reading comprehension, since you cannot make it past that tree for the forest.
Even then (I repeat, even then), I reply by saying that it was not with malice or deviousness, and even kindly offered the Oxford dictionary's definition of it. Yet you reject both, and your willful continued use of the wrong word is just pure petulance, which is an annoying trait in some adolescents, but could be an indicator of psychological problems in adults, especially when you see "attacks" where there's none. Even in benign act of courtesy (in this case) you interpret as "attacks". It's very much like the Waytools person seeing alter-egos and pseudonyms where there's none. Everything and everyone is out to get you.
Here's the quote of what I said in full that you seem fixated on (just to be clear on the matter). I said:
I think the vast majority of users on your forum know how forums in general (not fora, by the way) operate
How in the world do you (or anyone at all) construe this as being a side-swipe, snide remark or with malicious intent? Are you so perfect that you were never corrected? I have been correct many times (often times by people with whom I'm disagreeing), and most of the times, I actually thank them for it.
Honestly, I lack the tact for making snide remarks, sly insinuations, or other roundabout rhetoric. Go ahead, read my posts. When I say negative things, I preface it first accordingly. There's no hidden meaning in my words. I offered correction because I felt some people may find 'fora' off-putting. I certainly was, until I harkened back to my high-school Latin class, which I hated by the way. And here I was thinking I kind enough to save Waytools from looking even more ridiculous.
The similar way both you and Waytools responded to that obscure statement -- insisting that it must have some ill intent -- and your continued usage of the word -- even though proven wrong by the Oxford dictionary -- are two of the reasons why people think either you work for Waytools or is the Waytools PR person himself. It's eerily similar.
If, after all the effort I put in asking for explanations, that is the only thing you care to nit-pick, I'd suggest you give your keyboard (or your Textblade) a rest and take up knitting or something, rather than trolling the comments.
ok, it is for me but I understand if you think otherwise. In any case It was not meant to be only that but also eliminating the force refunding practice so people should not be concerned of "reprisals" if they had any critical but civil comments.
I guess if it isn't ready, it isn't ready. I cannot imagine any company withholding the launch of a core product just because.
Yeah, no offense. It was just my opinion only.
When I got banned at the forum was because WT believed I was a shill for Planet Computers because I had used them as an example of a company that had successfully delivered their 1st gen product (Gemini) and were on a path to launch the 2nd gen (Cosmo). I used that example to urge them to launch despite the product was not 100% refined as it could get refined in the next releases.
Ah yes. I remember you now! Has the Cosmo come out? I'm assuming you haven't tried it out?
Waytools is an totally unethical company with a blatant liar named Mark Knighton at the helm. They have been holding the product I purchased hostage for 4 years after promising that people would receive their product in the order of orders received. After the initial series of missed deadlines which were merely days or a few days or a week or a couple weeks or a few weeks away 4 years ago they upped the ante with an offer of a free 'gift' for the wait, which at the time was just a few more weeks in the future. Their promises of orders delivered in the order received was a lie. Their promise of a 'gift' in exchange for having to wait a few extra weeks was a lie. They have repeated the delivery deadline lies so often it is beyond absurd to rehash how many times the lie has been told. Then they gaslight you and tell you with a straight face via their crazy troll mouthpiece 'Kahuna' that theres a rational explanation for all of it. They were simply mistaken over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and >>repeat 500x<< over and over again!
If you believe their claims of thousands of sales (seriously, no one does), then I am just one among thousands whom they have yet to provide anything in exchange for payment except a series of endless fake delivery date lies and excuses and falsehoods. Don't do business with these people. The very best you could hope for is to receive a product after everyone else who ordered 4 years ago. The odds of that happening are practically zero. It's pointless to send them your money. Don't bother.
Appleinsider should followup on its article with a request that Mark Knighton do an on the record video interview and explain the absurdity of every promised delivery date and subsequent endless delay. We need a serious tech journalist to review even a small sampling of the bizarre nonsensical excuses they post on their censored forum after every missed deadline and broken promise. Put the CEO liar on camera so he can repeat the same nonsense with a straight face. Make Waytools accountable for their lies until they return every customers money or fulfill all the orders!
You seem to read word by word, and become fixated on one particular word.
I didn't come up with it. The term was coined by Kathleen Bailey -- an interesting scholar who was deputy director for the US Information Agency. I myself would have chosen another word, hence my mentioning it as "unfortunate". It's a term she used in her interviews and in official documents she wrote.
Oh please, you chose to use it. I don't care who you quoted.
>I've discussed and asked about a dozen things on that post, and this is the only thing you (and Waytools) are fixated on, meaning neither of you can fault the rest of it, or even address it properly. It also says a lot about your reading comprehension, since you cannot make it past that tree for the forest.
Sorry, but it doesn't mean any such thing. Besides, I respond to a whole bunch of things you say.
>Even then (I repeat, even then), I reply by saying that it was not with malice or deviousness, and even kindly offered the Oxford dictionary's definition of it. Yet you reject both, and your willful continued use of the wrong word is just pure petulance, which is an annoying trait in some adolescents, but could be an indicator of psychological problems in adults, especially when you see "attacks" where there's none.
You forget, I know what you said about it elsewhere - and you sure weren't just trying to be helpful. You even made fun of them for "speaking Roman", which, of course, is wrong too since the language is Latin. As is your insistence that only "forums" is correct when the fact is - and I've told you (hey, just trying to be courteous) that BOTH are considered correct.
>Here's the quote of what I said in full that you seem fixated on (just to be clear on the matter). I said:
I think the vast majority of users on your forum know how forums in general (not fora, by the way) operate
Don't know what most forum members know or think they know, but I DO know that your "not fora, by the way" is simply wrong. Even Rolanbek corrected you yet you repeat the error over here. Doesn't sound courteous to me.
>How in the world do you (or anyone at all) construe this as being a side-swipe, snide remark or with malicious intent?
By knowing what else you posted on the same matter.
>Are you so perfect that you were never corrected? I have been correct many times (often times by people with whom I'm disagreeing), and most of the times, I actually thank them for it.
Since you are wrong about "fora" not being the right word, I expect you to thank me for the correction any time now.
>I offered correction because I felt some people may find 'fora' off-putting. I certainly was, until I harkened back to my high-school Latin class, which I hated by the way. And here I was thinking I kind enough to save Waytools from looking even more ridiculous.
It is because I read your posts that I knew it had nothing to do with courtesy. Your last sentence just now gives it away. You wanted people to think the WT poster didn't know the proper use of language. You were just more obvious about it sooner elsewhere. But, better late than never.
>The similar way both you and Waytools responded to that obscure statement -- insisting that it must have some ill intent
You mean like you insist "fora" is wrong?
Your quoted definition is, I hope you realize, is not absolutist in its description. YOU need it to be so you just ignored that.
I looked at Oxford. Searched for "forum". Then searched for "forums". Automatically switched it to "forum". Hmmm. So I tried "fora" and it came up with this definition:
Hey, I'm just trying to be courteous here and help you out.
Other research examples:
fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
noun
plural noun: fora
-------------
noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra
-------------
noun plural -rums or -ra
------------
plural forums
also fora
------------
When researching, I had no trouble finding sites that made the same quote and reference you did but, guess what? Nowhere could I find those same words on the Oxford site - not even when one person posted a link that was supposed to go right to it.
No, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I AM pointed out that even taken as is, it doesn't say only "forums" is correct. And many other dictionary sources either only provide "fora" as the plural or they provide both.
You can also find places that show how much one is used compared to the other over time - but not that only "forums" is used.
You see, only one person has insisted that only one is acceptable and that's you. And you were mistaken.
No material thing in this world is worth such grief. You can end it at will.
Why would anyone keep any order with such mistrust? The contradiction is so extreme as to be non-credible.
There is no grief in calling a liar a liar, except perhaps your own grief from being exposed. It is a noble endeavor to help other people by cautioning them to beware of liars and scammers who will deprive them of money and give nothing in return. Your notion of ethics is so twisted, you have convinced yourself that all the people you have lied to and angered are not even real. There is something seriously wrong with you.
They have been holding the product I purchased hostage for 4 years
If you believe their claims of thousands of sales (seriously, no one does)
1. Really? So exactly what is the ransom?
2. So now you know what everyone believes?
In general, I'll add that while you sure do attack a lot, you have yet to actually make a thoughtful rebuttal to what I've said about problems and delays, etc.
Certain posters here are remarkably well-versed in the act of gaslighting, as manifest in the extremes to which they practice it.
A related technique is to concurrently accuse their target of the very abuse being visited upon them.
The latter aims to confuse third party observers. This misdirection is to provide cover, and avoid scrutiny.
Reviewing some of those posts above, it’s pretty obvious what’s happening and who’s doing it.
There’s plenty of textbook evidence here of this illicit practice. Many of the keywords in the Wikipedia article on topic are in fact used in their posts.
The abuser calls their targets insane, delusional, liars, and makes the attacks quite personal.
The abuser hides behind a pseudonym, whereas the target is a real named entity, staff, and address. This asymmetry of identity is central to the tactic.
Anonymous accusations made against a public target make clear who is doing what to whom.
Hadn’t researched this before being accused, but the technique is well-studied, and the correlation here is rather striking.
From Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gaslight and its 1940and 1944 film adaptations, in which a man dims the gas lights in his home and then persuades his wife that she is imagining the change. The term has been used in clinical and research literature,[3][4] as well as in political commentary.[5][6]
In the story, a husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes.
Sociopaths[11] and narcissists[12] frequently use gaslighting tactics to abuse and undermine their victims. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[11]
We see that you’re working quite hard to persuade people to not buy a TextBlade. The fact that eviscerates your credibility is that you insist on buying it for yourself.
Wrong. I'm working hard to caution people not to give their money to you because they will never receive a product in exchange for it. Once again - I have never spoke disparagingly about the product itself. Only you and your company. And your lack of ethical business practices. Etc
Evidence: 4 years - no product.
I didn't insist on buying anything. I placed my order in good faith when you first came on the stage. 4 years ago. Did I mention the 4 years thing already? I trusted you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first 500 times you said shipping was next week, no next week, no no next week, next month, next month, etc. You have proved yourself to be an expert liar for 4 straight years. You still have my money. I have no product or 'gift'.
People should know that. That's all.
Also I find it rather hilarious that you of all people have twice attempted to call into question my credibility. The guy who has promised a ship date so many times nobody can count them all. For 4 years. The guy who retains in his bank account the millions of alleged dollars from the thousands of alleged orders (yeah right) received since launch. 4 years ago. You are the judge of someone elses credibility? Really?
Certain posters here are remarkably well-versed in the act of gaslighting, as manifest in the extremes to which they practice it.
From Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Correct. Congrats on familiarizing yourself with your own tactics. Tell people the product is ready. Take their money. Then tell them you never said it was actually ready. Then take their money. Then tell them even though you didnt ever say it would be ready, it really will be ready soon. Then take their money. Then tell them you never specifically said when it would be ready thus there really has been no delay. Then tell people theres a reason for the delay. Then tell them the last reason wasnt the actual reason and theres another reason. Then tell them all those reasons are resolved and theres a whole new reason while once again promising a ship date and missing it again because you never promised there would be a ship date certain. Keep doing this for 4 years. Not a few days, or weeks, or even several months. Not six months. Not 1 year. Not 2 years. Not 3 years. 4 years. One thousand four hundred and sixty+ days since you originally said it works great and its ready. Then you have this Kahuna crazy person who chimes in behind all your replies with thousands of words explaining to people that whatever criticism they think is false and whatever slight they perceive is unjustified. How do you think that makes your customers feel? Perhaps a bit destabilized and delegitimized? You are the Jedi Master of Gaslighting, Mr. Knighton. As long as you insist on keeping customer money in your possession while refusing to ship product with no date certain, you should be ridiculed and shamed mercilessly. You are a hack, a liar, a disgrace.
>I've discussed and asked about a dozen things on that post, and this is the only thing you (and Waytools) are fixated on, meaning neither of you can fault the rest of it, or even address it properly. It also says a lot about your reading comprehension, since you cannot make it past that tree for the forest.
Sorry, but it doesn't mean any such thing. Besides, I respond to a whole bunch of things you say.
>Even then (I repeat, even then), I reply by saying that it was not with malice or deviousness, and even kindly offered the Oxford dictionary's definition of it. Yet you reject both, and your willful continued use of the wrong word is just pure petulance, which is an annoying trait in some adolescents, but could be an indicator of psychological problems in adults, especially when you see "attacks" where there's none.
You forget, I know what you said about it elsewhere - and you sure weren't just trying to be helpful. You even made fun of them for "speaking Roman", which, of course, is wrong too since the language is Latin. As is your insistence that only "forums" is correct when the fact is - and I've told you (hey, just trying to be courteous) that BOTH are considered correct.
>Here's the quote of what I said in full that you seem fixated on (just to be clear on the matter). I said:
I think the vast majority of users on your forum know how forums in general (not fora, by the way) operate
Don't know what most forum members know or think they know, but I DO know that your "not fora, by the way" is simply wrong. Even Rolanbek corrected you yet you repeat the error over here. Doesn't sound courteous to me.
>How in the world do you (or anyone at all) construe this as being a side-swipe, snide remark or with malicious intent?
By knowing what else you posted on the same matter.
>Are you so perfect that you were never corrected? I have been correct many times (often times by people with whom I'm disagreeing), and most of the times, I actually thank them for it.
Since you are wrong about "fora" not being the right word, I expect you to thank me for the correction any time now.
>I offered correction because I felt some people may find 'fora' off-putting. I certainly was, until I harkened back to my high-school Latin class, which I hated by the way. And here I was thinking I kind enough to save Waytools from looking even more ridiculous.
It is because I read your posts that I knew it had nothing to do with courtesy. Your last sentence just now gives it away. You wanted people to think the WT poster didn't know the proper use of language. You were just more obvious about it sooner elsewhere. But, better late than never.
>The similar way both you and Waytools responded to that obscure statement -- insisting that it must have some ill intent
You mean like you insist "fora" is wrong?
Your quoted definition is, I hope you realize, is not absolutist in its description. YOU need it to be so you just ignored that.
I looked at Oxford. Searched for "forum". Then searched for "forums". Automatically switched it to "forum". Hmmm. So I tried "fora" and it came up with this definition:
Hey, I'm just trying to be courteous here and help you out.
Other research examples:
fo·rum
/ˈfôrəm/
noun
plural noun: fora
-------------
noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra
-------------
noun plural -rums or -ra
------------
plural forums
also fora
------------
When researching, I had no trouble finding sites that made the same quote and reference you did but, guess what? Nowhere could I find those same words on the Oxford site - not even when one person posted a link that was supposed to go right to it.
No, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I AM pointed out that even taken as is, it doesn't say only "forums" is correct. And many other dictionary sources either only provide "fora" as the plural or they provide both.
You can also find places that show how much one is used compared to the other over time - but not that only "forums" is used.
You see, only one person has insisted that only one is acceptable and that's you. And you were mistaken.
I’m posting this merely because, while definitely a side-issue, I think it instructive. Despite all the careful quotes above from the Oxford website, I was fairly certain that the usage of “fora” being claimed was incorrect, so I checked. Dabikahuna has misquoted above, likely intentionally: the original entry for “fora” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fora) is actually:
When following the link you find that sense 3 is 3. (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.
In other words, the use of “fora” in this context is incorrect, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary used as a source to argue the opposite.
I merely point this out because as an outside observer, if I see someone demonstrably trying to twist facts about one thing (and in particular something that is not of great import) it leads me naturally to question the veracity of other statements of theirs.
I’m posting this merely because, while definitely a side-issue, I think it instructive. Despite all the careful quotes above from the Oxford website, I was fairly certain that the usage of “fora” being claimed was incorrect, so I checked. Dabikahuna has misquoted above, likely intentionally: the original entry for “fora” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fora) is actually:
When following the link you find that sense 3 is 3. (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.
In other words, the use of “fora” in this context is incorrect, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary used as a source to argue the opposite.
I'm sorry, but you are being way overly restrictive. Of course it refers to a public square or marketplace in an ancient Roman city - because it is a Latin word, originated in ancient Rome! But it isn't limited to Ancient Rome, obviously. It is still used because even away from ancient Rome, the basic concept remains - a public place for people to meet.
But, since you want to follow this, let's review what the original quote was and check some basic word meanings to clear this up:
"The plural of forum is spelled forums; the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is chiefly used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city." -- Oxford English dictionary.
Note I never said that wasn't true - though I never found that on their site, only referenced at other sites as being what they said. So I'm giving all benefit of any doubt.
So, now let's compare what that actually says to how Eric seems to think it says (based on his criticism of the use of "fora") instead. I'll highlight the key difference:
Original >the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is chiefly used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city
Required change based on the criticism: >the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is only used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city
I'm pretty sure that the folks at Oxford would have used "always" if that's what they meant. I mean, they are doing a dictionary!
Or you could change it to "always", etc, but the problem remains that those words are not even close to the word Oxford used. You could make substitutions that do fit, but they don't help you (words like "usually", or "most of the time", etc. But their actual word and all possible substitutes support me. Because I never said fora was the most common usage. I merely said it was also an accurate choice of words.
Some example sentences from dictionary sites showing how misuse of "chiefly" would screw things up if we treat "chiefly" the way Eric would be interpreting it in this case:
"An actor who is famous chiefly for her first two movies" would have to mean the same as, "An actor who is famous entirely for her first two movies."
Or, "The dish consisted chiefly of noodles" would mean, "The dish consisted of only noodles."
So, even if we limit ourselves to Oxford, the use of fora is fine. But Oxford isn't the only legitimate source and I gave some examples from others.
But as long as we're on the subject, it is worth also considering why a word which originally would only have the "fora" plural form got to be gradually more "forums". I don't think there is any real mystery to this one or others like it. English speakers who didn't know the rules for Latin simply anglicized it. I mean, it's not like we had this word and while everyone was using "fora", a group of people declared, "We are officially changing it to "forums"! That isn't how most language develops. It changes based on ordinary people using the word and, over time, if enough of them use it in a new way (or new spelling), eventually enough do it so when a new dictionary comes out, they eventually decide the new meaning or spelling is also acceptable. Sometimes an original meaning may completely be forgotten. Anyway, this pretty much means word changes come from people who don't know the proper spelling or meaning until there are so many misusing it that the "wrong" version becomes "right".
But that isn't the case here. In this case we have two completely legitimate spellings which co-exist. Just as I could write "color" or "colour". Both are correct.
Heck, look at all the different words just in the United States to describe a carbonated soft drink! Soda, pop, cola to name just some common ones.
Sugar, no but full cream milk, yes. I got on to it immediately, which helped. Much easier to clean the coffee off TextBlade than everything else it landed on. No specialist tools required.
Comments
And, finally, the obvious point that there is a video of the app on an android device. So I moved from questioning how someone could claim an unknown as a fact, to why prior beliefs may no longer apply anyway, and finishing with real evidence that the original assertion was wrong. I try to cover all aspects
The same individual accused me of being Rolanbek, who I've never met. It's also the same individual who claim that some long-time Macrumors members "attacked" writer Juli Clover about her Waytools and Textblade articles. Apparently these "alter-egos" had planted themselves in MR for years, or even a decade (easily checked by their profiles) before they rose up at the same time and tried to derail the article in an effort to sabotage Waytools. So many alter-egos, so many years in hiding...
Fair warning, lest you be called one of these "alter egos".
In all seriousness, do you really feel you need to speak for kahuna because he can't by himself? He's written over 4900 posts on your own forum, which he trolls an average of three times a day for the last 4 years, 448 posts at Macrumors before being banned from there, and that's just from what I can gather in 5 minutes. With all that, do you still think he needs additional meta data from you? Makes you wonder what you think of him.
Or is this another one of your tactics to veer off the subject?
edit: forgot to add "additional"
I didn't come up with it. The term was coined by Kathleen Bailey -- an interesting scholar who was deputy director for the US Information Agency. I myself would have chosen another word, hence my mentioning it as "unfortunate". It's a term she used in her interviews and in official documents she wrote.
I know you don't believe me, but here's proof for your edification:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_6dibpDfo
For example, I have multiple devices -- both ios and android. So I don't mind having to have to initiate the Textblade once. But if I had to do that over and over, it would be quite annoying. And for people with only android devices, it would be a problem, unless they have a friend with an ios device.
Is that still true, or has that been fixed and updated?
While I'm at it: how long after GR do you think android version will come out?
I'll say this only once, so please listen carefully.
I've discussed and asked about a dozen things on that post, and this is the only thing you (and Waytools) are fixated on, meaning neither of you can fault the rest of it, or even address it properly. It also says a lot about your reading comprehension, since you cannot make it past that tree for the forest.
Even then (I repeat, even then), I reply by saying that it was not with malice or deviousness, and even kindly offered the Oxford dictionary's definition of it. Yet you reject both, and your willful continued use of the wrong word is just pure petulance, which is an annoying trait in some adolescents, but could be an indicator of psychological problems in adults, especially when you see "attacks" where there's none. Even in benign act of courtesy (in this case) you interpret as "attacks". It's very much like the Waytools person seeing alter-egos and pseudonyms where there's none. Everything and everyone is out to get you.
Here's the quote of what I said in full that you seem fixated on (just to be clear on the matter). I said:
How in the world do you (or anyone at all) construe this as being a side-swipe, snide remark or with malicious intent? Are you so perfect that you were never corrected? I have been correct many times (often times by people with whom I'm disagreeing), and most of the times, I actually thank them for it.
Honestly, I lack the tact for making snide remarks, sly insinuations, or other roundabout rhetoric. Go ahead, read my posts. When I say negative things, I preface it first accordingly. There's no hidden meaning in my words. I offered correction because I felt some people may find 'fora' off-putting. I certainly was, until I harkened back to my high-school Latin class, which I hated by the way. And here I was thinking I kind enough to save Waytools from looking even more ridiculous.
The similar way both you and Waytools responded to that obscure statement -- insisting that it must have some ill intent -- and your continued usage of the word -- even though proven wrong by the Oxford dictionary -- are two of the reasons why people think either you work for Waytools or is the Waytools PR person himself. It's eerily similar.
If, after all the effort I put in asking for explanations, that is the only thing you care to nit-pick, I'd suggest you give your keyboard (or your Textblade) a rest and take up knitting or something, rather than trolling the comments.
Ah yes. I remember you now! Has the Cosmo come out? I'm assuming you haven't tried it out?
If you believe their claims of thousands of sales (seriously, no one does), then I am just one among thousands whom they have yet to provide anything in exchange for payment except a series of endless fake delivery date lies and excuses and falsehoods. Don't do business with these people. The very best you could hope for is to receive a product after everyone else who ordered 4 years ago. The odds of that happening are practically zero. It's pointless to send them your money. Don't bother.
Appleinsider should followup on its article with a request that Mark Knighton do an on the record video interview and explain the absurdity of every promised delivery date and subsequent endless delay. We need a serious tech journalist to review even a small sampling of the bizarre nonsensical excuses they post on their censored forum after every missed deadline and broken promise. Put the CEO liar on camera so he can repeat the same nonsense with a straight face. Make Waytools accountable for their lies until they return every customers money or fulfill all the orders!
>I've discussed and asked about a dozen things on that post, and this is the only thing you (and Waytools) are fixated on, meaning neither of you can fault the rest of it, or even address it properly. It also says a lot about your reading comprehension, since you cannot make it past that tree for the forest.
Sorry, but it doesn't mean any such thing. Besides, I respond to a whole bunch of things you say.
>Even then (I repeat, even then), I reply by saying that it was not with malice or deviousness, and even kindly offered the Oxford dictionary's definition of it. Yet you reject both, and your willful continued use of the wrong word is just pure petulance, which is an annoying trait in some adolescents, but could be an indicator of psychological problems in adults, especially when you see "attacks" where there's none.
Don't know what most forum members know or think they know, but I DO know that your "not fora, by the way" is simply wrong. Even Rolanbek corrected you yet you repeat the error over here. Doesn't sound courteous to me.
>The similar way both you and Waytools responded to that obscure statement -- insisting that it must have some ill intent
You mean like you insist "fora" is wrong?
Your quoted definition is, I hope you realize, is not absolutist in its description. YOU need it to be so you just ignored that.
I looked at Oxford. Searched for "forum". Then searched for "forums". Automatically switched it to "forum". Hmmm. So I tried "fora" and it came up with this definition:
>plural form of forum
noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra
noun plural -rums or -ra
No, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I AM pointed out that even taken as is, it doesn't say only "forums" is correct. And many other dictionary sources either only provide "fora" as the plural or they provide both.
You see, only one person has insisted that only one is acceptable and that's you. And you were mistaken.
2. So now you know what everyone believes?
In general, I'll add that while you sure do attack a lot, you have yet to actually make a thoughtful rebuttal to what I've said about problems and delays, etc.
Certain posters here are remarkably well-versed in the act of gaslighting, as manifest in the extremes to which they practice it.
A related technique is to concurrently accuse their target of the very abuse being visited upon them.
The latter aims to confuse third party observers. This misdirection is to provide cover, and avoid scrutiny.
Reviewing some of those posts above, it’s pretty obvious what’s happening and who’s doing it.
There’s plenty of textbook evidence here of this illicit practice. Many of the keywords in the Wikipedia article on topic are in fact used in their posts.
The abuser calls their targets insane, delusional, liars, and makes the attacks quite personal.
The abuser hides behind a pseudonym, whereas the target is a real named entity, staff, and address. This asymmetry of identity is central to the tactic.
Anonymous accusations made against a public target make clear who is doing what to whom.
Hadn’t researched this before being accused, but the technique is well-studied, and the correlation here is rather striking.
From Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Gaslight and its 1940and 1944 film adaptations, in which a man dims the gas lights in his home and then persuades his wife that she is imagining the change. The term has been used in clinical and research literature,[3][4] as well as in political commentary.[5][6]
In the story, a husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes.Sociopaths[11] and narcissists[12] frequently use gaslighting tactics to abuse and undermine their victims. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[11]
Full article here -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
We see that you’re working quite hard to persuade people to not buy a TextBlade.
The fact that eviscerates your credibility is that you insist on buying it for yourself.
Evidence: 4 years - no product.
I didn't insist on buying anything. I placed my order in good faith when you first came on the stage. 4 years ago. Did I mention the 4 years thing already? I trusted you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first 500 times you said shipping was next week, no next week, no no next week, next month, next month, etc. You have proved yourself to be an expert liar for 4 straight years. You still have my money. I have no product or 'gift'.
People should know that. That's all.
Also I find it rather hilarious that you of all people have twice attempted to call into question my credibility. The guy who has promised a ship date so many times nobody can count them all. For 4 years. The guy who retains in his bank account the millions of alleged dollars from the thousands of alleged orders (yeah right) received since launch. 4 years ago. You are the judge of someone elses credibility? Really?
3. (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.
In other words, the use of “fora” in this context is incorrect, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary used as a source to argue the opposite.
I merely point this out because as an outside observer, if I see someone demonstrably trying to twist facts about one thing (and in particular something that is not of great import) it leads me naturally to question the veracity of other statements of theirs.
Required change based on the criticism: >the plural fora (as in the original Latin) is only used when talking about a public square in an ancient Roman city
I'm pretty sure that the folks at Oxford would have used "always" if that's what they meant. I mean, they are doing a dictionary!
Or you could change it to "always", etc, but the problem remains that those words are not even close to the word Oxford used. You could make substitutions that do fit, but they don't help you (words like "usually", or "most of the time", etc. But their actual word and all possible substitutes support me. Because I never said fora was the most common usage. I merely said it was also an accurate choice of words.
Some example sentences from dictionary sites showing how misuse of "chiefly" would screw things up if we treat "chiefly" the way Eric would be interpreting it in this case:
So, even if we limit ourselves to Oxford, the use of fora is fine. But Oxford isn't the only legitimate source and I gave some examples from others.
Interesting and helpful. Thanks for that.
R
You’re in charge there.
But you can’t argue it both ways.
You can’t make a free choice, and then claim someone forced it upon you. Refunds work 24X7.