From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca ( John Henders )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization:  One of these days for sure
Subject: Re: Mac OS vs. TOS (was Re: Falcon Graphics
	<1992Sep8.031117.11123@actrix.gen.nz>
	<1992Sep8.131121.3800@spcvxb.spc.edu>
	<1992Sep8.204415.22154@actrix.gen.nz>
	<1992Sep9.103837.3810@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Reply-To: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.03 Rev. Apr 14 1992
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 15:48:36 -0700

In <1992Sep9.103837.3810@spcvxb.spc.edu>, mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.204415.22154@actrix.gen.nz>, James.Hampton@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>> In article <1992Sep8.131121.3800@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>>> > The pick of the wizard of Wall street is a Mac Classic II?  Sounds
>>> > like the wizard turned himself into a clown!
>>> 
>>> Hehe, that is always the first sign that a rebuttal has no substance...
>>> when the person resorts to namecalling.  Nice try.
	
	But Chris, anyone who's been around this group long enough to
know about your incredible stock market prowess knows you won't 
address any real arguments brought up sertiously. The real first 
sign here is that if the Name: field in the header has your name in
it, it's contentless.
	Let's take a look at your track record so far on this issue.
>
>Listen, I would love to debate with you, but please leave the
>juvenile namecalling behind.  If you have a point, make it.  I
>thought my first post was clear.  Rather than rebut the substance
>you choose to make insults.  I think that says a lot about the
>quality of your argument.
>
	First, I'd hardly call " wizard of Wall Street" juvenile name
calling. It's more a reminder that many of us haven't forgotten how
you managed to get both feet firmly wedged in your mouth the last time
you posted here. Juvenile name calling would be something along the 
lines of " Why don't you go back under the rock you crawled out
from under, you no-brained luser? ", but we wouldn't stoop to that
here.
	Then let's examine your arguments, shall we.

>I am just pointing out that there are other alternatives that a
>comparable to the Falcon in features for roughtly equivalent
>amounts of money.  What do I need to defend?
>
	Umm... How about the several posts asking you to rationaly explain
how a machine with a 16 bit bus, a 9" mono monitor, and no built-in dsp
is roughly equivalant to the Falcon? 

>>> At computer stores in NYC, they cannot keep Mac Classic II's on
>>> the shelves, while Atari products gather dust.

	Good _feature_ comparison here.
>> 
>> Notice how this clown shifts his argument to Apple marketing and 
>> sales?  And how he neglects to mention whether Atari Falcons would
>> gather dust when people could compare them with Classic IIs.  We
>> are waiting for you to _defend_ the merits of the Classic II
>> against the Falcon.  Stop playing games and wasting our time.

	Now, notice also how you still duck the issue.
>
>Marketing and sales.  That is what kills Atari's products, not
>the technical features (though the TT was an incredibly hacked
>up machine).  As I said, I don't have to defend the Classic.
>I think its sales figures do that nicely.  You should know by
>now that a technical niceties are not what sell computers.

	But just a few paragraphs back, you claimed the Classic II _was_
technically equivalent to the Falcon. In fact, that was the basis 
for your argument.  Now it doesn't matter?  Chris, Chris, you'll 
never make the debating team with these tactics.

>> 
>> We're still waiting for the report.
>
>I have no intention of doing such a thing.  I think I have made my
>argument quite clear.
>
	No, you've made your inability to back up your flame provoking
statements quite clear. You whine about personal attacts, but everyone 
who remembers your previous presence on this group knows you don't 
address issues in discussions, but merely dodge and backbedal, changing 
the topic anytime anyone points out how unfounded your claims are.

>
>p.s. Perhaps, if the assorted Falcon apostles will stop crossposting,
>     I can return to mac/pc groups and enjoy the increased S/N ratio
>     and leave all these Atari people in peace with their computer
>     choice...
>
	We can only hope. Of course, the real question is, why did you drop
by to start this little imbroglio in the first place?  Who put the above
newsgroups in the header line to begin with?  In fact, after a quick 
grep through the news directory, it seems like your claims about crossposts
are as groundless as everything else you post. Care to post a few headers 
of these crossposted "apostle" messages that are forcing you to keep 
replying. 

	Besides, the s/n ratio goes down whereever you post. By definition.

	If your original intention was to discus how Atari's past marketing
strategies might affect people's interest in buying a Falcon, why don't
you take a look at John Hutchinson's post recently as an example as to
how to get a discussion going without causing a flame war. Of course if
it's flaming you want, why don't you come over to alt.flame? We'd love 
some fresh meat.

	I'd brush up on your debating skills first, though, wouldn't want to
make it too easy, would you?


-- 
jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca