From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: Pinhead
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:09:20 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

75300.1324@COMPUSERVE.COM (Nick Arnett) writes:

>Maybe I'm hypersensitive because my company operates forums on
>CompuServe, where we expect a certain level of decorum, but I find
>John De Armond's name-calling to be completely out of line.  If he
>did this in our forum, he'd receive a major reprimand.  We don't
>tolerate personal attacks.

Awh, did the wittle boy get his wittle feelings hurt?  Go run to mommy
Compu$erve.  Gotta be tough to play over here, fella.

Gee, Arnett, It's always interesting to throw a generic label like
"pinhead" up in the air and see whom it sticks to.  Congrats  for
distinguishing yourself from the crowd.

>Despite his obnoxious behavior, De Armond didn't even answer the main
>question, which is whether or not Kodak will license others to
>*encode* PhotoCD images, as I've mentioned in a couple of my
>postings.  I think others and I made it quite clear that decoding is
>supported in a future version of QuickTime and other third-party
>software.  Somehow, I managed to write those things without resorting
>to name-calling.

The ONLY issue asked in this thread, at least the part cross-posted
to rec.photos where I normally read it (Maybe we need a firewall between
alt.* and everywhere else), was whether Kodak was going to try to hoard
the Photo-CD market to itself by using proprietary technology and
patent protection (words normally spat out with disgust by the GNUites).
I countered these baseless accusations by the simple expedient of 
punching 11 digits on my phone - apparently an appliance missing from
the accusors - and actually ASKING.  

If you'd spent 1/10 the time you did composing your whine, you too could
have called Kodak and asked about mastering your own disks.  Instead you
just HAD to step out of your "usual decorum" and cry to Mommy.

>I'm an analyst covering this area, among others, and I've had
>tremendous exposure to PhotoCD that started even before the public
>introduction.  Kodak had me fly to New York to take part in a panel
>discussion during the introduction.  And after all that, it sure
>seems to me that Kodak is indeed protecting the right to *encode*
>PhotoCD images, which is a perfectly valid topic for discussion here.

You know, if you'd deleted everything except this paragraph, we could have
had a civil discussion.  Maybe I should be easy on you.  I do remember
how shitty the Compu$erve editor is.  Maybe you just couldn't figure 
out how.  I guess I'm an analyst too now, huh?  After all I have talked
to Kodak instead of speculating like the other pinheads did.

Even assuming your allegation is true, who cares?  I've never had any concern
regarding letting Kodak do my Kodachrome.  Why should I care whose name is
on the package as long as the cost is reasonable and the quality is high?
Sure, your itty bitty company might not to get to play with the big boys
but as a consumer, I don't care.  What I care about is the fact that a 
digitized picutre will now cost me about 1/100th the cost I now pay.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom