One prime reason I try to popularize MacSpeech
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Mark Conrad on 6 Sep 2009 13:45 In article <1j5m9of.1su16kg12xjhroN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote: > > Some people wonder why I am trying > > to popularize the use of MacSpeech. > > We all assume they're paying you to shill. Yes indeed _you_ assume, because you are too witless to observe that I criticize MacSpeech unmercifully at times.
From: Mike Rosenberg on 6 Sep 2009 14:14 Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > > We all assume they're paying you to shill. > > Yes indeed _you_ assume, because you are too witless > to observe that I criticize MacSpeech unmercifully at times. It could be a sales ploy. Negative publicity is still publicity. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: Jim Carlson on 6 Sep 2009 14:27 In article <1j5mkq5.19phql414ee43iN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > > > > We all assume they're paying you to shill. > > > > Yes indeed _you_ assume, because you are too witless > > to observe that I criticize MacSpeech unmercifully at times. > > It could be a sales ploy. Negative publicity is still publicity. It's more likely that he's just an incredibly stupid shill.
From: Jim Carlson on 6 Sep 2009 14:28 In article <060920091045234573%none-of(a)your-business.invalid>, Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > > We all assume they're paying you to shill. > > Yes indeed _you_ assume, because you are too witless > to observe that I criticize MacSpeech unmercifully at times. So that just demonstrates you're a bad shill.
From: J.J. O'Shea on 6 Sep 2009 14:30
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:14:17 -0400, Mike Rosenberg wrote (in article <1j5mktl.dbsyemcapyk2N%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>): > Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > >>> And that they don't pay very well, 'cause if they did they'd be able to >>> get a better spokestwit. >> >> They can't pay at all nitwit, they are just barely >> avoiding bankruptcy. > > You know this how exactly? 'Cause he's on their payroll. > >> ...or do you conveniently forget that they fired their >> one and only spokesperson here, a guy named >> Chuck Rogers, who used to be on their payroll. > > And how exactly do you know the reasons he was let go? > he's willing to shill for them for less. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. |