Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / September 2009

> Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snipped for those who cant handle "long" posts>
>>>>
>>>> I've got no interest in arguing the merits of iPods over other mp3
>>>> players.  I'd just like to correct the misinformation you put out
>>>> before:
>>>>
>>>> 1) that iPods can't play mp3s.
>>>
>>> I never said that, for the nth time.   Do you want to keep making it up?
>>
>> I'm glad you've backed down from this.
>
> I haven't backed down, because I never said that.  YOU said that I said
> that, and when asked to prove it by quoting it, bunted, as usual.  (and
> proudly read between the lines of what I actually wrote, to boot!)
>
>>>> 2) that iPods can't play mp3s just as well as any other format, or
>>>> somehow "prefer" AAC files..
>>>
>>> That's also misinterpreting *what I actually stated*.    But I did say
>>> when
>>> it was designed, it wasn't designed primarily to be a mp3 player, PER
>>> SE,
>>> unlike many other mp3 players.
>>
>> Based on zero information.  If it handles AACs and MP3s equally well,
>> why would you say it _wasn't_ designed to be an MP3 player?
>
> Because I see it first and foremost as being designed with iTunes in mind.
> Now Darren may be correcting me on that by looking up its history, and if
> that's the case, I'll concede it.

>>> It seems to me that you are oftentimes actually worse than I am in
>>> misinterpreting some things that people actually write, Doug.   Are you
>>> aware of that?   For someone who (allegedly) embodies precision, you
>>> sometimes don't.
>
>>>> 3) that iPods will only play music that has DRM built into it
>>>
>>> Gimme a break.   I never said that!!  Quote it!  (I notice that you
>>> haven't, and obviously you can't).
>>
>> I'm glad you are backing down from this too.
>
> You haven't quoted where I said that, and now you're saying *I'm* backing
> down?   Interesting... (amusing, actually)
>
>>> I beginning to think that you sometimes enjoy turning things around from
>>> what was actually written at this point.   I'm not sure yet if you
>>> aren't
>>> aware or if you just dont care, but it's still disappointing.
>>>
>>>> somehow "prefer" music with DRM built into it).
>>>>
>>>> 4) that AAC is a proprietary format.
>>>
>>> Yes, *as it is implemented by Apple with their iTunes downloads*, YOU
>>> BETCHA!
>>
>> No, you are wrong.  Apple's DRM is proprietary.  AACs are not.  Apples
>> sells AACs with DRM
>
> THAT's what I'm getting at.   Apples DRM-encoded aacs.  How often do you
> see that happen with mp3s?
>
>> and AACs without DRM.
>
> You mean NOW they are.
>
>> At this point 80% of their catalog is available without DRM.
>
> Such generosity from the Big Apple!  (Too little, too late, ditto with
> Sony).
>
>> But this is all irrelevant to the iPod.  If you don't like AACs for
>> some strange reason,  buy MP3s.  You can play them on your iPod
>> (exactly the same as AACs) or on any other MP3 player.
>
> I have nothing against aac in and of itself, only the DRM protected ones
> sold by Apple.   Well, OK, I *do* have one other thing - it's not as
> universal a format, which creates some problems.
>
>>> (Except that as Emma has pointed out, they're starting to
>>> relax that a bit; big deal; too little too late, just like with Sony,
>>> but
>>> that's another story)
>>>
>>>> 5) that Windows Explorer is somehow less proprietary than Apple's
>>>> iTunes.
>>>
>>> But one is just part of the operating system. Is that really such a
>>> difficult concept?
>>
>> No.  Who said anything else?
>
> You mentioned NEEDING another application just for file transfers, and
> again
> I ask, but WHY???    WHO in their right mind wants to be forced to employ
> some special app interface solely to transfer files?   I mean, gimme a
> break!   It's my computer, and I don't want to be
> forced to USE it, when windows explorer SHOULD suffice.
>
>>> I just wanted to correct your misinterpretations of what I actually
>>> said,
>>> and I think I have.
>>
>> Convenient not to have a memory, eh?
>
> I think my memory is fair (ok, but not perfect, that's for damn sure),
> but your misinterpretations of such - aren't.   (Either that, or it's your
> reading comprehension problem of what I actually stated.  Not sure which.