Re: This FOSS Thang :-)

On 3/20/24 6:45 PM, chrisv wrote:

-hh wrote:
 

Let's not forget how DFS has frequently ribbed chrisv about how chrisv
had refused to show spending the time to optimize a build on NewEgg
because it would take too many hours...

 Dishonest characterization of the issue, which was the effort required
to explain or document the process in detail, especially with an
obtuse asshole like DumFSck as the audience.

chrisv crying (again) is still unproductive.
 From the archives:
"Nope. Obviously, all businesses must draw the line *somewhere*."
   - chrisv

think it was part of the "more choices are always better"

 Dishonest characterization of my position, which is that there can
never be too much choice in a free market.

Sorry, that spin attempt does not fly.  From the archives:
"Nope. Obviously, all businesses must draw the line *somewhere*."
   - chrisv on Jul 7, 2021, 4:11:47 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/Se6XVzNXFs4/m/6dYquU9yBAAJ>
and:
[quote]
 >>> Go to www.newegg.com and build a new computer:
 >
chrisv> Huh?
huh? You snipped and ran from the request, exactly because you can't
explain why you chose each part over another.
[/quote]
  - DFS, on May 12, 2010, 5:10:34 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/toRpTEd4oUA/m/cSEXMg4vK6sJ>

which backfired on chrisv

 Good God.  He thinks he won that debate!

He most certainly did:
chrisv's explicit refusal reply, on May 14, 2010, 10:22:52 AM:
"Because it's a waste of time, "proving" that we can do something that
we *all* do, every day of our lives, including you, Dumfsck."
Where chrisv chose of his own free will here (& many times since) to squander many more unproductive hours in refusing to offer even the most bare of outlines than it would have taken to describe his decision tree.   He's somehow trying to suggest that his craven little personal opinion matters more than formal HSR research by subject matter experts on the topic of the paradox of choice.

Only an idiot would have concluded that anything "backfired" on me.  I
was correct in the points made.  Correct in the economic theory.
Correct in the observed reality.
 

due to it being a clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.

 It was not an example of any such thing. It was an example of
-highhorse idiotically supporting a ridiculous argument.  It was an
example of -highhorse being too stupid to realize that he's wrong, and
that he's *always* been wrong, on the choice issue.
 Will he *ever* learn?

Cry harder .. unproductively.

DumFSck has made the point that choosing all of the components in a PC
build would be cumbersome and unpleasant, a "big hassle", if every
detail and decision needed to be explained and justified to an obtuse
asshole like himself.

No, you made that claim, which ironically proves Schwartz's "Paradox of Choice" that you were being told about.

Well, so the fsck what?  No one is doing that!  Only brain-dead
morons, like -highhorse and DumFSck, would argue that because such a
requirement would turn the process into a "big hassle" it means that
there's "too much choice".
 Does it need to be explained again?  Outside of such a ridiculous
scenario, the process can be fun and rewarding!  Done either alone or
with like-minded people, it can be a _lot_ of fun!
 With his "clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" idiocy,
-highhorse, once again displays his propensity to make assertions that
fly in the face of observed reality.  I do what I say.  I research and
specify each component of my PC's.
 Does -highhorse expect us to believe that I say that the myriad
details and decisions need to explained to an obtuse asshole who can
nit-pick every point, every dollar spent?  Or, at least, documented in
detail to justify each decision as cost/performance optimal, right
down to latency of the DRAM?  Obviously, I say no such thing.
 The fact that something _can be_ a hassle does not mean that it should
never be done, any more than the fact that something _can be_ fun and
rewarding means that it should always be done.  It takes a genuine
idiot to point only to a worst-case (indeed, completely unrealistic)
scenario and claim that it proves that there is "too much" to deal
with.
 This should have been understood the last time I explained it to these
morons, but their skulls are just too thick.
 

Blah .. blah .. looks like about the same chrisv frothing diatripe. Skimmed over because it just ain't worth my time.
-hh