> Still, way more expensive than any MorphOS option.
True, but still not relevant in any way to minator's posting nor my response to it to which you replied.
>>> It has a lot to do with the point Minator was discussing: OS4 hardware turns
>>> both more expensive and slower(sam) than previous hardware (Peg2, A1)
>> You forgot the X1000, which is a previous hardware to the OS4 netbook.
> Something that "exists" in less than 250Units is not much relevant anyway.
It is in terms of minator's claim to which I responded. But I understand that in your attempt at changing the topic of this sub-discussion, which you joined by replying to me, from performance alone to including price and now even unit numbers it helps you to regard the X1000 as "not much relevant anyway".
>> Additionally, minator in his posting I replied to didn't say a single word
>> about price but only about speed. So please refrain from moving the
>> goalposts, thanks.
> I'm not "moving" any topic
You are. Minator made a claim regarding performance alone, which I then refuted using the very same performance argument he had used. You then joined this sub-thread attempting to disagree with what I wrote (see your "Do you honestly think that..." phrase) by changing the argument from performance alone to price (and price-performance ratio), when all you replied to was me saying that the OS4 netbook will be to current OS4 hardware what the Efika 5200B has been to the Pegasos II, so that minator's "OS4 must be the only platform that..." claim is revealed as the nonsense it is, especially when made on a MorphOS forum. So *your* reply to me was sophistry at its best.
> but writting about something very relevant to 90% computer hardware related
> discussions: price/performance ratio. And it was relevant
It was *not relevant* to the posting you replied to and to the sub-discussion you joined by giving your reply. Is it that hard to grasp? Neither minator nor me were talking about anything that includes the topic of price.
> I guess Minator will agree that price and performance are "slightly" related
> to the topic
Performance yes, obviously, but price was not related to his posting I replied to. You can see that by simply reading his posting. Did you read it?
> "Unfair"?
Yes, I consider changing the topic of a discussion just to attempt to disagree with someone (that is, "disagreeing" on something he wrote nothing about) unfair and an act of sophistry.
> you like isolating phrases out of context
I don't think so.
> and performing sofist arguments, don't you? bah!
It's almost funny that you impute performing sophist arguments to me when you are the true sophist here. And yes, that's very much "bah".
> Where have I "negated" your claim?
Your out of place "Do you honestly think..." phrase clearly shows that you somehow attempted to disagree with what I wrote, doesn't it? And when all I wrote was that claim then you must have attempted to disagree with that claim exactly as there was nothing else you could have replied to there.
> Comparing out of context Efika with that vaporware netbook is nonsense
Yes, that would be nonsense, hence I did it in context (the context being given by minator's posting to which I replied).
> or that alpha-beta-board produced in a handful of units
I didn't compare the Efika 5200B to the X1000.
> Comparing Peg2 [...] with an x1000 [...] is nonsense.
No, it's not in the very context of minator's posting. Maybe you should read it for once?
>>> and in addition to that more expensive). More expensive (x1000).
>> ...and it will get cheaper with the OS4 netbook, which is the hardware
>> minator was referring to in his statement to which I replied.
> cheaper than x1000? wow! that must be really difficult :-P
Moving the goalposts and thus sophistry again. I didn't say it was difficult but just that it's wrong to say that there won't be any cheaper OS4 hardware. That would be as nonsensical and untrue as claiming that the Efika 5200B was more expensive than the Pegasos II.
> Isolating phrases out of context is what is nonsense.
True. That's why I don't do such.
> The topic of this thread was about how much time we were going to wait
> until next MorphOS release
I'm sorry but that was clearly *not* the topic of minator's post to which I replied. Obviously this thread went off-topic way before, so please don't hold me liable for that. I was merely replying to a post in this thread in the context of said post. If that post was already off-topic then it's clearly not my fault.
> in your fantasy world perhaps you were discussing with your
> other personalities about certain isolated phrase
Bollocks. Minator is clearly *not* any personality of mine.
> I have to tell you that you are at morphzone discussing with humans
I know that. And I know that minator is a human being and not just a split personality of myself as you seem to imply.
> in a MorphOS thread not an OS4 one.
Blame amigadave for
bringing OS4 into this MorphOS thread, not me.
> just like performance because it's a MorphOS thread.
This thread stopped being a pure MorphOS thread by no later than amigadave bringing OS4 into it (see above for reference). The topic of performance was then brought into this thread by minator, again not by me. If you really want to blame someone for starting off-topic sub-dicussions in this MorphOS thread then please blame the ones who actually did.
> remember we are at public forums
What makes you think I forgot this? I'm merely replying with public postings to others' public postings.
> you were already offtopic
I replied to postings in the context of those postings, i.e. on-topic to those postings. If my replies were off-topic to this thread, so were the postings I merely replied to in the first place. You blaming me for off-topic here would be as nonsensical as me blaming you for it.
> when you reply to a person you can add some extra information in
> favour/against certain argument but that doesn't mean you claim all
> the argument is true/false.
Your reply to my posting (where I was responding to minator) was not in favour/against any of my arguments you replied to as it didn't even contextually touch the single one argument that was in my posting. Even your sophistic "Do you honestly think that..." phrase couldn't change that.
> Your bizantine/sofist discussions
I don't know about "bizantine", but "sofist" is really rich coming from you seeing how you attempt to bring sophistry to perfection right in this thread.
(that's a joke, in case you don't understand it or try to isolate the phrase out of context to later provide links in other threads) Something that "exists" in less than 250Units is not much relevant anyway.
