BlackBerry Forums Support Community - View Single Post

Silentknight · 03-05-2006, 05:48 PM

Scaredpoet:.

1. I read the two links that you posted in response to my question, “Who said that RIM didn't need to settle based solely on the existence of a workaround?” Suffice it to say, nothing in those articles quoting Lazaridis nor Basille comes close to saying what you claim they said. Read the articles again….SLOWLY! As far as what any non-RIM affiliate has said regarding the situation, you cannot intelligently take their comments to be anything other than just that, their comments. They do not speak for, or represent, RIM, in any way.

2. "No, I'm castigating RIM because they lied, and the sooner you accept that, the better off you'll be. They insisted a settlement wasn't necessary to continue operations. Evidently, it was necessary. Please try to keep up."
Keeping up with people who are constantly getting ahead of themselves is usually, indeed, a complete waste of time. But, in this case, it’s entertaining, so I’ll indulge myself in a little idle banter, if you don’t mind. By the way, I can appreciate the fact that you’ve convinced yourself that RIM lied. You just haven’t convinced everyone else.

3. "I don't like Microsoft either. Unfortunately, the applications I use are not available on Mac or UNIX. That doesn't mean I'm going to not use those apps, like apparently you expect I should."
If there are TYPES of applications on your Blackberry that you are using that are unavailable on any other device, then your analogy holds. Otherwise, in the context of my admonition to you, this response makes no sense. Again, read what is written more carefully. I know that there are TYPES of applications written for Microsoft OS that aren’t available for other OS’s. I face the same situation professionally, so I understand it. Your assertion (and I agree with it) was that RIM produces the best product for your needs, not the only product, as is the case in your Microsoft/Mac/Unix analogy. There is a difference.

4. "And I know in your fanboy li'l eyes, RIM is the savior and is all knowing and can do no wrong, and that's fine."

Awwww….. Now see, there was no need for that. Fanboy li’l eyes…hey, what are you tryin’ ta do, spoil our fun??

5. "Not at all! They only had to do one thing: turn on the workaround, pay retro damages, and walk away."
Actually, you list three things here that they had to do, not one. They actually did two of the three (pay damages, and walk away). It looks like they didn’t need to do the third thing (implement the workaround) to accomplish the other two. Wait….isn’t that what you wanted??

As to your question, “Why didn’t they just turn it on?” The answer is, because in the end, they didn’t have to.

Thanks for playing.

03-05-2006, 05:48 PM	#46
Silentknight Knows Where the Search Button Is Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Model: 7250 Carrier: Earthlink Posts: 28	Scaredpoet:. 1. I read the two links that you posted in response to my question, “Who said that RIM didn't need to settle based solely on the existence of a workaround?” Suffice it to say, nothing in those articles quoting Lazaridis nor Basille comes close to saying what you claim they said. Read the articles again….SLOWLY! As far as what any non-RIM affiliate has said regarding the situation, you cannot intelligently take their comments to be anything other than just that, their comments. They do not speak for, or represent, RIM, in any way. 2. "No, I'm castigating RIM because they lied, and the sooner you accept that, the better off you'll be. They insisted a settlement wasn't necessary to continue operations. Evidently, it was necessary. Please try to keep up." Keeping up with people who are constantly getting ahead of themselves is usually, indeed, a complete waste of time. But, in this case, it’s entertaining, so I’ll indulge myself in a little idle banter, if you don’t mind. By the way, I can appreciate the fact that you’ve convinced yourself that RIM lied. You just haven’t convinced everyone else. 3. "I don't like Microsoft either. Unfortunately, the applications I use are not available on Mac or UNIX. That doesn't mean I'm going to not use those apps, like apparently you expect I should." If there are TYPES of applications on your Blackberry that you are using that are unavailable on any other device, then your analogy holds. Otherwise, in the context of my admonition to you, this response makes no sense. Again, read what is written more carefully. I know that there are TYPES of applications written for Microsoft OS that aren’t available for other OS’s. I face the same situation professionally, so I understand it. Your assertion (and I agree with it) was that RIM produces the best product for your needs, not the only product, as is the case in your Microsoft/Mac/Unix analogy. There is a difference. 4. "And I know in your fanboy li'l eyes, RIM is the savior and is all knowing and can do no wrong, and that's fine." Awwww….. Now see, there was no need for that. Fanboy li’l eyes…hey, what are you tryin’ ta do, spoil our fun?? 5. "Not at all! They only had to do one thing: turn on the workaround, pay retro damages, and walk away." Actually, you list three things here that they had to do, not one. They actually did two of the three (pay damages, and walk away). It looks like they didn’t need to do the third thing (implement the workaround) to accomplish the other two. Wait….isn’t that what you wanted?? As to your question, “Why didn’t they just turn it on?” The answer is, because in the end, they didn’t have to. Thanks for playing. Last edited by Silentknight; 03-05-2006 at 05:51 PM..
Offline