@AMiGR

Yes, any statement is either true or false, I acknowledge that and never disputed it. What I'm trying to say here is that it is perfectly possible to refrain from claiming that it would be true or false until you actually know.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@jtsiren

I thought well about responding again... I don't want to look like nitpicking, or splitting hair, etc... However, I'm responding again because I think there still is something to be cleared up here.

Quote:

jtsiren wrote: @falemagn Quote: In the same vein, if AHT says that the deal wasn't made because of Amiga, Inc stepping into the deal with last minute conditions, I've got to decide that that's either a lie, or a truth: This is where things get a bit more complicated. AHT may see it that way, and thus proclaim that as the reason, but what if a) they don't have all the information (like something happening on the background between other parties) b) they have misunderstood something c) AHT feels like the reason was Amiga Inc.'s last minute conditions when someone else might see the reason as some failure on AHT's part (resulting from a miscommunication or something) etc...

Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's AHT that pulled out of the deal, AInc simply demanded something more, or something different, which AHT couldn't deal with, so they pulled out.

If there's anyone in the world able to tell us what were the reasons for AHT to pull out, it's AHT themselves, don't you think? Then, of course, you may believe them or not, but it's still a binary choice you've gotta make.

I'm not talking about whether AHT was right in pulling out, that's up to anyone, on the basis of the known facts, to decide, I'm just saying that, according to them, they DID pull out, and the reason for this was AInc's last minute demand.

As said, you can either believe they're saying the truth, or that they're lying to you. Or you can pretend they never said anything which, given that thy did say something, is like saying that you don't believe them.

Quote:

I have seen some pretty hairy negotiations that have two parties both believing they are correct and owners of the truth. :) Objectively speaking (if one can ever do that), sometimes it is very, very hard to tell who, if anyone is right because everyone sees the situation from their own perspective.

But what you're talking about are opinions, I am talking about events, things that have happened. Things either happen, or they don't (alright, let's not put quantistic mechanics in the discussion now ;-P).

Quote:

Quote: It's like me going to, say, a grocery shop, to buy some ham, then going away as soon as I notice that the ham, there, costs too much. Then, when I go home, I tell you "hey, did you know, that shop has the most expensive ham ever, I went to buy some but then walked away". Is there anything to interpret there? Sure there is. What if you are absolutely clueless about the price-level of ham and thus walked away from a perfectly acceptable price? :) Does it make you a liar? No, just mistaken.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the example... Let's not consider whether I am right or not about the ham costing too much - it would be the equivalent of talking about whether AHT was right in pulling out of the deal - let's focus, instead, on the mere fact that I did walk away because the ham costed too much, for my standards.

Again, we're in a dichotomic situation, either I did walk out of the shop for that reason, or I didn't.

Quote:

Quote: And, most of all, isn't waiting for such confirmation another way of saying "I don't believe you"? Probably. It's like when people tell other people "It's not that I don't believe you, but I have to verify" when what they are really saying is "I don't believe you, so I have to verify"... :) But basically, I don't think it comes down to belief as much as wanting to make sure. To an extent, it really isn't always about someone not believing someone else, it may be just that one isn't 100% sure the other person knows right.

When you're talking of a company with a track record like the one of Amiga, Inc., which testifies other kind of happenings like the one regarding AHT, and all sort of missed opportunities, so much that you've had to wonder already more than once whether they are really in business or not, I think it's only fair that you draw conclusions about that company.

It's just a matter of being fed up, not caring anymore, stopping apoligizing them, not helping them if they can't help themselves, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion, Samface doesn't want to verify, Samface knows that he can't verify, and he likes to be the one contraddicting everyone else on the subject of AInc. Sometimes he may be right to suggest to not rush to conclusions, some other times - and very often so - he goes as far as making up flawed examples, suggest different interpretations of his own words, and all kind of things everyone could see by himself in this thread... just so that he can always say "I am right in saying what I'm saying, no matter what you say, at the very best you just don't understand me".

Quote:

It's not always about thinking the other person is a liar, just making sure the other person isn't mistaken.

The only time I called him "liar" was when he claimed he said something that he didn't - and indeed he didn't. I just find his way of leading an argument very tiring and fruitless...

I admit that "liar" is quite a strong word, and I could have done without it, but it's hard to find another way of depicting that situation.

_________________

@samface

Quote:

What I'm trying to say here is that it is perfectly possible to refrain from claiming that it would be true or false until you actually know.

And as I showed, that is just another way of saying "I don't believe you".

_________________

@falemagn

No, not saying anything is always not saying anything. I was talking about refraining from making a claim, not refraining from using your brain.

Besides, your logic is flawed. By saying that you don't know, you are not saying that something is true or false, no matter how you look at it. That reversed logic where it would be like saying that you don't believe it doesn't work. It's even perfectly possible to believe something to be true or false while still recognizing the fact that you don't know. To say that you don't know is no reflection of what you believe. You're simply mixing two entirely different things here.

Last edited by samface on 23-May-2006 at 07:14 AM.
Last edited by samface on 23-May-2006 at 06:59 AM.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@samface

Quote:

No, not saying anything is always not saying anything. I was talking about refraining from making a claim, not refraining from using your brain.

So you actually do have an opinion, but you don't want to make it public?

_________________

@falemagn

Yes, I have an opinion. I just think of it as pointless speculation when there is so little that we know. Somehow, I know that it would come biting me in my behind when it turns out that I wasn't entirely correct.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

@falemagn

Quote:

However, I'm responding again because I think there still is something to be cleared up here.

That's quite allright. :) I think it is good for us to rehash this for a while and see if we can find more common ground.

Quote:

Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's AHT that pulled out of the deal, AInc simply demanded something more, or something different, which AHT couldn't deal with, so they pulled out.

OK, acknowledged. This was my understanding also (as far as publicly available information/claims go anyway).

Quote:

If there's anyone in the world able to tell us what were the reasons for AHT to pull out, it's AHT themselves, don't you think? Then, of course, you may believe them or not, but it's still a binary choice you've gotta make.

Sure, AHT should be the one's making the claim, and it is up to us to believe them or not. (And I do believe them.) However, what if AHT would make (purely theoretical, just trying to rehash this liar vs. truth-teller issue) some kind of mistake or their perspective would differ from someone else's and distort what different parties viewed as the truth in the matter?

I do find it very reasonable to believe that Amiga Inc. made last minute conditions that caused AHT to choose to pull out. I think there is plenty of Amiga Inc. history to support that, at least as a very valid theory. What I'm exploring here is purely the question of whether or not it is just "believe them or not", "liars or telling the truth".

I say things can be more complicated (even if in this case they may not be).

What if, for instance, Amiga Inc.'s view on the situation would be that said conditions had been made clear to AHT already earlier on and that they thought they were OK. What if some miscommunication prevented this information from getting through and different parties feel differently about what really happened.

Or what if, AHT were the one's being unreasonable, but based on their own point of view and experience do not think they are unreasonable. What if Amiga Inc. thought their "demands" were just usual business practice that AHT should have known about, while AHT thinks they were unreasonable last-minute additions.

I think "AHT pulling out" is simple enough to be either true or false. Either they did or they did not. When it comes to discussing their reasons for doing so, more room for interpretation emerges - say, were those last-minute conditions really last-minute, were they really unreasonable etc.

These are the kinds of issues that I have seen in negotiations than can be pretty hairy. Sometimes the truth just becomes very distorted when parties have differing perspectives on it.

One situation I remember was very reminiscent of this one. The other party claimed that both parties had already agreed to some condition earlier on in the negotiations. The other party saw the condition as new and unreasonable, and had not understood/did not remember any previous discussion as the other party had. Things become even more messy when both parties have several different people discussing things at various times. Which party is right? Did the first party communicate their condition correctly? Should the second party have understood it?

Quote:

I'm not talking about whether AHT was right in pulling out, that's up to anyone, on the basis of the known facts, to decide, I'm just saying that, according to them, they DID pull out, and the reason for this was AInc's last minute demand.

I think there are two separate issue to believe or verify here: The one that AHT pulled out, and the one that the reason was Amiga Inc.'s last mintue demand. In the first issue I find very little room for interpretation. In the second one, plenty. (And believe me, I used to think there couldn't be any room for interpretation in things like that.)

Quote:

You're focusing on the wrong part of the example... Let's not consider whether I am right or not about the ham costing too much - it would be the equivalent of talking about whether AHT was right in pulling out of the deal - let's focus, instead, on the mere fact that I did walk away because the ham costed too much, for my standards.

I don't think I am focusing on the wrong part. I don't think the comparison to AHT being right or wrong is relevant, at least not entirely (maybe a little?). I do think the example's claim of high price of ham as the reason for pulling out was comparable to the claim of Amiga Inc.'s last minute conditions as being the reason for pulling out. Were they really last-minute conditions and were they really that unreasonable?

You walked out from the store (in the example) and AHT pulled out from the deal, that much is certain. However, an important part of both claims was the reason for doing so: high price of ham and last-minute, apparently unreasonable conditions by Amiga Inc. I'm just saying: what if the price of ham really wasn't unreasonable, you just thought it was, and what if Amiga Inc.'s conditions were not last-minute or unreasonable (or both), they just thought they were.

Are these all really true or false issues for you? I'm just saying that calling "liar" is not the only alternative to believing every word. Someone can make a mistake or even be right from their own perspective, since there rarely is absolute truth.

I apologize if what you were saying is only that AHT pulled out, and you didn't mean to place as strong a merit on the rest of the claim. In that case we're pretty much in agreement already. (However, going back to gary_c's original claim that started the debate with Samface, an important part of that theory were Amiga Inc.'s conditions, hence my thoughts on the matter.)

Quote:

When you're talking of a company with a track record like the one of Amiga, Inc., which testifies other kind of happenings like the one regarding AHT, and all sort of missed opportunities, so much that you've had to wonder already more than once whether they are really in business or not, I think it's only fair that you draw conclusions about that company.

Agreed. This is, I think, basically where Samface and I disagreed.

Quote:

In my opinion, Samface doesn't want to verify, Samface knows that he can't verify, and he likes to be the one contraddicting everyone else on the subject of AInc.

Yeah, well, this has been the way Amiga Inc.'s actions have been explained and defended through-out the years. I don't know why Samface does it, I don't know if it has got anything to do with these past actions, but uncertainty and vague, unverifiable statements have certainly been the corner-stone of Amiga Inc.'s and their following's public relations strategy. :)

Quote:

The only time I called him "liar" was when he claimed he said something that he didn't - and indeed he didn't.

Sure, but the change in wordings (which wasn't really all that big) could have easily been unintentional. A mistake doesn't make one a liar. (That doesn't mean it couldn't have been a lie either, but the case being so insignificant I think we could and should let it go as just a probable mistake.)

In conclusion, so that nobody misunderstands my position (and they will... :):

What I'm trying to argue here is that there are often more options than some statement just being true or false, someone being a liar or telling the truth.

I'm not trying to argue the AHT/Amiga Inc. issue. I think AHT did pull out from the deal and I do think we have plenty of reason to believe the reason were Amiga Inc.'s conditions that have been proven "hard to meet" to say the least.

@samface

Quote:

I agree with you completely, including the part where you say that we don't agree. I don't think there is some law or any kind of enforcement that conclusions has to be made regardless if we know all the relevant facts or not. This isn't a case where someone is screaming that the sky is falling as Fabio used as a metaphor earlier. Nothing will happen and we're perfectly able to continue our lives as before without having to find someone to blame the failed negotiations between AHT and Amiga Inc. for. It is in my opinion that It is especially when we're talking about finding someone to blame something for that we need to *know* before concluding. Innocent until proven otherwise, remember?

Obviously we're not forced or required to come into conclusions about pretty much any matters, especially not something as insignificant (as far as we bystanders go) as this one. It is certainly a valid approach to refrain from comment. I can respect that. (Although your point was not just to refrain from comment yourself, you chose to enter the discussion of the merits of other people's comments.)

Analysis of what happened with AHT and Amiga Inc. might have significance for someone trying to further their hobby or build some kind of business within this market, but obviously that doesn't include you and me. :)

What I *am* saying, is that the requirement to have all the information before coming to conclusions usually prevents one from coming to any conclusions. Even the courts, when determining guilt, have to deal with this. We're certainly no jury, but we are part of the court of public opinion, and as such, I'm saying we're entitled to our conclusions and from time to time we even manage to make some valid ones.

I think there is plenty of information on Amiga Inc. and their past actions out there, quite a bit of it reasonably verifiable or coming from trustworthy sources, to make all kinds of conclusions. In general and from this case in particular. Does it mean we get it all right? No, and we probably won't either. Does it give us the power of prophecy and ability to predict all future action of Amiga Inc.? Certainly not, but it does allow us to paint a picture of how Amiga Inc. usually operates.

In the end, actions speak louder than words, and we have plenty of action (or inaction) to asses Amiga Inc. by.

@samface

Agreed.

_________________

@thread

I agree with everything that has been said. You are all right.

But please go on.

_________________
This signature is in the middle of a much needed facelift!

@polka.

/me steals some popcorn from polka.

_________________

@jtsiren

Quote:

jtsiren wrote: Obviously we're not forced or required to come into conclusions about pretty much any matters, especially not something as insignificant (as far as we bystanders go) as this one. It is certainly a valid approach to refrain from comment. I can respect that. (Although your point was not just to refrain from comment yourself, you chose to enter the discussion of the merits of other people's comments.)

Yes, I entered the discussion of the merits of other people's comments, but please also recognize that it was with one point in mind and one point only; to demonstrate how little we actually know.

Quote:

What I *am* saying, is that the requirement to have all the information before coming to conclusions usually prevents one from coming to any conclusions. Even the courts, when determining guilt, have to deal with this. We're certainly no jury, but we are part of the court of public opinion, and as such, I'm saying we're entitled to our conclusions and from time to time we even manage to make some valid ones.

Agreed, but it is still a good advice to refrain from claiming your unsubstantiated opinion as a fact. To this, even Fabio and I agree. Let's keep what we know as a matter of fact and our opinions seperate. Facts are objectively verified truths while an opinion is each and every individuals subjective point of view. Opinions may differ and it is simple enough for everyone to accept that. It's when an opinion is portrayed as a matter of fact that these conflicts arises.

Quote:

I think there is plenty of information on Amiga Inc. and their past actions out there, quite a bit of it reasonably verifiable or coming from trustworthy sources, to make all kinds of conclusions. In general and from this case in particular. Does it mean we get it all right? No, and we probably won't either. Does it give us the power of prophecy and ability to predict all future action of Amiga Inc.? Certainly not, but it does allow us to paint a picture of how Amiga Inc. usually operates.

Well, you're of course entitled to your opinion. I'm quite frank when I say that I don't have much of an opinion about Amiga Inc. Some people has decided to call me an Amiga Inc. apologist and think of me as their supporter, but the truth is that all I ever asked for was some kind of objectivity in the matter. I'm a "Club Amiga" member and the owner of an Amiga Party Pack as many others in the Amiga community, so I'm not one of the ones spared from their "marketing stunts" in case anyone would think so. I think we all can agree that there has been a quite unfortunate scenario of events surrounding Amiga Inc. and regardless of who would be responsible, they are here to stay and if we just try to remain as objective and constructive about it as possible, we will do the best of the given circumstances.

When I talk about being objective, I'm talking about looking at things from a broader view, to see that the grass isn't more green on the other side of the fence and that things could actually be worse. Mistakes or not, I think everyone does what they do with the best of intentions. If becoming rich on scamming people would be your objective, I'd say the Amiga market is the least lucrative market you could possibly find.

Now that was my opinion, in case anyone missed it.

Quote:

In the end, actions speak louder than words, and we have plenty of action (or inaction) to asses Amiga Inc. by.

Well, it's not like many of us are watching the action from the front row and the information we get to asses Amiga Inc. by are rarely neutral. One should also keep in mind that discontent messengers are usually louder than content messengers, leaving us with alot to wish for on the positive side of things.

_________________
Sammy Nordström, A.K.A. "Samface"

MINDRELEASE.net - The Non-Commercial Network of Digital Arts.

Samworks D & C - Professional Web Development (in Swedish)

####, are you guys still going on?

@ironfist

POTM that was

_________________

@samface

Fair enough. I think we've documented our agreements and disagreements. Thank you. :)

I think it was also good to read more about your opinion on Amiga Inc. in general.

@ironfist



There seems to be several threads lately that have that tune playing . . .

_________________
Avatar babe - Monica Bellucci.