#Rumor Roundup
17 messages in this thread
If the Bahamian Supreme Court is the only entity with accurate knowledge
of the details, then whether they choose to divuldge the details extends
their "juristiction" to the US.
Dale L. Larson, Intangible Assets Manufacturing
"Are you f'ing crazy?" "No, I'm just marking my territory." – Wolf
To ALL.
As a newcomer to Compuserve I have spent the last few weeks reading
through the various Forums and especially this one. With all the doom and
gloom that is being expressed at the moment about the current state of
Commodore I would just like to say that over here in North West Europe
there is a very strong Amiga Community. This community is backed up by
various Mail Order companies, numerous magazines, PD+Shareware libaries
and also Third Party manufactures for the Amiga. The AMIGA was and is
still I am afraid regarded by a lot of people as a Games machine, but this
so called games machine has sold in the 10,000s over here and the user
base will of course be for playing games but also there are those who may
have bought their AMIGA to play games with originaly but have soon
discoverd its potential in graphics, music, DTP etc.
I first started getting into computers in 1985 with the C64 and then
progressed onto the AMIGA in 1987, there are thousands like me who are and
will be in the future committed to the AMIGA. It seems that it doesnt take
the brains of a Rocket Scientist to come to the conclusion that there is
still a market for the AMIGA world wide, this msg forum proves that the
interest is still there so come on you hard headed buisiness men get out
your cheques books buy Commodore and put the AMIGA back into the spotlight
once again. You know it makes sense!!!
Richard ( Cornwall England )
<buy Commodore and put the AMIGA back into the spotlight once again. You
know it makes sense!!!>
You sure your name is Richard. Sounds more like Del Trotter to me!!
Greg
See if you can get Prince Charles to buy Commodore. He has lots of money. Maybe
he can get his mum to chip in too 🙂
Richard,
There is a possibility that the Amiga may go on. The downside is that it
may continue as only a video/graphics/game machine. In spite of the fact
that I use it to make a living in video, I would prefer it to make it as a
general purpose machine. If someone of the size of Samsung took it over
then, in theory they could pay to have MS Office or the Borland office
suite and PhotoShop ported to the Amiga with "introductory" package deals
to get the public awareness of the machine up to the level of at least Mac
level.
Or they could be content to try to dominate verticle markets like video
and MM (which Mac and MS are putting a full court press on penetrating, at
this point).
I think at this point it is safe to say that the Amiga is taking the
mandatory 8-count. It'll be another month before we know if the ref or
ring-side doctor stops the fight or not.
wmc – via Autopilot!
" .. whether they choose to divulge the details extends their 'jurisdiction' to
the US".
What in the world is this intended to mean?
Jurisdiction over US courts?
Jurisdiction over US government?
Why the US? No "jurisdiction", whatever that means, over Canada, Korea,
Germany, the UK?
You must be taking some position ("This is good" .. "This is bad" .. "This is
hilarious") but I don't see it.
–Jim
If this is such a big deal, and you believe AmigaWorld knows but isn't
saying (which is what the recording implies), why don't you pick up the
phone, give them a call, and ask why they won't reveal the names? Why
quibble with Dale over the matter?
-sja
"If this is such a big deal…"
No big deal. Just wondered what Dale was trying to say.
".. you believe AmigaWorld knows but isn't saying .."
Have no opinions either way. Just wondered what Dale was trying to say.
"Why quibble with Dale over the matter?"
I wasn't quibbling. Just wondered what he was trying to say.
–Jim
Did you figure it out, or do I still sound like an idiot? 🙂
Dale L. Larson Intangible Assets Manufacturing (info@iam.com)
"That's the best part about being crazy. You see things no one else can see."
Your reply was good, Dale, and I see better what you're getting at.
The comments by Steve, however, do make me wonder if something else was
intended that wasn't said. Let me try this on for size: which of the
following statements most closely match what your earlier message was trying to
say?
(Hypothetical messages follow: do NOT take these as statements of opinion on
anyone's part):
1. "Looks like the Bahamian Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction formally goes
no further than that cluster of islands, has the power to keep US users in the
dark. Pity about that".
2. "If Amiga World knows but refuses to say because of a Bahamian Supreme
Court ruling, then they must somehow feel that a US firm is subject to the
jurisdiction of a foreign court".
(End of hypothetical messages).
I had thought that your message meant something like (1), in which case I
would mildly complain that, hey, it's more than just US users that are being
kept in the dark .. after all, your message was directed to a user outside the
US.
The possibility of your meaning (2) had not occurred to me at all until I
read Steve's reply. That would have some interesting aspects: for example, if
a US entity felt that it was somehow within the reach of Bahamian court
judgments, would that also apply to other countries such as those in Europe, or
Canada? Heck, there has recently been a celebrated publication ban made by a
Canadian court that has been cheerfully ignored by the US media.
Pick 1, 2, neither or both. Wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. I
just wanted to know what you were saying. And I trust you didn't feel that I
was quibbling.
–Jim
I meant something like 1. It was in response to a message which talked
about US users in the dark, but I realize it keeps world-wide users in the
dark.
2. sounds reasonable, though. If AW had reporters in the Bahamas who got
info from the Bahamian court, AW might have trouble reporting that info if
ordered not to. What if those reporters step foot in the Bahamas again?
Would they be subject to some punitive action?
I know about the Canadian media ban thing. If a U.S. reporter flew to
Canada to research something, came back here to publish it, then flew back
to do more research, I wonder what the Canadians would think.
Nah, I didn't feel you were quibbling. I get a little abrupt with my
responses sometimes. I should probably either take more time to explain
myself better or spend less time on here (generate fewer postings). 🙂
Dale L. Larson Intangible Assets Manufacturing (info@iam.com)
"That's the best part about being crazy. You see things no one else can see."
I suppose that on theory 2 (maybe AW reporters know, but feel they can't speak)
you could also speculate that AW might fear having their information tap turned
off if they blabbed. No matter .. we'll find out sooner or later.
On that Canadian news blackout, by the way, I understand that the court
permitted only Canadian reporters to attend .. and then muzzled them. (Hey,
that conjures up an interesting visual picture, doesn't it)?
–Jim
I'm thinking that you were just tring to figure out what Dale was trying
to say, yes? <g,r,&d>
Chris – Fast and Low on my '020!
Virus Scan: MS-Windows Detected. Delete (y/Y)?
I put juristiction in quotes because, while they can't make laws in the
US, whether they can is irrelevant. They have the info. No one else
does. They said they aren't giving out the info. So no one can get the
info, whether they are in the Bahamas or in the US or anywhere else.
My point was the irrelevancy of "juristiction" in this instance.
Dale L. Larson Intangible Assets Manufacturing
(info@iam.com)
"That's the best part about being crazy. You see things no one else can see."
Gday,
>> If the Bahamian Supreme Court is the only entity with accurate
>> knowledge of the details, then whether they choose to divuldge the details
>> extends their "juristiction" to the US.
Yes, I understand that. But Steve's transcript of the Amiga World message
said:
>> These company's identities cannot be made public, according to AmigaWorld,
>> because of a court order by the Bahamian Supreme Court.
And Ralph Raphelson's transcript in the C= Hotline thread said:
>> 2. One has already done so. About six others have expressed an interest.
>> AW legally prohibited from naming them.
The transcript didn't say "We don't know", it said (paraphrasing) "We can't
tell you" (which implies that they do know but won't tell because of a court
order).
I can fully understand them not being able to find out, but why not say so? Or
did they say "We don't know" and the transcriptions were paraphrased?
Sam Yates Montrose, Victoria, Australia.
samyates@werple.apana.org.au