A momment of silence...

[Sayonara]

Which is not the issue.

 

I am simply illustrating that the fact that some users are ignorant of other services is not an attribute of SuprNova, or the situation with the site's closure - it is an attribute of that group of users, and as such does not make the subject 'more tragic'.

[JaKiri]

Which is not the issue.

 

I am simply illustrating that the fact that some users are ignorant of other services is not an attribute of SuprNova' date=' or the situation with the site's closure - it is an attribute of that group of users, and as such does not make the subject 'more tragic'.[/quote']

 

Doesn't stop it being true, though.

[Sayonara]

"For many bit-torrenters, this was the best, if not only, site."

 

It is not true to say this. One might say that it was the only known site for that group, but - semantically or physically - it was not the only one available to them.

 

Hyperbole simply serves to make the situation look worse than it actually is, and does not engender confidence in the OP having a good understanding of what actually happened.

 

[edit]

 

I should probably clarify that I said "which is not the issue" because the requirement for users to know all of their options was something extra that you added in to the mix.

[JaKiri]

"For many bit-torrenters' date=' this was the best, if not only, site."

 

It is not true to say this. One might say that it was the only [u']known[/u] site for that group, but - semantically or physically - it was not the only one available to them.

 

It all depends on your interpretation of the word 'for' in the original post. You interpreted it from the point of view of the internet as a whole, rather than of the individual users.

[Sayonara]

It all depends on your interpretation of the word 'for' in the original post.

The old ones are the classics.

 

 

You interpreted it from the point of view of the internet as a whole, rather than of the individual users.

See edit.

 

I interpret it in terms of the words that were used. The fact that I have no experience of any Linux builds other than Mandrake and RH, for example, does not mean the others are not there: my dependency on the build I use will not result in me sitting in the corner staring at a blank screen should they ever cease to be supported, and to suggest otherwise is just a touch crazy.

[JaKiri]

I interpret it in terms of the words that were used. The fact that I have no experience of any Linux builds other than Mandrake and RH, for example, does not mean the others are not there: my dependency on the build I use will not result in me sitting in the corner staring at a blank screen should they ever cease to be supported, and to suggest otherwise is just a touch crazy.

 

You do, however, know that others exist. It's quite possible (and, in my experience) fairly likely that people will only know of BitTorrent through Suprnova, and assume that it's both proprietry and unique.

 

There was a guardian column that made just such an assumption a few months back.

[Sayonara]

That doesn't make it the only site for those users - it makes it the only site they know about. You are still arguing about something that hasn't been said, and I'm not sure pedantry is a good enough reason to keep it up.

 

Whether or not I know about other builds of Linux (continuing from the previous example, and as a point of fact I don't know about them all) is neither here nor there: they exist. My knowledge of them, or lack thereof, does not affect that state for me or for anyone else. They are not Schrodinger's operating systems.

 

The phrasing should have been as follows:

 

"For many bit-torrenters, this was the best site, if not the only one they knew of."

 

 

Also note that the use of "bit-torrenters" as the object implies he was not talking about the group who think the original BT client is the proprietary software of any given site.

[JaKiri]

I agree with everything except:

 

Also note that the use of "bit-torrenters" as the object implies he was not[/u'] talking about the group who think the original BT client is the proprietary software of any given site.

 

We can't say anything about the relative sizes of subgroups, especially given that we exist in a rarified environment, so any anecdotal evidence is even more useless than it usually is.

 

It is, however, entirely within the realms of possibility that most of the users of BT share those beliefs (not likely, I'll grant you), which makes the quoted point irrelevent.

[Sayonara]

It's relevant because "a bit-torrenter using SuprNova" (i.e. the group under discussion in the original post) is not even the same species as "people [who] will only know of BitTorrent through Suprnova, and assume that it's both proprietry and unique" (i.e. the group you introduced into the fray.)

 

I should have made it clearer that I consider the latter to be SuprNova 'customers', not torrent users per se. Bit-torrenters, in the non-capitalised, hyphenated sense in which it was employed in the o/p, refers to users of BT-protocol clients, and has a top-down relationship with the web sites since they are its hierarchial children as opposed to siblings.

 

Although I am not sure why I am still making a case, seeing as you said you agreed. Put it down to a slow day at work. Now I am going away to buy underpants.