Phil Deakins

Yes, I remember offering to audition for something but what exactly was that something?

I can't imagine what the tests might be. I think I'll have to find where all this originally started and find out what I actually volunteered for. I may be wrong but I think someone suggested a nekkid party ot something, and I said that I'd audition for it. What on earth could I be expected to do in an audition for a party?:smileysurprised:

Incidentally, I added a P.S. to a post up the page but you'd already replied to it so you probably didn't see it. This is what it says... P.S. I do think that my bum can stand being spanked longer than you would be able to spank it

Yes, LL takes a commission for being the intermediary in the deal. I said that. A computer shop that sells Apple computers, owns the Apple computers that they sell so you buy from the shop - not from Apple. Yes, I remember saying that a person who buy an Apple computer from a shop is a customer of the shop and not a customer of Apple's. And I was correct. The fact that Apple provide support for Apple owners does not mean that the owners are Apple customers. It just means that Apple provided a fixed term warranty to the Apple owners. Trinity Yazimoto wrote: So in that case... lets say that A buys from Lindens some pp's l$....A is the customer of ....... Lindens (who is in this case same as B). Bingo. On top, as i said before... no, in most case you buy L$ to Lindens and not to other users because the ammount of L$ sold is far lower than the one bought. But 'A' doesn't buy from LL. Just like in the broker example, 'A' buys from the seller. LL is merely the intermediary. That's because the intermediary takes a commission - just like the broker does.

I started to reply to your previous post but something went wrong, so I'll reply to this one first and then to your previous post. Trinity Yazimoto wrote: you are too much studborn, Phil, i give up... you are not the one who can say who is or is not a LL customer... laws and economic systems says it... you may keep saying i am not... i dont care.. this doesnt make me a non customer at any time...Laws and economic says i am one. I will keep with this ... I'm not trying to say who is and who isn't an LL customer. I'm saying that (1) unless a person is an LL customer, they can't expect any customer support from LL, and (2) buying L$ via the Lindex does not make a person an LL customer. Buying something from LL makes a person an LL customer but buying L$ via the Lindex isn't buying anything from LL.

I do believe that you are wrong, Trinity, but I see that I can't persuade you, so I'll stop trying. Maybe one last attempt If you want to buy some shares in a company, you buy them via a broker. But the broker doesn't have any shares to sell you, so he arranges a deal for you to buy them from someone who does have some shares to sell. The way it happens is that you pay the broker and the broker passes your money to the seller. At no time did the broker own the shares you bought so you didn't buy them from the broker. You bought them from the seller and used the broker to facilitate the deal by giving your money to him so that he can pass it on. At least I think that's how the buying and selling of shares works, but I've never done it so I can't be certain. Because I'm not certain about shares, how about this? Someone advertises a TV for sale and you want to buy it but you can't collect it. So you hire a firm to collect it for you. You give the money for the TV to the firm, and they collect it and deliver it to you. But the TV doesn't work. Who did you buy it from and who would you take to court to recover your money? You gave the money for the TV the the firm but you didn't buy it from the firm, and the fact that it doesn't work isn't their reponsibility. Or how about the c.o.d. postal service. You order something from someone and it's delived c.o.d. You pay the money to the delivery service but who did you actually buy the item from? Not the delivery service. That's what happens with the Lindex. You buy from users who are selling and not from LL. LL's Lindex service merely facilitates that purchase. If no users are selling at the price you are willing to pay, then you can't buy any L$ via the Lindex, because it's not LL that is selling them to you. P.S. I do think that my bum can stand being spanked longer than you would be able to spank it

Dillon Levenque wrote: *The correct placement of the would have been after the M, since I was talking about Members in plural, not Parliaments. Was my usage correct or would it be written M'sP by, dare I say, a Brit? The correct position for the 's' is at the end, so you put it in the right place. But talking about something is nothing to do with ownership of anything, so including an apostrophe was incorrect MPs is correct for your context - multiple members od parliament. MP's would be correct when used to indicate that a single MP owns something; e.g. the MP's car is outside MPs' would be correct for plural ownership.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Again Phil, bring the evidence Lindex is not owned by Linden. Because, dear Phil, when i track the money i pay for buying my l$ on it, it says it goes to..... Linden Research.... Bingo ! So till now, i trust my bank (at least when it says me where goes my money), you come and tell me my money doesnt go to Linden company... i need you bring me evidence about this if you want i trust such sillyness... The Lindex IS owned by LL. I haven't said anything different. When you buy L$ through the Lindex, though, you buy them from other users - the sellers. LL is merely a middleman in the transaction. If you read the Lindex pages, you will see that that is what happens. Perhaps it is clearer when you sell L$. You set the price you want to sell them at. If nobody is buying at that price, then your L$ will wait until someone buys at the price you want. Only then will you sell them - or some of them. You can set to sell them at the current market price, in which case they will sell almost immediately, but you'll get less for them than if you had waited until someone was willing to buy at your price. Similarly, when you buy you can set the price you're willing to pay. If you want to pay very little, you'll wait forever because the chances of someone wanting to sell for such a low price is minimal. The transactions are between users, and LL merely factilitates the transactions via their Lindex system - for a commission, of course.

Anaiya Arnold wrote: I know what you said but your premise is nonsense centering on a trivial and irrelevant game of semantics. There's nothing "nonsense" about what is and isn't a customer. A customer is one who buys. One who doesn't buy isn't a customer. Simples. LL don't put up with the costs of offering support to pay devotion to some word. They do it in the expectation of profit, so what matters in respect of the efficient use of resources is not whether or not they are exclusive to people who fit some word, but whether they enhance LL's ability to profit from SL. LL provides support to whoever they wish to provide support to, and for whatever reason they choose. Neither you not I can decide who they provide support to or for what reason they do it. They don't only provide support to actual customers. They provide some degree of support to all users, and I've never said anything different. What I have said is that non-cutsomers cannot expect customer support, which is perfectly true. (You would know that if you'd read the thread.) non-customers - those who don't buy from LL - have no right to any support at all. The meaning of the word customer doesn't really have much of anything to do with anything. LL offer support for profit-motives, not as a tribute to the word customer. The meaning of the word 'customer' has everything to do with this discussion. The discussion has been about 'customer support' and you can't divorce the word 'customer' from that. If you are not a customer (i.e. if you don't buy anything from LL) you cannot expect custoimer support from LL, or any support at all. You may get some, but you can't expect it and you have no right to it.

madman626 Fall wrote: Nope you would had not got ban no because none would had knew but now you came here and told on yourself * smart move *. Now I will say this I see both side of this after reading 8 pages of this there been some good points and bad points,,,but I have to say this to the buyers where do you get off at trying to go around and make something mod.That was`t meant to be ,, don't like how it looks build it your dang self what I really think wait I not done yet ,,, I see this has i`am been building a long time my self ,,,I don't think you could get to F*** up my builds either OK builder I about to piss you all off * jokes* I do believe I don't care if you made it there nothing wrong with some one adding to your build who do you think you are telling ppl what they can and can't do with there building they paid for after that you get no dang say about I don't give a sh** what you have to say about it has long he not selling or remaking it to sell you all out of line ,,hell ford motor com, don't get tell me what the hell I can do with there truck and cars same GM motor com, they can't tell me what to do with them they can not stop me from putting a 350ci, V8 in a 1932 ford car body can they ? Nope so what make you think you can here .he not breaking your copy right by doing so Nobody has said anything about that. You can add to anything you buy. You can't link the addition to a no-mod object but linking isn't essential.

@Perrie. Yes, I mentioned that clothing would suit the copy/no trans permissions. There isn't a solution that would make everyone happy. But there's no need for a solution because there isn't a problem. My furiniture is no copy, which is not a problem for me. If anyone wants copyable furniture they can find search around and find some, so it isn't a problem for them either. It would only be a problem for them if they were forced to have no copy furniture that isn't forced on anyone. It's the same with clothing. The permissions that the sellers set isn't a problem for the sellers. If a person really wants clothing with different permission, they can search around and find some, so it's not a problem.

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Ok, you don't mind being a thief. I can't argue with that. As I said in the post that you quoted, if an item isn't exactly what you want (in this case, if it's no copy) don't buy it. It's perfectly simple. Or you could ask the seller to sell you a 'copy' version and perhaps offer more for it. But if you buy a 'no copy' item and circumvent the permisiions so that you can copy it, and then you do copy it, you're a thief. whoosh. totally missing the point. it's not about "copying"! I didn't miss the point at all. There was a discussion about copying and I joined it. If you'd read my posts, you would have known that. Who did you say missed the point?

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I do like people owning my products. That's why I sell them. You've got it the wrong way round. It should be, "don't like something about the product? Don't buy it." naw, you've got it wrong. don't like something about the product (and nothing else comes as close to exactly what you want but you know how to fix it)? buy it and then mod it to fit your needs. in your world you don't get my money. in my world you do. but if you don't want my money, ban me. i'm ok with that. Now you're being very silly. I never did want your money but I never had any reason to ban you. If you don't find exactly what you're looking for, you can't buy a no-mod item and modify it - not without breaking the ToS, that is, and risk being banned from SL.

You've misread what I wrote. I didn't say anything at all about spending money on SL. I only talked about paying LL; i.e. being an LL customer. You used the marketplace as an example but if you spend money in the marketplace, you are a customer of the seller - not of Linden Lab. Who did you say was talking nonsense?

Snow is beautiful when it's fresh, but it gets boring fast, either because it gets dirty, or it becomes too inconvenient - or both. We're expecting more significant snow here in the UK in the next few days and I'd much rather it didn't arrive. Fortunately, it never stays on the ground too long.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: MyAlt4099 wrote: If I were to copybot something and not sell it, I am not depriving the creator of anything. Not even a sale they otherwise would have made, since I'd still need to buy the item to copy it. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Thank you for posting this, Phil. I have wrestled with copy vs transfer for my furnishings. When I first started selling my items, I made them mod/trans because, as a customer, I liked being able to give an item to someone else if I didn't want it anymore or *coughs* held a yard sale. Then I started hearing people in the forums complain about trying to mod an item and essentially "breaking" it or not being able to get it like they want and stating that if an item is sold as mod, it should be sold as copy so a fresh version is always available. I then did a small survey here in the forums to see if people preferred mod/copy or mod/trans and if a home furnishing item was mod/copy would they pay more for it than a mod/trans. The responses were mixed. With the asset server sometimes "eating" inventory, I like having a copy of anything I purchase tucked away so I sold my items mod/copy The copy vs trans "debate" is still stuck in my head, however. The reasons you mentioned above are what plays into leaning toward trans perms. Especially for the low prices of my products, I think going back to mod/trans is prudent for me. I never had to debate the copy / trans issue when I started to sell furniture because, at the time, I had a skybox rental business and selling the furniture was just a little sideline. So I was well aware of the potential of selling one sofa, for instance, to one person, and copies of it ending up in dozens of rental homes. So I've never sold anything in my store with the copy permission. Actually, that's not totally true. I do sell a cushion that's copy. I often got people in the home rental business asking for copy items, and they offered 2 or 3 times the normal price, but I never did it. Instead I offered quantity discounts - 20% for 5+, 25% for 10+, and a third off for 20+. That satisfied most of them. When people have tried to modify something, and made a mess of it, I've always helped them out, either by doing it right for them or by replacing the item. That doesn't happen very often though and when it does happen, it's usually that they've tried to texture something else and accidentally textured the item instead and I just need to put the original texture back. I don't think I've ever had anyone get in touch because the item was 'eaten' by the system. People do get in touch when they think they've lost things because they don't know about coalesced objects, and I've always helped them to recover stuff. So, in all the years I've been selling furniture, the fact that it's no copy has never been even a slightly significant problem. Furniture is not like some other stuff, such as clothes. Selling clothes with the copy/no trans permissions is fine because one avatar can't wear 2 instances of the same dress simultaneously, but multiple copies of a piece of furniture can be used simultaneously and, in some cases, a great many copies of it would be used simultaneously. ETA: Some years ago I made and sold a temp rezzer. It demonstrated itself in the store by rezzing various sets of furniture in a living room situation. But temp rezzers for furniture need the furniture to have the copy permission, and I didn't sell any copy furniture. For some time, I debated in my head about that and eventually stopped seliing the temp rezzer, because it was silly that a furniture store didn't sell any furniture that was suitable for the temp rezzer, especially since the rezzer was demoing with furniture.

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Just a quick reply... If the desired colour/pattern isn't offered, don't buy it. It's not a justification for circumventing the permissions. Just out of interest... Some of my furniture is sold in fixed colours or fixed textures, and they are priced at a certain amount. I also do the same items in colour/texture-changing versions that are priced a little higher. if the color/pattern i want is offered in the color/texture changing version, i'd buy that one. if it's not (and i can't find a suitable product elsewhere), then i'd buy either the fixed or changing one depending on what interested me. then if i could break the perms i would to change it to what i wanted. don't like people owning your products? don't sell products. I do like people owning my products. That's why I sell them. You've got it the wrong way round. It should be, "don't like something about the product? Don't buy it."

Bernie Shippe wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: You are totally wrong. If you were to copy something that you don't have permission to copy, you'd have two instances of the thing but you'd only have paid for one. That's theft. If you have two instances but you'd only paid for one, the seller will have lost a sale. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. nope. there's a difference between multiple copies in inventory and multiple copies rezzed. i buy your couch. i break the perms. i keep a copy of the original because i don't trust LLs inventory and i want the original to go back to in case i mess something up. i make a copy and shrink and fudge with it to make it the way i want. i rez and use one instance. you think that makes me a theif. well good for you, but i frankly don't care. Ok, you don't mind being a thief. I can't argue with that. As I said in the post that you quoted, if an item isn't exactly what you want (in this case, if it's no copy) don't buy it. It's perfectly simple. Or you could ask the seller to sell you a 'copy' version and perhaps offer more for it. But if you buy a 'no copy' item and circumvent the permisiions so that you can copy it, and then you do copy it, you're a thief.

Maelstrom is Britiish. To be more precise, he is British/English. Not being British is not an option for him - i.e. he can't opt out of it - so he is British. For the interest: The fastest BB speed we have here in the UK at the moment is 120Mbps but that's only available to Virgin Media customers and most BB users aren't their customers. VM was a British company until a couple of days ago when an American company (Liberty Global) bought it. I wouldn't say that BB is "government mandated" although it does appear that the government does provide grants for it.

I think you'll find that the problem is with you, Schaeler. SL is not getting laggier. If things are slowing down for you, then it's down to you.

Bernie Shippe wrote: and what if someone wants the item in a color/pattern not offered? Just a quick reply... If the desired colour/pattern isn't offered, don't buy it. It's not a justification for circumventing the permissions. Just out of interest... Some of my furniture is sold in fixed colours or fixed textures, and they are priced at a certain amount. I also do the same items in colour/texture-changing versions that are priced a little higher.

MyAlt4099 wrote: If I were to copybot something and not sell it, I am not depriving the creator of anything. Not even a sale they otherwise would have made, since I'd still need to buy the item to copy it. You are totally wrong. If you were to copy something that you don't have permission to copy, you'd have two instances of the thing but you'd only have paid for one. That's theft. If you have two instances but you'd only paid for one, the seller will have lost a sale. I've always sold my furniture with the mod and transfer permissions, but never with the copy permission, and there is a very good reason for that. Many people rent out furnished homes and, if they could pay for one couch, for instance, and make copies to put in all their homes, I would have sold just one couch but the buyer would be using many of them. And that's not very fair, is it? If you bought a couch from me, made a copy of it and put one in each of two rooms, you'd be getting two for the price of one, and that wouldn't be very fair to me, would it? even though you didn't sell or give away either instance of the item. There are reasons why sellers set permissions on their stuff, and circumventing those permission is wrong and often theft. If you circumvent the permissions, and you end up with two copies of an item, even if one of them never leaves your inventory, you'd be a thief, and you'd deserve to be punished as a thief. If an item isn't exactly what you want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

Unless I'm mistaken, you can't sell L$ until a certain amount of time has elapsed but I don't know how long it is. I'm sure that someone will post details for you. I'm curious though. Why, in the space of 2 days, would you want to buy L$ and then sell L$?

LOL! I don't get around so it would surprise me if you see me on your radar. I'm logged in when I'm awake but I don't go anywhere. Maybe you're mistaking me for a red admiral (it's a butterly).

Where are you from? UK (Yorkshire). When did you join SL originally? December 2006. What have you mainly spent your time doing in SL in the past? Running a furniture business. How are you planning to spend your time in SL in 2013? Avoiding nekkid female judges