iPhone outsells ALL smartphones in July

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > As is Dan Ingalls's solution to the overlapping window problem.
> > > Nonsense. Utter nonsense. It must be, because Oxford doesn't know
> > > about that, and since he knows everything about the history of
> > > computing...
> >
> > Bill Atkinson finally solved the overlapping windows problem, not Dan.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> And you've had sex with a willing woman. Who was awake at the time.
>
> Uh-huh.

That much is true, "Elmo".

The Apple people thought they'd seen overlapping windows when they
hadn't, and Atkinson really did work out how to do what he *thought* had
already been done by Xerox.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

---

› See More: iPhone outsells ALL smartphones in July

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> as they say, "an engineer's engineer". He was the only one at PARC
> without an advanced degree, yet he quickly gained a reputation as an
> equal (and then some).

Yeah, he was in the lab with me, debugging boards, and going over to
Flextronics with me where the boards were being fabbed and built. Not
hobnobbing with the executives while the engineers did the grunt work.

Our chief competitor was extremely unhappy that he had chosen our CPU
for the prototype, and they were doing many things that they are famous
for doing in an effort to take the design win away, but they were not
successful (to the credit of Microsoft and Thacker). Of course they
ended up getting the last laugh as they usually do with any upstart x86
company!

Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > Bill Atkinson finally solved the overlapping windows problem, not Dan.
> >
> > Uh-huh.
> >
> > And you've had sex with a willing woman. Who was awake at the time.
> >
> > Uh-huh.
>
> That much is true, "Elmo".
>
> The Apple people thought they'd seen overlapping windows when they
> hadn't, and Atkinson really did work out how to do what he *thought* had
> already been done by Xerox.

Elmo is poorly educated... you can tell this by his poor sentence
structure and his grasping at incorrect facts. He might know people that
invented Cheese Whiz, but he knows nothing surrounding PARC Place, and
the contributors that later went to Apple to achieve greatness.

In article <1i48tyl.3wabni6r12vjN%[email protected]>, Peter
Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I have no idea why noting the purchase of NeXT makes any point here.
> > Unless you were trying to jab at someone with that improper 'outdated'
> > comment?
>
> The fact that Apple, in its desperation to find an OS to replace the
> aged and flawed MacOS flirted with BeOS before buying Next and Jobs.
My understanding was that Gassée and friends were trying to push Be
back toward Apple. That he had a great start but was finding the
process just too big.

Getting NeXT and Jobs wasn't just a matter of luck or purchase; NeXt
resisted other flirtations. I think Apple simply offered a more
NeXT-like future.

> Whether Next or Jobs was the driver for the purchase is open to debate.
I've never read an article that tried to determine it was just one of
them, which says something.

> Certainly, Apple+Next but without Jobs would have gone down the tubes.
Oh, I don't know. There have always been great people at Apple.
I'd like to imagine Apple led by Kawasaki, or Gassée or, in my dreams,
Wozniak.
Jobs' central style (uncompromising focus) has made all the difference,
but I think there are others who could have made Apple strong, even if
different from today's.

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> Today it is, but in 1987, it was a major breakthrough and led to one of
> the most important human communications events in our 40,000 year
> (known) life. Without Interface Builder, we'd all be looking at 80 char
> based terminals to this day.

That's silly.
The Mac OS already existed. Other GUIs already existed in more than
just computers.
....and even the most ignorant person has to admit that some development
would have happened since those very early 80x24 chr displays.

That is, if any company but Microsoft does development, you have to
assume progress.

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > What I'm saying is that the platform deserves less credit than 'what
> > > created the Web.' Not that it was insignificant; just that it wasn't
> > > the source of all the ideas.
> >
> > It certainly didn't source any ideas, it may have made implementing the
> > ideas easier.
>
> Yes, it massively moved the ability to create object based code ahead by
> 30-80 years.

Umm... huh?
I thought you were arguing that it was the catalyst for the Web.

Now you're talking about OO programming?

(The Web is not object-based.)

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Only NeXT has that title of
> > "creation" of the world wide web. Everything CENTERED on NeXT boxes
> > during the early years, Now it's called OSX. The newest version can be
> > seen here coming up next month.
>
> I used NeXT, and NeXTStep. Neither are anything like OSX.
>
> OSX isn't using Display Postscript, which NeXT used.


Is Oxford really imagining that NeXT has a title of creating the WWW?

I think he seriously misread some history note.

Oxford, it was what the creator USED to create the browser and tags --
it was not the creator itself.
Like a driver in a car getting to a destination -- the destination is
not created by the car, the car is used by the driver to get there. The
software used (as you said, it's relevant to the ideas permitted and
encouraged) are the roadways.

In article <[email protected]>, George
Graves <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Well, it's not sufficient for everybody. How much could it have cost Apple
> >> to
> >> include an SD, Mini SD or Micro SD slot? Other phones in that price
> >> ball-park
> >> have them.
> > Those other phones that come with about 100 MB of internal storage?
> > Is that a smart comparison?
>
> Don't know, but it really has nothing to do with 8 Gig being inadequate for
> today's multimedia requirements.

Are you sure?
If you are saying 8GB is inadequate, then isn't 100 MB?
Or a 2-GB MicroSD card?


In any case, you continue to use the wrong language: it is not
INADEQUATE, and they are not REQUIREMENTS.

You were describing your own preferences for a multimedia device, not
the requirements for one, and not everyone's expectations for one.

In article <[email protected]>, George
Graves <[email protected]> wrote:

> > But again, George, almost all other users know that they don't need to
> > carry their entire library around.
> > Almost none would claim (as you have) that they need to carry a large
> > library of full videos around, also.
>
> Need? How about want? Were I still the "road warrior" that I was when I was
> younger, having that kind of entertainment capability with me all the time to
> while away all those hours spent in airports, hotel rooms and on long
> overseas plane flights would have been a godsend.
Yes, but my difficulty with your statements is specifically that you
describe it as a NEED instead of a WANT.

> > It's a portable device -- you can _change_ the content on it, easily,
> > and most users know for sure that they won't want to watch several of
> > their movies each day or each week.
>
> Again, speak for yourself :->
The statement is about how a large part of the population behaves; it
only has meaning applied to a group.
Or would you claim that a majority of users never have any idea what
they will want to watch next, or over a few days?
If you had a library of 100 movies, isn't it likely you would know
which 10 of them you want to see soon?

> > Here's a quick example:
> > 4 hrs a day, 5 days of music, no duplication =
> > about 280 tracks, taking 1.6 GB.
> > Even assuming two totally different assortments, we're talking 3.2 GB
>
> OK that takes care of music. What about a 13-hour flight to Japan (and back).
> Plus a week there in a hotel room, thousands of miles from home. I might want
> to watch some movies OF MY CHOICE on the flight or in my hotel room after
> working hours. Apple seems to have foreseen this with their 80 GB video iPod!
Are you suggesting a large part of developing this device needs to take
this unusual situation into consideration? And that such people sit in
the hotel room watching an iPod?
Heck, for such trips you foresee someone packing only their iPod?
I think the key is that most such people would probably pack a laptop
and a few DVDs of stored files -- maybe along with an iPod.
But the other key is that just because the iPod exists doesn't mean it
is a solution for all customers; your example seems to be artificially
creating the most demanding situation and then pretending it needs to
be met by this device.

> > When you want to change the assortment, change the Smart Playlist to
> > choose from less-often-played tracks, and sync again.
>
> From 10,000 miles away? While cruising at 35,000 ft over the Pacific? How
> about reach in your pocket and pull out another micro SD card and plug it in
> for whole different playlist of either audio or video.
YES! Now you're getting it -- alternative devices may fit extremely
unusual situations better.
But hey, we don't have to restrict it to the pocket devices. have you
ever seen anyone use a laptop on a plane. It happens.

> > Now, that sounds like a device doing everything the user would want.
>
> I'm glad you think so. I think it's wholly inadequate.
Yeah; it's that word 'wholly' that you are misusing.
You just gave an extreme example to show it wouldn't be the best
solution there, and then claim it determines the device is inadequate
in ALL situations?
Come on, George, you're not usually so damned stupid.
Is it a fantastic choice for a person riding a bus or subway twice a
day? how about jogging? riding a train across a state? carpool? sitting
on a beach or in a park?
Don't you see why it cannot be 'wholly inadequate?'
Don't you see why this device works extremely well for most people?
Do you see why we don't criticize the device as a failure based on just
one situation or user?

> > Being able to store more onboard doesn't sound like much advantage, as
> > long as the owner actually uses his computer every week.
> >
> > Can't you appreciate that this is a smarter, more practical approach to
> > using a portable device than just insisting it fails you if it doesn't
> > store everything you own?
>
> Everything I own? 8 Gigs wouldn't last one leg of a transAtlantic or a
> transPacific flight if feature length movies were involved.
Huh. I thought movie data took 300-400 MB per hour.
That would make 6 GB last 16 hours. Do people sit in an airplane seat
and just watch movies longer than that?

> Sorry. 8 Gigs is
> simply insufficient for me and its probably the main reason why the iPhone
> doesn't interest me. Now, if they had included the same 80 Gig drive as is in
> the video iPod (or an external memory slot), I would likely have bought one
> by now.
And I'm comfortable with that -- for the use you intend, huge amounts
of storage or removable memory is better. I don't think it applies to
many people, so I don't claim the device is awful just because it
doesn't do everything.

Peter Hayes wrote:

> The fact that Apple, in its desperation to find an OS to replace the
> aged and flawed MacOS flirted with BeOS before buying Next and Jobs.
> Whether Next or Jobs was the driver for the purchase is open to debate.
> Certainly, Apple+Next but without Jobs would have gone down the tubes.

It was disappointing to see Be not survive. They had a very good OS for
embedded designs such as thin clients and set top boxes. I visited them
many times and they were very good guys, unlike the people over at
Liberate who wanted $1,000,000 upfront before they would even talk to
you about porting their OS to your platform.

At least I got a BeOS shirt out of the deal.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> > The fact that Apple, in its desperation to find an OS to replace the
> > aged and flawed MacOS flirted with BeOS before buying Next and Jobs.
> > Whether Next or Jobs was the driver for the purchase is open to debate.
> > Certainly, Apple+Next but without Jobs would have gone down the tubes.
>
> It was disappointing to see Be not survive. They had a very good OS for
> embedded designs such as thin clients and set top boxes. I visited them
> many times and they were very good guys, unlike the people over at
> Liberate who wanted $1,000,000 upfront before they would even talk to
> you about porting their OS to your platform.
>
> At least I got a BeOS shirt out of the deal.

Hey, Be wanted more to license their very much not-ready-for-prime-time
OS than it cost Apple to buy NeXT in its entireity...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was comparing screen size, not device size. The UX has a 1024x600
> resolution 4.5" diagonal screen. That is a LOT more pixels for not much
> more physical size.
> > Size means a LOT for devices like this. The division is along
> > shirt-pocket size. If it doesn't fit in a regular pocket, it can't be
> > compared to iPhone.
> Unfortunately for your argument, the UX does, in fact, fit into a shirt
> pocket.
Look, I liked the UX. I almost bought the first because of it's
advantages. (I decided on the 12" PowerBook.)
But when we're talking about very portable devices, the size makes a
LOT of difference. The UX is not insignificantly larger than iPhone.

> > What is really amazing is the number of people claiming there is
> > nothing new about iPhone when the phones they champion (regular smart
> > phones down to free phones) have only UP TO 240x320 (half)!
>
> Wrong comparison.
The comparison was not mine, but many others whining about how iPhone
doesn't compare to some other model, while ignoring that it does
different things, some much better.

> As a phone, the iPhone is a brick.
That doesn't make sense. It works fine.

> Nor is its performance that of a
> particularly good phone.
In what way? How does 'performance' affect a phone? I assume you are
trying to make a different point from bad phone operation?

> The world is full of quad-band GSM phones which
> are much less expensive and have comparable or superior performance.
As a phone? They may work as well, but how do they work so much
_better_?
Certainly everyone knows that there are less expensive phones -- so if
that is all you want, get those. iPhone is certainly not for people who
only need a phone!

> iPhone's absense of 3G is truly a stunning omission.
No, it's a disadvantage. It means it does everything expected, but less
slowly than the fastest in it's field.
Look, there are trains that go 80 MPH and trains that go 160 MPH. They
both get to the same place, in the same way. You'd certainly prefer the
fast one if you were using trains a lot, so get those.
If you instead intend to use your device more for photos and music, the
iPhone's far better screen and storage means the others are bad
choices.

> As an Internet access device, it has inadequate screen resolution and
> unbelievable software limitations.
For a device of it's size, it has great res. Or do you compare this to
one of those cheaper phones again? What are they -- maybe 280x160?

> Now, if it had a C compiler and the
> ability to ssh in (from Apple, not hacked), that might be a different
> matter; you could then port useful tools from fink & etc. But iPhone is
> by design a closed platform and locked to a particular carrier.
Right -- which means only that it isn't a great answer for THAT KIND OF
USER. It doesn't mean it's a bad device, just not for every tech user.
Why do people keep criticizing on this STUPID basis?

> Nobody claims that a 240x320 resolution phone is an Internet access
> device; that's why they have WAP for those bitty screens.
You're wrong -- many have said exactly that, by championing the cheap
phones as devices that do everything iPhone does.
WAP phones ARE trying to be internet phones. They just get someplace
less useful than the regular Web sites.

> The iPhone, on
> the other hand, pretends to be an Internet access device with 320x480
> resolution. It falls short.
How? It has a full browser that goes to the full Web site, accesses
everything but Flash and client-side Java. Slower EDGE is mitigated by
fast WiFi. It has the best resolution of all phone-sized devices.
Sounds pretty decent, even if you have to use the Web fairly often.
It might not be everyone's best, but it's one of them.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> The iPhone tries to position itself as in-between the two. The problem
> with being an "in-between" product is that such products are rarely
> successful. History, including Apple's corporate history, is littered
> with failed "in-between" products.
I'd have called them combination products rather than in-betweens.
Yes, it's a risky development; here are always compromises of power,
price, function or usability. Where there have to be compromises, the
key has always been in doing some part of it really well.
Apple decided to offer a different interface, better screen, more
familiar and elegant software, and to limit their approach to consumer
interests (music/video player focus, no-worry storage, clean case, slim
size, simple sync, etc.)
Now, the in-between product is definitely the UX; trying for halfway
between laptop and pocket-sized, and offering nothing different.

> The model for success of an
> "in-between" product is that it combines the advantages of both; the
> reality of failure is that it combines the disadvantages of both.
Yes, failing to make good compromises often results in product failure.
Obviously, Apple decided on compromises that don't fit all user's
needs. Everyone accepts that, but only a few say it's a bad device or a
failed device because of that.
For instance, Apple was clear about why they decided against 3G; the
chips they were going to buy used twice as much power and might have
been hit with a major legal penalty this year.

> >> Now, granted, the UX is a bit heavier (largely due to the hard drive, the
> >> slide over keyboard, and the ports) and costs a lot more than an iPhone;
> >> but the UX is a full-fledged Windows Vista computer with 40GB of storage.
> > Then why are you comparing them?
>
> Handheld PCs, not WAP-based cell phones, are the closest comparable
> devices to the iPhone on the market today. Compared to handheld PCs, the
> iPhone falls short.
Wow -- so you decide on something else to compare to, then decide they
don't measure up?
How about this: the handheld PC category fails to measure up, because
they can't come close on price, portability, or handiness, are much too
big, acan't be used as cell phones, and are many times more expensive.
Jeez, how did you figure the handheld PC was a winner?
Doesn't it sound like they have very little in common?

> The argument seems to go that "Safari is a nicer browser than the Windows
> Mobile version of IE, thus the iPhone is better than a Windows Mobile
> device." The problem with this argument is that there are handheld
> devices that run full Windows, and thus full IE. Or Firefox. Or Opera.
You've just changed the category from cell phone to handheld PC. Did
you think that was reasonable or would go unnoticed?
There is no doubt that some people would rather have the handheld PC.
Why are you fighting against the iPhone just because it doesn't fit
what you want? Just don't buy one!

> The iPhone could have offered full Mac OS X. It could at least offered a
> Mac OS X Mobile that allowed third-party applications like Windows Mobile
> does. But it does neither. It has only what Apple wants you to have.
It does neither NOW. That only means that you might buy it if you do
not want more. It doesn't mean that the whole product is a failure for
everyone, or a failure as a product, or a bad idea.
I use my Palm device every day. It does a lot. But even though I can
easily add software to it, there is only one program that didn't come
with it that I use often. One. Everything else came with it.
My point is that for many people, the ones that came with it are going
to be the useful and needed ones. Nothing more may be wanted.

> My most important
> criterion is that a product justify its purpose for being in my toolkit,
> and not just look cool.
All right; so if you are stating that the iPhone is not a great answer
for your use, why do you instead generalize?

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Mitch wrote:
> >> To this, I can add that underwhelming 320x480 screen resolution. The
> >> screen on my Sony UX series handheld computer is not much larger (4.5"
> >> diagonal) in physical size, but has a respectable 1024x600 resolution.
> > That's a totally unreasonable comparison, because you haven't compared
> > two items of similar size.
>
> I was comparing screen size, not device size. The UX has a 1024x600
> resolution 4.5" diagonal screen. That is a LOT more pixels for not much
> more physical size.
NOT MUCH MORE PHYSICAL SIZE?

The smallest (current) UX is around 30 cubic inches.
The iPhone is around 5 cubic inches.
How are these not hugely different?

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> The term "mobile device" is generally used to refer to a certain class of
> handheld devices; by definition that excludes laptops.
Yet that was the device you decided iPhone didn't measure up to.

> The jury is still out whether full Windows mobile devices have a future in
> the market.
Well, yes, but because of Windows, not because people suspect mobile
devices aren't a future market. Windows makes everything risky.

> The iPhone faces a much narrower market.
No, it is going to be considered by all cell phone users. It faces
being chosen by a smaller market, but so does every specific device.

> On top of that, it
> is a closed platform (which has always been Apple's Achilles' heel).
It's an Achille's heel only in marketing. It has also been one of the
advantages to their buyers.

> Now, the UX is somewhat thick and heavy. It clearly needs to be replaced
> with a model that is thinner and lighter,
Oh, I see; you're another one of those people who assume tech
development is easy and can be presumed easy and cheap.
Hey, next month it's going to offer 60 GB in all flash memory and be
half the thickness, for $10 less. (It still won't compare to iPhone at
all, nor vice-versa.)

> But!! It has one huge advantage. Even if the UX product line dies, it is
> still useful.
Ummm... wouldn't it continue to be useful under ALL conditions?
Or are you one of those who usually figures their hardware has to be
the most current stuff or it's useless?

> Even if I no longer want to carry it any more, I can plug
> it its docking station, hide it away, and it's a perfectly good desktop.
> And it can always run Linux or BSD.
Hey, great. Sounds like you approve of laptops.
Obviously, it's not a replacement for a full-size laptop in most ways,
doesn't perform like them, and isn't even cheaper.
Why would someone choose this, again?

> You can't say that about the iPhone.
I can't say that the iPhone can become a laptop?
You got me there.

> If iTunes ever shuts down, the
> iPhone becomes a brick.
If iTunes does what? No, the iPhone would simply continue to do
everything. If iTunes had a problem on one machine, you'd use another
to sync or switch or help fix the problem. There is no situation where
the device becomes useless.

> Not only that, but iPhone has a limited life
> built in from inception. The batteries are non-standard and must be
> replaced by Apple; no more batteries, no more iPhone.
That's the situation today only. It may be much easier and less
expensive when that eventually happens; it also might be seen as a
small price to pay for continued use of a device that's done well for
the user.
Batteries, of course, are always custom. There are very few devices
that use standard batteries, and those typically run through them
quickly.

> The lack of 3G ultimately dooms iPhone.
No; first, 3G isn't going to last forever. It's not the end-all of
wireless. Second, iPhone is young yet; there's no reason to assume it's
never going to use anything but EDGE. Even Apple has said they will
improve the wireless networking.

> Put another way, my UX will be useful for years after all the iPhones
> become el cheapo collector's items on eBay like Newton.
You haven't given any reason that iPhone won't last as long as any
other device. Didn't you notice?
In any case, you are still comparing that mini-laptop thing to iPhone.
Try making these same statements about the cell phones that compare to
it -- does anyone have to think that these same four bands and codes
are the only ones to be used for the next six years? Won't those
batteries go dead sometime, too?

> > No; just open office standards. Blackberry and Microsoft live in a
> > closed space, trying to trick business into getting in with them. Apple
> > doesn't play that way, and suffers because of it.
>
> The problem with that argument is that Apple sucks in its implementation
> of open standards as well.
Wrong, and unjustified; sounds like someone who hasn't been using
anything from Apple. Are you aware that iPod, for instance, is
championed mainly as an MP3 player (while most competitors default to
WMA, of all things?) That Apple is a Charter member of many of the most
important standards groups?

> >> iPhone might have been interesting if it had a good mail client. Alas,
<snip>
> Perhaps that's because you don't work in Internet standards compliance and
> have deal with the fallout from Apple's ****ty implementations.
No, I don't. Give some examples? (Either behavior with servers or
compliance with what users need to be doing; both serve your point.)

> >> You can get a nice little GSM quad-band phone with a much less unpleasant
> >> service contract for considerably less than $100.
> > This coming from the guy who championed that small screens were nearly
> > useless? Are you kidding us? Did you even read what you wrote above?
>
> It's price/performance, lad. Price/performance.
Only within the same category, obviously.
The comparison has no validity if you are comparing a $30 regular phone
with no practical similarities to an iPhone.
So, using your screen size comparison for a moment: the Nokia N95 has
less res but runs almost US$800. (Neither are direct comparisons in
functions, but iPhone isn't directed like most smart phones.)

> The iPhone simply is not good value for the price, even with the latest
> discounts. As a phone, it is ridiculously expensive and limited compared
> to devices that cost less than $100.
You're discounting several things that iPhone does (some uniquely well)
in order to force this comparison with devices that are cheaper.
That's fine, of course, if you only want those features. Everyone is
fine if you choose those. But if you want a good screen, better music
and control and input, better images and video, etc, you would be
looking at anything outside that cheap market.

> As an Internet device, it is severely limited compared to other choices.
> For not much more money, you can get a phone and a laptop and have far
> greater capability.
Well, partly. But if you want some of those laptop functions in a cell
phone size, you haven't got much to choose from, maybe none cheaper.
Sure, if the user can use a laptop, buying a laptop might be a better
choice. Do you see why the category and size makes a difference in what
we are comparing, here? (and do you see that no one is trying to
convince people to buy iPhone if it doesn't do what they need?)

> The iPhone is a gizmo that does neither thing very well
Neither of which?
It does Web service very well under WiFi and less well under EDGE.
It does picture shows and video better than just about everything
(under objective terms of use).
It does music better than everything (subjective, but that seems to be
the consensus).
It is an excellent cell phone with a couple good and a couple uniquely
good features.
If you're talking about not having 3G, not being open to third-party
software, and not having a minimal-phone price, I think you lost before
you started. I know which features most buyers I know would care about.

> in a small
> relatively attractive package. It is an "in-between" product between two
> well-established markets. Such products rarely have long-term success.
Again, I think you are describing the UX you championed.
Now that is a product that fits that problem, and may not succeed at
either.

> >> -- Mark --
> > Wrong sig delimiter; please fix.
>
> How cute, another signature delimiter net.cop. Sorry, I will not change a
> practice of 30+ years in order to accomodate an unofficial convention.
Great. You're a sweet guy.
(The reason for the practice is good enough, and you offer no reason to
keep it. So you're being difficult just to be annoying.)
I mentioned it so you'd know to fix it. It helps to make you seem less
ignorant. Leave it if you want; I don't care. Wasn't being a "net.cop"