TinyTower and DreamHeights are very different than Theme Hotel and SimTower. Two of these "games" (aka psychological manipulators) are designed to get you to buy inapp purchases, the other two are actual games.
Oh, come on, that's a distinction without any teeth. I'd say the bigger difference is that the first two are one unit per level, while the latter two allow horizontal expansion. The fact that two have microtransactions and the other two don't is mostly irrelevant.
This is a clear cut instance of collusion.
They should be forced to continue to defend their patents or to release the patents to everyone on the same terms.
Patent groups, from this shit to MPEG to BluRay to whatever, destroy innovation more than any individual patents do.
Collusion isn't bad, in and of itself. Say you hire someone to paint your house - you're technically "colluding". The issue is when it becomes an anti-trust violation. And the DoJ has looked at patent pools and determined that they're not always automatically anti-trust violations. They certainly can be, but the mere fact that the participants are "colluding" doesn't make it any worse than any other contract. Instead, there has to be things like illegal patent extension or unfair licensing based on market share or some other feature.
Software patents are absurd and a form of double dipping since software is already protected by copyright they should indeed be scrapped.
First, since when is double-dipping an issue? A design can be protected by both trade dress and design patents. A copyrighted character can also be a trademark (see, e.g., Mr. M. Mouse). The two protections are not coextensive, so what's wrong with having both?
Second, why are you arguing for copyright - with a lifetime+90 year term - as opposed to patents - with a 20 year from filing term? Copyright tends to be much more abusive in that way.
And third, software isn't well protected by copyright. Copyright is useful when that specific article is the one you want: you want Picasso's Guernica, not Billy Bob's Smear of Paint on a Wall; you want "The Avengers" movie, not the Mockbuster "The Revengers"; you want to read about Harry Potter and his Half-assed Plot or whatever Rowling has cranked out, not Larry Kotter and the Temple of Doom. It's why the RIAA/MPAA love copyright so much. And it works for operating systems, since you do want Mac OS or Windows as opposed to Marc OS or Winbows. But it doesn't work very well for, say, TinyTower- er, DreamHeights- er, SimTower- er, Theme Hotel. Or, say, any one of these 78 games like Minecraft. Copyright doesn't protect against any rebuilding of the same game, provided different sprites and textures are used and the code is original, even if nearly identical. It doesn't prevent reverse engineering, and doesn't prevent the kind of copying Zynga specializes in.
I could also counter with the converse argument - consider I had an idea that could yield me a couple of thousand dollars a month but I can't due to a patent issue then....
You patent your improvement on the existing patent, and then cross-license with the other patent owner. Or you go ahead with your idea, and pay a couple hundred a month to the patent owner. Either way, net win for you.
On closer inspection the Australian patent that was granted is less absurd than it seems, as it was more of a quasi-patent:
Innovation patents last for a maximum of 8 years, whereas standard patents last for
maximum of 20 years
... which is why the article quote "I discovered today that the Australian patent office has — quietly — revoked the patent it granted, in the year 2001, for the wheel" is even more absurd. It expired in 2009. This was "revoked" in the same way that the moldy cheese in the back of your fridge with a best-by date in January has been "quietly revoked".
Oh, well, and since we all know that a name is always 100% accurate and tells us everything...
Did you actually read the thread, or just the headline and thought "oh, that must support my position?" Because I read it, and some of them make a very good point regarding the context of this particular situation.
So, you're endorsing the following?
Don't want your nudes to end up in public? Don't take nudes that you wouldn't want the public to see. Then you can be a true victim. The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
Is this one of those "very good points"? Because it sure as hell looks like blaming her for becoming a victim, something you claimed wasn't happening.
But quick, respond with a No True Slashdotter about how those are fringe elements and marginal and don't represent the views of a large portion of Slashdot.
It is the same crap people pull on rape victims all the time, finding some way to socially punish them for trying to bring consequences for their attacker's actions.
You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
GP poster wasn't "bandy[ing] about the term 'rape' for everything they disagree with" nor were they offering a "supposition that what [your] family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself." The comparison was not "rape" vs. "privacy intrusion on a revenge porn site"; rather, it was victim blaming, which occurs both to rape victims and here, to this woman. GP poster was entirely correct, and you were the one who tried to shut down the conversation by saying that GP can't talk about victim blaming because, if you only read every third word or something, it may somehow, in some straw-grabbing sense, "desensitize people". You're concern trolling.
Those modders are praising the wonderful graphics they get with the enabled settings, while admitting that they get stuttering and frame rates below 30 fps. Doesn't sound like Ubisoft "handicapped" the graphics to me, so much as fixed the performance issues.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
... if you never leave a small area, so that everything is full cached. Otherwise, you get significant stuttering. Look at any of the threads on the "mod" that enabled the settings - even as people praise it, they acknowledge that frame rates drop to 30 fps maximum with bursts of less than that vs. 60 fps without the "mod".
In short, this is a wheel that's already been invented. I don't see anything "novel" or even better than what we have had already.
Then, with all due respect, you don't know what the word "novel" means. Something is novel when it is new or different from what has been done before. This is a thimble that sits on the user's index finger, allowing them to make 3D gestures in space. That's certainly novel compared to the 3DConexion interface, which is a knob with 6 degrees of freedom. They're clearly different devices, and accordingly, this one is novel compared to the Space Navigator.
Now, maybe what you really meant was that this isn't an improvement on the 3DConexion stuff. That, although new and different, it doesn't provide any advantages over the Space Navigator. But there, you'd be wrong, too - the Navigator requires the user to use two separate pointing devices, as well as shifting between Navigator and keyboard. The thimble, however, allows the user to make those gestures, plus dragging across a surface (which the Navigator can't do), as well as allowing the user to return to the keyboard and type without removing the device. Maybe those aren't features you'd appreciate or prefer, but they're certainly different features that the Navigator simply can't do.
...at 36,000ft. That's why I never use mine... After about 7,000ft I get 0 bars. I'm not going to pay $18 to use WiFi for longer than an hour so I'll just use the time to drink and relax.
I've got a dozen games, about two hundred books, and a handful of tv shows and movies on my iPad. I use it every flight, and it's annoying being stuck reading the in-flight magazine during takeoff and landing.
You want to talk about preconceived bias? From you comment history, you claim to be a patent attorney. You're aggressive in defending patent trolls in general and this one in particular.
At no point did I defend patent trolls, and in fact, you even replied to my comment saying "Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking." That's not a defense of patent trolling - it's a defense of cooking.
It doesn't take a lot to connect the dots.
The dots being that you are so outraged over patents that if someone has anything to do with patents whatsoever, then everything they do must be the most evilest thing in the world. Have a patent? You must eat kittens. Work for the USPTO? Probably torture babies for fun on the weekends. Founded a patent troll company? Clearly, your grill must burn the souls of the damned instead of propane.
Pro-tip - learn to compartmentalize. People have many different aspects to their lives. Hating everything someone does because of one thing they do only makes you insane. It certainly doesn't help your credibility.
What's your point? Are you implying that in order to criticize someone for taking an undue portion of the credit for other people's work, that I have to do a amount of work comparable to what the person I'm criticizing is claiming in the exact same field?
You haven't shown that it's an "undue" portion, and you certainly can't speak from experience as to what's "due". How much of your anger is simply preconceived bias?
Because, IV and patent trolling aside, he's also the author of Modernist Cuisine and an award-winning BBQ chef. Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking.
And how the fuck am I supposed to evaluate his cooking if I have to worry about being sued for infringing his recipe by making dinner for guests?
What's a reasonable royalty for your dinner for your guests? Is it $0? What if he collected treble damages - why, that would be 3 times $0!
... I don't think you have anything to worry about.
*Co-author* of Modernist Cuisine, along with two other co-authors, 50 staff, 36 researchers and14 outside experts. He may have financed the project, but its not as if he wrote the bulk of the material himself.
Given that he raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature in sous-vide cooking, it's pretty clear he knows fuck all about cooking. Hey Nathan? Sous vide is done in a precision-controlled water bath, you numpty. Not an oven.
From the article:
Domestic ovens tend to swing in temperature and can be off by as much as 5 percent at any point during cooking. At 205 C—a temperature at which you might cook a turkey—that 5 percent isn’t a big deal. But consider a style of cooking known as sous vide, in which you cook food in bags in a water bath at low temperatures such as 60 C, near the threshold at which bacteria can survive. Here, 5 percent can be the difference between safe and unsafe.
He raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature to point out why ovens can't do the low and slow temps in sous vide cooking. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he knows significantly more than fuck all about cooking.
"With reasonable energy efficiency, electric broilers can heat quickly and reliably to temperatures as high as 2,200 C. Maximum settings are typically restricted to 1,200 C in order to extend the life of the heating element and avoid charring the food."
I think repeatedly confusing C and F should immediately disqualify someone as an oven engineer. Or an oven operator, for that matter.:-)
What about confusing the temperature of the food or the air in the oven and the temperature of the heating element?
Electric broilers use bars or rods made from Nichrome, an alloy of nickel and chromium (and often iron) that heats up when electricity passes through it. With reasonable energy efficiency, electric broilers can heat quickly and reliably to temperatures as high as 2,200 C. Maximum settings are typically restricted to 1,200 C in order to extend the life of the heating element and avoid charring the food.
The nichrome bars heat up to 1200C. They heat up the air and also radiate in the infrared to cook the food.
I have no idea why so many people reading this article got confused about that point and think the guy's trying to cook food to 1200C.
Why the fsck should we listen to anything this dishonest vulture says or wants?
Because, IV and patent trolling aside, he's also the author of Modernist Cuisine and an award-winning BBQ chef. Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking.
at 400 C, radiant energy starts doing a fair amount of the heat transfer. At 800 C, radiation overwhelms convection.
800 degrees C??? That's 1470 degrees F! Who has an oven that goes that high? That will turn just about anything into charcoal in under a minute.
Even 400 C-- 750 degrees F-- is quite a bit hotter than most ovens.
Commercial ovens, and specifically commercial salamander ovens. And what the summary failed to explain is that the heating elements get up to that temperature, not the air - hence, infrared radiation cooks the food, rather than convection through the air.
They're useful for anytime you want a quick and hard sear, including steaks, creme brulee, flash broiling fish, etc.
You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.
1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding?
Almost no one has. First, under the pre-AIA rules, they were called interferences; derivations have only existed for a year. Second, there were 20 interferences per year, on average. Out of half a million patent applications. They're horribly expensive, and have little point. The fact that you reference that statute really indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.
Yes, and then you can't sell it in the meantime, nor can anyone else. Congratulations, the "40 year monopoly" you were ranting about just disappeared, since there's no mono.
And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.
As an aside, I think I figured out why you never use the "quote parent" button. It's because you absolutely refuse to answer questions or admit when you're wrong. Accordingly, you're just wasting my time.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? What are you smoking? They're 100% gaurunteed to hit something as what goes up must come down.
"That's not my department." - W. von Braun
TinyTower and DreamHeights are very different than Theme Hotel and SimTower. Two of these "games" (aka psychological manipulators) are designed to get you to buy inapp purchases, the other two are actual games.
Oh, come on, that's a distinction without any teeth. I'd say the bigger difference is that the first two are one unit per level, while the latter two allow horizontal expansion. The fact that two have microtransactions and the other two don't is mostly irrelevant.
This is a clear cut instance of collusion. They should be forced to continue to defend their patents or to release the patents to everyone on the same terms. Patent groups, from this shit to MPEG to BluRay to whatever, destroy innovation more than any individual patents do.
Collusion isn't bad, in and of itself. Say you hire someone to paint your house - you're technically "colluding". The issue is when it becomes an anti-trust violation. And the DoJ has looked at patent pools and determined that they're not always automatically anti-trust violations. They certainly can be, but the mere fact that the participants are "colluding" doesn't make it any worse than any other contract. Instead, there has to be things like illegal patent extension or unfair licensing based on market share or some other feature.
Software patents are absurd and a form of double dipping since software is already protected by copyright they should indeed be scrapped.
First, since when is double-dipping an issue? A design can be protected by both trade dress and design patents. A copyrighted character can also be a trademark (see, e.g., Mr. M. Mouse). The two protections are not coextensive, so what's wrong with having both?
Second, why are you arguing for copyright - with a lifetime+90 year term - as opposed to patents - with a 20 year from filing term? Copyright tends to be much more abusive in that way.
And third, software isn't well protected by copyright. Copyright is useful when that specific article is the one you want: you want Picasso's Guernica, not Billy Bob's Smear of Paint on a Wall; you want "The Avengers" movie, not the Mockbuster "The Revengers"; you want to read about Harry Potter and his Half-assed Plot or whatever Rowling has cranked out, not Larry Kotter and the Temple of Doom. It's why the RIAA/MPAA love copyright so much. And it works for operating systems, since you do want Mac OS or Windows as opposed to Marc OS or Winbows.
But it doesn't work very well for, say, TinyTower- er, DreamHeights- er, SimTower- er, Theme Hotel. Or, say, any one of these 78 games like Minecraft. Copyright doesn't protect against any rebuilding of the same game, provided different sprites and textures are used and the code is original, even if nearly identical. It doesn't prevent reverse engineering, and doesn't prevent the kind of copying Zynga specializes in.
I could also counter with the converse argument - consider I had an idea that could yield me a couple of thousand dollars a month but I can't due to a patent issue then ....
You patent your improvement on the existing patent, and then cross-license with the other patent owner. Or you go ahead with your idea, and pay a couple hundred a month to the patent owner. Either way, net win for you.
... benefit via first-to-market and the marketing power of their reputation.
Tell that to Nimblebit and everyone else Zynga has run over while being second-to-market.
On closer inspection the Australian patent that was granted is less absurd than it seems, as it was more of a quasi-patent:
Innovation patents last for a maximum of 8 years, whereas standard patents last for maximum of 20 years
... which is why the article quote "I discovered today that the Australian patent office has — quietly — revoked the patent it granted, in the year 2001, for the wheel" is even more absurd. It expired in 2009. This was "revoked" in the same way that the moldy cheese in the back of your fridge with a best-by date in January has been "quietly revoked".
As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim.
There's an entire thread titled "Why yes, we should blame the victim here", with the root post rated +5 Insightful. Yeah, people are blaming her.
Oh, well, and since we all know that a name is always 100% accurate and tells us everything...
Did you actually read the thread, or just the headline and thought "oh, that must support my position?" Because I read it, and some of them make a very good point regarding the context of this particular situation.
So, you're endorsing the following?
Don't want your nudes to end up in public? Don't take nudes that you wouldn't want the public to see. Then you can be a true victim. The whole concept of "revenge porn," insofar as it applies to nudes and porn freely made and disseminated, is ever so much "I want my freedom.... but I don't want my choices to have consequences of which I don't approve."
We have a term for that behavior. It's called behaving like a child.
Is this one of those "very good points"? Because it sure as hell looks like blaming her for becoming a victim, something you claimed wasn't happening.
As I and other have already pointed out, we are not blaming her for becoming a victim.
There's an entire thread titled "Why yes, we should blame the victim here", with the root post rated +5 Insightful. Yeah, people are blaming her.
But quick, respond with a No True Slashdotter about how those are fringe elements and marginal and don't represent the views of a large portion of Slashdot.
It is the same crap people pull on rape victims all the time, finding some way to socially punish them for trying to bring consequences for their attacker's actions.
You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
GP poster wasn't "bandy[ing] about the term 'rape' for everything they disagree with" nor were they offering a "supposition that what [your] family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself." The comparison was not "rape" vs. "privacy intrusion on a revenge porn site"; rather, it was victim blaming, which occurs both to rape victims and here, to this woman. GP poster was entirely correct, and you were the one who tried to shut down the conversation by saying that GP can't talk about victim blaming because, if you only read every third word or something, it may somehow, in some straw-grabbing sense, "desensitize people". You're concern trolling.
Going by what modders are pulling out of the game it does appear that it is true.
Those modders are praising the wonderful graphics they get with the enabled settings, while admitting that they get stuttering and frame rates below 30 fps. Doesn't sound like Ubisoft "handicapped" the graphics to me, so much as fixed the performance issues.
I'm just saying. Everything we know points to it being deliberately handicapped. The game actually runs better when you enable the settings that made it look gorgeous at E3. It runs better with better graphical fidelity.
... if you never leave a small area, so that everything is full cached. Otherwise, you get significant stuttering. Look at any of the threads on the "mod" that enabled the settings - even as people praise it, they acknowledge that frame rates drop to 30 fps maximum with bursts of less than that vs. 60 fps without the "mod".
This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the PC version's graphics were deliberately handicapped.
Were the allegations true?
Well, no... But...
... uh...
This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the name Watch Dogs infringes on numerous trademarks by Swatch!
... are those allegations true?
Again, no... But...
... uh...
This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that Ubisoft's developers are child molesters!
... are any of those allegations true?
Well...
... um...
This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent shut up!
Hey, Slashdot? How about reporting News for Nerds, not Unsubstantiated Opinions for Nerds? We already have Fox News for that.
In short, this is a wheel that's already been invented. I don't see anything "novel" or even better than what we have had already.
Then, with all due respect, you don't know what the word "novel" means. Something is novel when it is new or different from what has been done before. This is a thimble that sits on the user's index finger, allowing them to make 3D gestures in space. That's certainly novel compared to the 3DConexion interface, which is a knob with 6 degrees of freedom. They're clearly different devices, and accordingly, this one is novel compared to the Space Navigator.
Now, maybe what you really meant was that this isn't an improvement on the 3DConexion stuff. That, although new and different, it doesn't provide any advantages over the Space Navigator. But there, you'd be wrong, too - the Navigator requires the user to use two separate pointing devices, as well as shifting between Navigator and keyboard. The thimble, however, allows the user to make those gestures, plus dragging across a surface (which the Navigator can't do), as well as allowing the user to return to the keyboard and type without removing the device. Maybe those aren't features you'd appreciate or prefer, but they're certainly different features that the Navigator simply can't do.
...at 36,000ft. That's why I never use mine... After about 7,000ft I get 0 bars. I'm not going to pay $18 to use WiFi for longer than an hour so I'll just use the time to drink and relax.
I've got a dozen games, about two hundred books, and a handful of tv shows and movies on my iPad. I use it every flight, and it's annoying being stuck reading the in-flight magazine during takeoff and landing.
You want to talk about preconceived bias? From you comment history, you claim to be a patent attorney. You're aggressive in defending patent trolls in general and this one in particular.
At no point did I defend patent trolls, and in fact, you even replied to my comment saying "Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking." That's not a defense of patent trolling - it's a defense of cooking.
It doesn't take a lot to connect the dots.
The dots being that you are so outraged over patents that if someone has anything to do with patents whatsoever, then everything they do must be the most evilest thing in the world. Have a patent? You must eat kittens. Work for the USPTO? Probably torture babies for fun on the weekends. Founded a patent troll company? Clearly, your grill must burn the souls of the damned instead of propane.
Pro-tip - learn to compartmentalize. People have many different aspects to their lives. Hating everything someone does because of one thing they do only makes you insane. It certainly doesn't help your credibility.
What's your point? Are you implying that in order to criticize someone for taking an undue portion of the credit for other people's work, that I have to do a amount of work comparable to what the person I'm criticizing is claiming in the exact same field?
You haven't shown that it's an "undue" portion, and you certainly can't speak from experience as to what's "due". How much of your anger is simply preconceived bias?
And how the fuck am I supposed to evaluate his cooking if I have to worry about being sued for infringing his recipe by making dinner for guests?
What's a reasonable royalty for your dinner for your guests? Is it $0? What if he collected treble damages - why, that would be 3 times $0!
*Co-author* of Modernist Cuisine, along with two other co-authors, 50 staff, 36 researchers and14 outside experts. He may have financed the project, but its not as if he wrote the bulk of the material himself.
I see... And which cookbook did you co-author?
[crickets]
Given that he raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature in sous-vide cooking, it's pretty clear he knows fuck all about cooking. Hey Nathan? Sous vide is done in a precision-controlled water bath, you numpty. Not an oven.
From the article:
Domestic ovens tend to swing in temperature and can be off by as much as 5 percent at any point during cooking. At 205 C—a temperature at which you might cook a turkey—that 5 percent isn’t a big deal. But consider a style of cooking known as sous vide, in which you cook food in bags in a water bath at low temperatures such as 60 C, near the threshold at which bacteria can survive. Here, 5 percent can be the difference between safe and unsafe.
He raises the spectre of salmonella from uneven temperature to point out why ovens can't do the low and slow temps in sous vide cooking. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he knows significantly more than fuck all about cooking.
I think repeatedly confusing C and F should immediately disqualify someone as an oven engineer. Or an oven operator, for that matter. :-)
What about confusing the temperature of the food or the air in the oven and the temperature of the heating element?
Electric broilers use bars or rods made from Nichrome, an alloy of nickel and chromium (and often iron) that heats up when electricity passes through it. With reasonable energy efficiency, electric broilers can heat quickly and reliably to temperatures as high as 2,200 C. Maximum settings are typically restricted to 1,200 C in order to extend the life of the heating element and avoid charring the food.
The nichrome bars heat up to 1200C. They heat up the air and also radiate in the infrared to cook the food.
I have no idea why so many people reading this article got confused about that point and think the guy's trying to cook food to 1200C.
Why the fsck should we listen to anything this dishonest vulture says or wants?
Because, IV and patent trolling aside, he's also the author of Modernist Cuisine and an award-winning BBQ chef. Hate him for his IP policies if you want, but that doesn't mean you have to hate his cooking.
at 400 C, radiant energy starts doing a fair amount of the heat transfer. At 800 C, radiation overwhelms convection.
800 degrees C??? That's 1470 degrees F! Who has an oven that goes that high? That will turn just about anything into charcoal in under a minute.
Even 400 C-- 750 degrees F-- is quite a bit hotter than most ovens.
Commercial ovens, and specifically commercial salamander ovens. And what the summary failed to explain is that the heating elements get up to that temperature, not the air - hence, infrared radiation cooks the food, rather than convection through the air.
They're useful for anytime you want a quick and hard sear, including steaks, creme brulee, flash broiling fish, etc.
You said that USC 135 cannot be used to delay a patent in a manner that counts toward it being extended.
1. Have you ever filed a petition to institute a derivation proceeding?
Almost no one has. First, under the pre-AIA rules, they were called interferences; derivations have only existed for a year. Second, there were 20 interferences per year, on average. Out of half a million patent applications. They're horribly expensive, and have little point. The fact that you reference that statute really indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.
As for 35 USC 156, do I need to handhold you through the million ways they can make a product subject to regulatory review? One way is to say is that it's going to be in a medical device or a medical device is going to use it.
Yes, and then you can't sell it in the meantime, nor can anyone else. Congratulations, the "40 year monopoly" you were ranting about just disappeared, since there's no mono.
And again, I should point out that (i) you failed to use the 'quote parent' button or otherwise quote me; (ii) failed to answer any questions from me to you; and (iii) changed the topic yet again, once I pointed out you were wrong. This is just pathetic.
As an aside, I think I figured out why you never use the "quote parent" button. It's because you absolutely refuse to answer questions or admit when you're wrong. Accordingly, you're just wasting my time.