First of all, I was incorrect as to what the exact wording of the phrase was. I have admitted as such already. I had heard the phrase and many variants use the word “hoisted” (as would be correct in moder English) and assumed that my usage was correct. While my sentence was grammatically correct, it was incorrect with regards to Shakespeare. I have already stated that I think Shakespeare is trash, so I did not reference the original text (nor would I ever care to). I am not “dancing” when I say this. I don’t care for Shakespeare and I don’t care what quotes are attributed to him. You don’t have to be unfamiliar with someone’s work to think they suck. Oliver Stone is overrated, yet I’ve seen most all of his films.
I referenced your use of the word “preeminent” in its hyphenated form because while correct, it’s outdated. I know your precious Mac includes a dictionary that is obviously the best dictionary ever created (I mean, there’s no way Apple would include just any dictionary - it has to be THE authoritative dictionary).
I am under no obligation to go back through my posts and illustrate those facts you have chosen to ignore. Why don’t you look at what you haven’t addressed yourself. It’s not my job to keep bringing them up.
As for market share, let me ask you a few questions. Did the market exist outside of the last year? If the answer to that is yes, then when did “the market” start? Given that computers are meant to be used and not simply placed on a mantle for decoration, how do sales from an older period, perhaps from 2002-2003, for devices still in operation not affect market share today? Wikipedia’s entry for “market share” says that “market share refers to the relative market adoption of various products, for example: ... operating systems.” This would mean that something is part of the market as long as it is being used.
I have to say, by the way, that you are easily one of the most obnoxious people I’ve had the misfortune of communicating with. You should try following the lead of the one respectful individual in this thread. If we had this discussion in person, it would’ve certainly ended poorly for you (as I’m sure has happened before). Then again, had we had this discussion in person, I am certain you wouldn’t be as much of a jackass as you think you can afford to be behind the anonymity of a computer.
I’ll ask you not to respond to me and to never do so again. This is meant to be a civil request. I’ll do the same.
It is not civil, not with that highly uncivil, insulting, ad hominem attack lead in you preceded your oh, so "civil" request with.
Sir. The obnoxious Jackass here has been you, from your first insulting, ad hominem laden, trolling post you made to me, to your final insulting, ad hominem attempt to extricate yourself. I am not obliged to abide by your dictates when YOU again insult me, and propose to walk away, claiming victory in your own mind.
If you comment again in a Mac thread, I will respond when you make comments that are obvious wrong. I will NOT leave obvious falsehoods such as your libelous untruthful claim that Apple was including handheld devices in the audited count of computers to achieve an over 10% US market share—a FRAUDULENT ACT that, if true, would have resulted in both civil suits and criminal charges being brought against Apple management—or your totally misunderstood and mistaken explanation of Market Share itself, stand for others to read. They will be corrected by me with the true facts and data, especially in a thread that I started.
I told you, early on, if you don't like a subject, don't comment. Others have told you that you were wrong... yet you persist. You have been presented with the facts which you proceed to ignore. I have used your OWN LINKS to show you they don't quite say what you say they say, or that they support what I said. You ignore it.
You continue to persist in insisting YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH THE TRUTH despite others telling you, you are wrong. You backtrack and try to revise already existing statements you made and try to make them into something else. Even when quoted back to you, you fail to admit you were wrong, and instead, like a petulant child, you come up with an excuse.
You are, like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass," one who claims words mean ONLY WHAT SHE SAYS THEY MEAN. That is not the real world, Flint. I told you my degree is in Economics... and words in economics have specific meanings. I use words in their classic meanings; not in some "loosey goosey," feel whatever I want it to mean at the moment, way. "Market Share" has a specific defined meaning, and it was being used in these articles, by these writers, IN THAT SPECIFIC MEANING. You are NOT permitted to change that meaning to your Red Queen meaning willy-nilly, so you can win. This thread is NOT on the other side of the looking glass!
You take an unknown-to-us, extreme minority position (vis-a-vis, the quality of Shakespeare's canon)—shared by no one but you—so that you can EX CATHEDRA proclaim something that gives your position and opinion authority over everyone else's opinion, and that somehow magically allows you free reign to criticize whatever you like, as you like. It does not! There ARE standards of critique. Your's does not meet that standard. It's just more Red Queen thinking!
Despite your nasty attitude toward me, I have attempted to be civil toward you all along. YOU sir, on the other hand, have been flinging insults and ad hominem attacks at me from the beginning. If you expect to be treated civilly, then act like an adult instead of like an adolescent brat throwing spitwads and tantrums. Now, you continue this by announcing you are taking your ball and going home, after throwing more insults and ad hominem attacks at me. . . and you have the bald audacity to make it MY FAULT! BAH!
YOU, sir, are a thread troll. You admitted it. You came into this thread to troll... to disrupt. You have succeeded. That puts you on the wrong side of Jim Robinson's edicts against this activity.
You are free to comment if you chose, or not. I suggest not.