Replies

You thought that was an ad hominem attack? I guess your perspective is so different from my own, you don't even understand what things look like from mine. No, I wasn't attacking you. I was expressing pity. From my perspective, your claims/arguments totally flopped. Every thing you attempted to prove, I found evidence to the contrary. (And whining about Wikipedia impresses nobody.)

Referring to me as "a small insect" is certainly an ad hominem attack on me. There is no doubt. Expressing gratuitous pity when none is deserved or needed is intended to belittle me in the eyes of others reading this thread is also an ad hominem attack. You are very weak on debating techniques, aren't you? People who rely on Wikipedia for their facts do not know much about it. It is not considered an authority for any purpose in any college and is not accepted in any research papers and will get any student who uses it a down grade because Wikipedia changes from day to day, as non-experts edit it according to biases they hold. Sorry, that is just the way it is. You call it "whining" and that also is an ad hominem. You just cannot recognize it when you use it.

You then attack me with "facts not in evidence" claiming that I "make a lot of money off of Apple." That also is a scurrilous ad hominem attack, attributing pecuniary motives for my posting and my arguments with you on FR. I have numerous times rebutted that claim on FreeRepublic by others on here, and I think you have seen them.

Taking credit for the work of others and claiming it as your own.

Is something YOU have not shown or proved. . . and in fact is another "fact not in evidence." Apple has cited all previous patents and work that lead up to their patents, otherwise they would be invalidated. YOU simply do not understand how patents work, what they mean, how they are granted, or, apparently what they are. I stand on what I have told you because I DO understand patents, patent law, and the state of this particular patent, which you obviously do not have a clue about.

YOUR opinions are based on ignorance, lies, and myth.

You then attack me with "facts not in evidence" claiming that I "make a lot of money off of Apple."

I said I "Suspect you also make a lot of money off of Apple. " This may be a wrong impression, but it would certainly explain your behavior.

YOUR opinions are based on ignorance, lies, and myth.

So you are disputing the facts as Wikipedia has presented them? I will note at the bottom of each Wikipedia page, there is a list of citations for the information they put forth. Are you going to assert that all those are wrong too?

I think your quibble about Wikipedia is just a dodge for dealing with unpleasant facts. The Facts Wikipedia stated are true, and as the old Lawyer joke goes, when you can't pound the facts, you pound the table. :)

But if you insist on disputing the facts Wikipedia cites, pray tell which ones, and I will look up alternate sources for these facts in dispute. (Here's one for example.) I very much doubt I will find any in contradiction though.