I read and understood. You can't prove a negative, you wanted to add a precision that it's only non-existance.
No, it goes further than that, before you jumped in with the unimportant, boring and wrong tangent of provability.
Negative, non-existance, you were asking AidenShaw to provide evidence for a claim he did not make nor did he have the burden to prove, about the non-existance of something, or the negative to "Windows is full of BSODs!".
He asked for proof of a claim he did not make...
but immediately afterwards he claimed the counterclaim.
So yeah, if he asked for a proof, he can be asked for the counter-proof.
And if you paid attention, maybe you'd see
I began by asking him which kind of proof he would like. And that it was a serious question, because it
could have been interesting.
So maybe the question is why would you need to jump in the middle, uncalled, and sprout all kind of tangential non-issues, when it was a simple question - which still hasn't been answered, and looks like it won't.
I quite understood where you're coming from, you were just being aggressive towards Aiden and got called on it. In fact...
That's one of your patterns: seeing animosities in questions.
No, I still don't like your aggressive responses. You didn't "ask", you basically assumed I made stuff up and even went so far as to claim I wouldn't provide any sources.
And you still didn't. Or did I miss anything?
We were in agreement, what sources were you requesting ? Again, the story was about a patent acquisition which happened to come with a corporate entity...
There we spin again! Why do you spin it from the patents angle? Why not "a corporate entity acquisition which happened to come with patents"? (I know, you won't explain, because
you already didn't)
And about the "agreement", that's another of your patterns: acting as if someone is agreeing with you. I started my answer with
"Where did you get the idea that I agree with you?". What part of it you did you fail to understand?
That's why you are forcing me to get more and more emphatical. So let me try again:
Me agreeing with you? There has been no such occasion yet.
Opinions and speculation do not require sources. Only facts do.
And spin is just so much easier when there are no explanations, isn't it?
You really do seem to have some anger towards me and others. Might I suggest ignoring my post if they bring you so much grief ?
You may.
Why even read the forums and participate if all you're going to do is rage over the posts of others ?
Because, once uninteresting people is fended off, there are
gems to be found.
----------
...and the point that everyone with a shred of knowledge about corporate IT is trying to get across is that for Apple there's nowhere to go but up given their miniscule slice of the enterprise market.
RIM begs to differ. (you know, about minuscule slice and "nowhere to go but up")
