iPod nano owners sue Apple over screen issues - Page 4

How is it that someone has yet to produce a photograph of a genuine Nano with a scratched up screen caused by subjecting it to normal iPod transportation?

And what? If there's such a wide range of Lexan characteristics, then why did you simply write something along the lines of "Apple should use Lexan"? Are all grades of Lexan so superior to everything from the Far East? You throw out generic terms like stainless, aluminum, titanium, never bothering to mention that each of those groups of materials do indeed share characteristics. e.g. various alloys of aluminum will indeed have differing strength, but they will all have essentially the same elastic modulus. Also, they will all have similar abrasion resistance, in the absence of surface treatments like hard anodizing. Ditto for titanium. 6-4 alloy would be just as susceptible to scratching as the CP titanium that Apple used on the PB Titanium and no more rigid, despite being much stronger.

I'm always suspicious whenever somebody tosses out a vague sentence like "I do have a LITTLE experience with" such and such. It's very often BS. Sometimes literally true, as in a LITTLE experience.


I suppose by your argument, nanos should have a 1/16" hardcoat to deal with keys and coins? Polycarbonates are soft and easy to scratch. Any plastics engineer will tell you that. The only way to add abrasion resistance is with a hardcoat. And to answer your question, if the hardcoat is harder than the particles, then it won't matter what the size of the particle is.

Ah, I think I WILL jump all over you on this one, you fell into my trap!

Although specific modulus is a primary characteristic of any material, it's the specific strength (within each class of material) that makes ALL the difference in the world. Specific strength can vary by an order of magnitude (or more), specific modulus can vary somewhat (more so for elastomers (say 200%), less for plastics (say 20%), and even less for metals (say 10%)). It is the strength (specifically yield or allowable) of any material that determines properties such as axial, shear (i. e. puncture AND wear resistance), and torsional properties. Specific modulus only relates to elongation (i. e. stiffness of a material to deflect under load (the "stress-strain" curve (Ever seen one? Do you know the difference between an engineering stress-strain curve and the true stress-strain curve? Do you know the reality of stress-strain curves (rarely truly linear, thus it's VERY misleading (in general) to assign a single value for E (usually defined as the tangent modulus (slope of the stress-strain curve at zero load), in general the secant moduli should be used for the design envelope))))). Metals/plastics are usually characterized with a single value of E, due to the fact that the stress-srain curve is approximately linear within its working range, elastomers however are a different beast altogether (basically how they are confined and their aspect ratio determines the initial modulus, but the modulus also changes substantially with % breaking load). Take a rubber band for example, stretch it, it does get stiffer as you stretch it (in engineering stress-strain terms), now doesn't it? Also, there are different moduli depending on how the load is applied (Bulk modulus (K), shear (G) modulus, tensile (E, i. e. Young's) modulus, and Poisson's (v) ratio define an isotropic material (although you only need 3 of these to determine the 4th), few (if any) materials are TRULY isotropic). Maybe you know this already? Although, by what you have already said thus far, this does not seem to be the case?

I do have a LITTLE experience (33 years in fact, as a physical and numerical modeller, structural engineer, hydraulic engineer, coastal engineer, and naval architect). As an undergrad I was best-of-class in structural and hydraulic engineering, subjects I have pursued vigerously to this very day, and I will continue to do so until I'm dead (notwithstanding you). Everything I have ever designed has worked properly (or in the case of timber/congrete/steel structures is still standing AND functional). I have dealt with all manner of metals/plastics/elastomers in performing my job responsibilities in that time (whether model or prototype or finished product). I have worked for the leading US government civil engineering laboratory. I currently work (as a contractor) for this same laboratory (ERDC) on a military project which will use high strength aluminum, elastomers, and high strength synthetic fibers (Vectran, Kevlar, Twaron, Technora, Spectra, Dyneema, M5, Zylon to name drop, I can't tell you which one of these (or possibly several) we WILL use on this project (although I've already selected the candidate fiber (and/or fibers) after a rigerous testing, analysis, and ranking procedure specific to our design criteria)). We've already used Kevlar 100 on two scale models of our "structure." So you could say I am the plastics engineer on this project, no formal training, but then again I'm self taught in naval architecture, it's no biggie really, it's all engineering afterall, now isn't it? Another hat to wear, I kind of like being a master of all trades. And really, I do know a lot about high strength synthetic fibers, go ahead ask me anything, if anyone can answer it, I believe I can. So I do think I know what I'm talking about, just as certain that I know that you don't know what you're talking about. Ever drive down a concrete highway? Notice the rutting of the road surface, what do you think causes this? RUBBER wheels on the CONCRETE surface perhaps? Which one is HARDER? I'll give you ZERO guesses, seeing as you don't know what you're talking about! True, each surface has a different wear rate but they BOTH wear, how can two materials abrade one another and each not wear, if one wears then both must wear (albeit at DIFFERENT rates).

You do know what anodizing does to the metal, it hardens it, i. e. the STRENGTH (not the modulus) of the surface layer is improved (in addition to corrosion resistance and dying potential due to hexagonal nature of the surface molecules (ah, you gotta like wikipedia (for general info))). In regard to coated polycarbonate, just how thick do you think these layers are? My guess is a few mils. Not a whole lot of protection considering the potential duty cycle, now is it? So there you have it, the underlying plastic will determine the long term durability/usability of the product, given the likely environment the nano will see.

I don't know where this is going, for you really can't win this one, you can try, but you're really starting to BORE me!

Class dismissed!

Rutting is the single most dangerous problem with today's roads.

ah, god bless appleinsider. i come for the bitching, i stay for the super-l33t-materials-engineering-smackdown

You don't sound like a professional engineer to me. More like an engineering student. Always happy to throw around the lingo and trade names in order to impress. Also jumping to conclusions like assuming Apple's contractor used a low-grade polycarbonate and instantly "knowing" that any Lexan would perform better, all without knowing the comparative properties of either plastic. And I have yet to meet any real engineer who would honestly say everything he ever designed worked perfectly, mostly because corporate and government engineering is always done by teams and everybody can't be perfect, even if one engineer claims he is.

I'm not sure I would trust an "engineer" who has to rely on Wikipedia to get details on anodizing. Especially since I was referring to hard anodizing, which can't be dyed.

All I know is all i do with my Nano is sleep with it and it's gotten scrached from just sitting in my bed. I'd take a pic if I had my camera with me here at school. I just got a new video iPod but I'm not even gonna take it out of the box until I'm ready to use it full time because I'm worried it's gonna scracth as easily as the Nano.

Actually, I'm a PE, have been for a very long time. Do I sound like a student? Why thank you, I'll take that as a complement, even though I'm sure you didn't mean it as such. Now, why do you think I sound like a student? Maybe because I work for the USACOE Engineering Research and Development Center down here in MISSISSIPPI! Now imagine that! Bunch of crackers in the southland doing 'ngineering. Our job requires that we maintain state-of-the-art knowledge in our fields(s), we write all types of highly technical reports, requiring detailed descriptions of the theories, testing, analyses, results, conclusions, and discussions. I for one have an insatiable thirst for knowledge (ask anyone down here), it is abundantly clear that you lack such knowledge, thus my classroom discussion. You're probably familiar with your standard BS (figuratively AND literally) engineer who virtually stops learning once they are in the workforce. YOU doubted (and undoubtedly will forever more (ask me if I care)) my experience/knowledge. Trust me, no one down here even tries to keep up with me, for I am an engineering Nazi!

You need to reread my previous posts, in regard to standard practice in regards to ASTM/ISO test methods, WRT wearability of plastics, like I said THIS WILL determine IF the nano has "inferior plastics." If you reread my posts, you'll see that I used the word IF in all statments regarding "inferior plastics." Sorry but the asians are NOT world class WRT polymers (excluding the Japanese), do I have to give you a litany of the US and European manufacturers who are? Can they produce excellent plastics? Undoubtably. Did they? TBD. Thus ASTM/ISO wear tests WILL happen if this goes to trial, I'll bet every last red cent on that one, thank you! Case closed!

YOU used the word PERFECT not I, please show me where I ever used that word. Actually most (civil) engineers can point to their body of work and say, "Look it didn't fall down." now can't they? Although I strive to be a perfectionist WRT engineering (you would NOT be the first person to say so), I constantly make mistakes (yes, even in engineering), don't we all? Given that most civil engineering designs have rather large factors of safety, its not too difficult to get by with an adequate design.

WRT, wikipedia, I was fairly certain that anodizing increased the hardness of the surface, I just used it as a reference, since my brain is a marble jar, it's full, so when one marble goes in another one pops out, thus the WWW is my savior, why remember things when their at your fingertips.

Trust me, I won't "engineer" anything for you, I'll leave my work with "real" engineers!

BTW, if you persist in your "ad hominem" attack (no meat to your responses, just 3 text flames), I just might die, seeing as you will have BORED me to DEATH!

When aesthetics are as big a part of Apple's products as they are, then people have a right to expect the aesthetics to hold up with normal use. This reminds me of the mold cracks in the G4 Cube. The Cube was as much a art deco piece for the upwardly mobile techno-yuppie as it was a computer. It clearly had a problem with cracks in its otherwise ice clean shell. People who bought it for its beauty were rightfully upset that Apple turned a deaf ear to their complaints. Apple cannot sell the beauty and then tell people to get over the ugliness caused by normal use of the product. Those of you who bought the iPod simply to play music and only care about its utility probably overpaid. There plenty of devices that could do that. You probably should have bought something else. Most people buy Apple products, and the iPod is no exception, because they add style, elegant design, and beauty to efficient utility. Apple tells people they can put this beautiful tiny status symbol in their pocket. Now if doing so cancels out half the reason you bought the thing in the first place, then that is a problem with the product, not the purchaser. Apple either has to quit telling people to put it in their pocket, make it durable enough to put it in the pocket without destroying the aesthetic, or make it clear that a case is necessary because the product's finish is fragile even with normal use.

What do you know, someone suing Apple, not Apple suing someone for once.

Change is as good as a holiday.

heh... btw mate, how come the aussies haven't sued apple yet for lack of iTMS AU ??

i would have to agree with that sentence, specifically with regard to the iBook G4.

If anything positive can come from all of this, I'd like to think Apple will investigate, and subsequently use, far more durable materials for future iPods. While this thread specifically sites the Nano, Apple stated that it's made using the same material as the other iPods. It's one thing to have scratches over the screen when I'm looking at the song title and, on occasion, album art. It's entirely another if they expect us to watch video on a scratched screen with a larger iPod made of the same materials. When we watch television we don't see scratches on our TV's, when we go to the movies, we don't see scratches on the screens, we shouldn't have to tolerate them on our iPods either.

I also dislike hearing people say that if I want a scratch-free screen I need to "baby" it or immediately toss it in a case upon purchase. iPods have a certain estetic appeal that I've enjoyed since the first ones were released. They are thicker in cases and no longer have the Apple look when in cases. While there are some durable plastic wraps that protect the iPod, it's visually as obvious that the iPod is wrapped in a plastic cover as your car would be if someone Saran Wrapped your car.

Build them tough to begin with and no one would have a problem with it. No one can tell me that advanced materials do not exist that would provide significant durability and yet be able to be molded and formed by Apple into beautiful iPods. If iPods are the first step of the "Halo Effect", then they need to be the most resilient and best built. I'd happily pay $20 more for an iPod that can handle what I can throw at it rather than having to baby it because they chose to make it out of easily scratchable plastics.

Asking for a portion of the profits is simply wrong, though I'd expect nothing less from a lawyer.

becuase we dont want the company to crash, forcing us to use the nineMSN music store. This way there is still hope.

ohhh... heh.. nineMSN is the tool of the devil! along with telstra

You have struck notes of truth here.

Yay ... now my $0.02 worth...

First off, who hasn't had an iPod and pissed at how easily fingerprints will show up on the metal backing? Maybe I should sue because it takes away from the beauty of the product by showing my dirty fingerprints. Also, the 4G iPod DOES NOT have a recessed screen ... it's flush with the rest if the plastic, poly ... whatever the hell the mystery material is, so yes, it is prone to the elements. It is sad Apple can't win this by saying, "just use common sense when you use the product." The common sense argument fails miserable in court. You have to assume your consumer is absolutely stupid ... I'm sure you'll see warning on the iPod boxes after this. "iPods are not suited for polishing with sandpaper, for use as skis or microwavable."

I was in an Apple store this weekend checking out the new iPod with Video and seeing how small the nano really was ... had not seen the article till I was back at home. None of the display models seemed to be in bad shape, but it appears that the poly coating is clear and underneath there is a white or black plastic card, which explains why the scratches are far more prevalent on a black nano, than the white one. I've had my 4G since the summer and it's got some battle scars, but man, not being able to read the thing. I just don't buy it, sorry guys ... you have to be doing something more than wiping it off with your shirt.

Probably because of the nature of the scratches.

I own a Nano I bought the week after they were announced. I heard the initial comments about possible scratching from some of the initial buyers.


I got mine, set it up, put it in my pocket to go to work, and when I took it out of my pocket at work, it WAS scratched! Pocket = soft cotten, face of the Nano to the rear, against the soft cotton - no keys, scrap metal, mud or dirty clothes touching it.

Is it still readable? If I hold it at the right angle, I can. In bright sunlight, certain angles reflect enough light that it IS unreadable. It's annoying to buy a $250 item that's esthetically pleasing that isn't manufactured well enough to stand up to normal wear and tear.

My daughter bought one the next week - hers still looks good - and she is harder on her stuff than I am.

So what happened?

I don't know how this stuff is manufactured. Is there a heating phase that is supposed to temper this plastic to make it more durable? Can it be that some subset of Nanos manufactured didn't get properly "finished" in this way to prevent scratches? It could be that there is some manufacturing flaw of this sort at fault here.

Apple has a history of releasing products that, largely, work fine, even elegantly, but often have a small number that 'misfire' some way - like the Nano screens that actually cracked. That turned out to be something at fault with the screens coming from the supplier. Apple fixed it, but it took a couple of weeks of very negative press to make them admit to the problem and offer a fix.

This may turn out the same. Remember the iPod batteries of the (I think) 2nd or 3rd gen iPods? It took a lawsuit to get THAT remedy from them.

I know some people have gotten Nanos replaced just by griping to Apple about it. Obviously, some have not and decided to sue. Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own couterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)

Frankly, I'm glad they sued - if they are successful in forcing Apple to provide a reliable fix to this issue, maybe I can get mine replaced, too. (But, I really don't expect to get any of their profits - THAT is just the prod to get them negotiating in better faith!)

As far as Apple replacing some nanos and not others is how they were treated. If the moron in the suit wipes his off with a wood fiber product, it's not Apple's problem. He took something hard and fiberous to an LCD. Someone brought up glasses earlier ... the first thing they tell you when you buy glasses is NOT to clean them with paper towels or any other wood based product. You wouldn't buy a brand new digital camera and take the Bounty to the lens right off the bat, would you?

Poor cleaning methods fall under the realm of consumer neglect and SHOULD release Apple from any liability. It's like saying, I like to wear my nano in the shower, but now it doesn't play. The case looks water-tight but I still screwed it up. Damn you Apple, gimme another one of the defective product and the profits you will make selling the defective product. If it smells like a gold-digging rat ... probably is. Some people say they haven't done anything of the sort ... just placed the nano in coat pockets or empty pockets. Those people I would say have a legitimate complaint, and I wonder if those are the people Apple is letting return nanos.

There are several explnations for the huge variation you see in the complaints though, and I would certainly chalk them up to changes in the manufacturing process. A material is a material is a material unless you do something to alter its chemical arrangement. Polycarbonate is a strong, resiliant material, but not difficult to scratch, ESPECIALLY if the people in manufacturing didn't allow it to cure properly after molding it.

I think Apple will probably win the suit, but I do see iPod socks (like are included with the Video iPod) and LCD cleaning cloths (like are included with Cinema LCDs and iMacs) coming standard in the box.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AgNuke1707
[B]Yay ... now my $0.02 worth...

First off, who hasn't had an iPod and pissed at how easily fingerprints will show up on the metal backing? Maybe I should sue because it takes away from the beauty of the product by showing my dirty fingerprints.

Oh yes! Let's play the Deep Pockets Boardgame from Hasbro!

Plenty of lawsuits against Apple (not all are class action suits, and few, if any, are frivolously asking for a share of the profits)...

AgNuke, you are "hitting the note" for me this morning.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by someonelse
[B]
Haha ... I was being sarcastic someonelse ... I'm as mad as the next guy. I seriously have a problem every time Apple releases a new product, people find the need to sue over it...

Unlike the majority of the discussion group members here at AI I will refrain from attacking Anders, but instead clarify what I think he means. A prefix is used to indicate decimal fractions or multiples of various units. Nano- (n) is such a prefix whose meaning is 10^(-9). Unfortunately when when talk about human embryos, they're somewhere on the size of 10^(-3) m; that's a milli- (m) prefix. Even the size of a sperm cell, approximately 30 times smaller than a mature egg, is measured in micro- (lowercase greek letter Mu) meters. Still, that's nowhere near the minuscule size of a nanometer.

It would probably be best to say that Apple, with the nano, is unleashing biological warfare. That way, we're talking about something actually measured in nanometers-viruses. Then again people have accepted the prefix nano to be synonymous with small, but larger than an actual nanometer, object. So with that said, I get his point and laugh--but it's actually very misleading.

I think that's over thinking it, I think the point was that it's an absurd claim that should be proven before it is circulated, just like the claim that the device's screen becomes unreadable by wiping it with a towel or puting it in a pocket repeatedly.

Now, I don't contest that the nano is easy to scratch, but as yet, no one has shown one with plastic so scuffed that it obscures any part of the screen.

I think another thing the lawsuit needs to show is that Apple is unwilling to replace the device, and so far, no one has claimed that, so far the stories are that Apple is willing to replace them.

The Nano scratches way way too fast. I beat the crap out of my phone and it stays fairly scratch free. My Nano is practically swaddled like the baby Jesus yet it's face looks like a suez chef has prepped veggies on it! WTF? Indeed! Great product but really crappy execution on design.

A suez chef?

I know, you meant a "sous" chef... now how do you feel about the class action suit? The wheels of justice grind slowly... and we still don't know how the company is going to respond to all these complaints. Remember how they showed they cared about the old "battery problem"?

<edit: bringing race into the equation make the Baby... oh crap, here we go again.>

I got a kick out of reading your posts here. You gunned your thoughts right out. For those people who bought the Ipod Nano and it got scratched up from normal careful use, there is a valid complaint, like hmurchison and mac voyer were talking. But that first guy, who wanted to get a portion of the profits, it is like that one other poster said, "why not sue for a pony?"

What I think should happen is for those folks who got one and it became scratched so that it was hard to read from normal use, replace the screen. Like you say, fingerprints show up in normal use.

I was hoping someone would get the "Suez" chef joke!

<Edit: I live to politically correctify specific lines of posts>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GreggWSmith
<Edit: Sorry, it's a fire sale, it all must go!>

This is simple. Since the complaint seems to be that these scratch MUCH MORE easily than earlier products, do this. TEST the darn nano case hardness with prior products. If it's substancially softer than before, they win (something but not stock). If it's the same hardness, they lose. Now, is there anything else or do you want to keep wasting your lives talking about this?

Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?

BTW, do you want to know which ASTM standards (numerical designation(s)) that the plaintiffs WILL use to statistically determine the relative wear performance of the nano sceen?

Or better yet, why don't you go to these links to LEARN more about the ASTM and ISO standards organizations:

http://www.astm.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart...808+1130249713

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/i...soinbrief.html
<Edit: They used to burn books. I just delete links. Discuss>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by damiansipko
<Edit: You know, I'm a little too young to remember the rat pack, but I remember it freaking me out a little when I discovered that Sammy's eyepatch wasn't part of a costume. I'm not sure why>

I'm so glad people have been able to post pictures of the problem.

Wait a minute....

There was the

www.flawedmusicplayer.com

site that had photos of hazed iPods but it seems to be down now.

I'll take that as a facetious comment!

On a serious note, how does a 2D image cannote anything other than that plastics scratch?

It doesn't answer the fundamental questions of, who, what, where, when, why, or how, now does it?

Or is it a forgery (i. e. Photochopped)?

A 2D image also doesn't accurately represent what the human eye can see first hand, in 3D real time!

Light refracts, and is subsequently further refracted by the myriad scatches that (appear to) occur over a relatively short time period for the nano.

A 2D static (or 2D dynamic) image cannot reproduce this effect to the same degree as the human eye can see it first hand, that's a given!

Like I've been saying (for the umpteenth time), to determine the RELATIVE wear of the nano screen you must TEST it and TEST other such device's screens!

Not that I would ever be on this jury, but if I were, and the plaintiff didn't present compelling quantitative tests, I'd throw the case out (either as a hung jury or in Apple's favor).

I don't get the persistent credulity of the scratch skeptics. Every reviewer who has had this thing for more than a week has commented on the unexplained scratches. What follows is from a Q & A with Walt Mossberg.


This type of analysis seems to be the rule, not the exception. Those demanding pictures, do you have a Nano? If so, wait a little while and take the pictures yourself. This has been documented enough so that such evidence for scoffers is unnecessary. My iPod avoids ugly scratches because I refuse to take the plastic off. That also mars the aesthetic but retains the resale value.

This case will not be won or lost based on any legal issue IMO. It will be based on whether the judge and jury own the iPn. If they don't, Apple wins. If they do, Apple loses.

I don't have a nano, and I'm not disputing that it's easy to scratch.

That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano? If one in 100 nano owners have severe scratches, and 1 in 100 of them own a digital camera, that means that means there could be pictures of 100 scratched nanos being circulated now, but a lot more people own cameras than my low-ball estimate, so I have to ask, why is it too much to ask for a photograph?

Granted, someone in this thread did have a link to a site that showed what I would consider minor scratching. The claims by the lawsuit that the scratching makes the screen unreadable simply seems bombastic, and THAT is one thing I want to see a photo of.

Personally, I'm tempted to buy one of them and record it on an HDV camcorder.

The skeptics I can understand. Since most portable electronic devices DON'T scratch easily, I can understand they'd want proof before blindly believing claims.

However, for those making stupid, insipid comments about the plaintiffs asking for too much (especially part of the profits), I will quote my own post again:

"Asking for the moon at the beginning of the suit is a normal trial tactic. It is often (almost always?) reduced at the end to something more palatable to both the plaintiff and defendant - sometimes in negotiation before trials end. You NEVER start negotiating anything by asking for what you are really willing to settle for! You ask for something outrageous and allow the other party to talk you down through their own counterpoints. At the end of the day, you reach a point where both parties can live with the price. (Hopefully!)"

I will add that trial judges often reduce judgments, too - sometimes arbitrarily. So stop going off the deep end, folks! Remember - if you want to get a major corporation's attention (ESPECIALLY Apple) you've gotta do something outrageous first! (Similar to hitting that donkey with the two-by-four to get his attention!) Then, when they're finally listening, you can argue your case. Once they're at that stage, Apple often gets more reasonable just on their own. If not, losing the suit will make them do something.

<That said why is it so hard to get a good picture of a roughly scratched nano?>

Because of the nature of the material being scratched. Looked at from straight on, the scratches do seem to obscure one's ability to read the screen. Hold it at an angle, and the scratches aren't reflecting anough light into your eyes to matter.

This makes it very hard to record the affect in a photo, because of the way a camera records light, which is different from your eyes.

My own Nano doesn't look as though it's been through a grist mill - but it is harder to see the screen, and much of the print seems blurry because of the scratches. Yes, I can hold it at an angle to read it, but that's very annoying! I paid $250 for this item. If Apple advertises that I can carry it in my pocket, it should be able to withstand the ride! As others have said, I have a phone I carry in my pocket (the other shirt pocket, not the same one), and it isn't scratched at all!

Some people's iPods got scratched - others haven't. That sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. Maybe some units aren't getting properly cured?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by franksargent
[B]

Ahem, methinks I (and others) have said this ad nauseum, maybe you should READ this thread before posting?

Yeah yeah I read most of these posts, were does someone say to COMPARE it to other iPods to decide if it's hard enough. I might have missed it, there are 150 posts but let me know were that post is and I'll feel like an idiot. Or if you can't I will have something further to say to you.

I'm not saying you didn't read the thread, but the wording of your first post left an impression that you didn't read the thread.

Generally, for a thread this long in any forum, anywhere, means that most of the main points are handled in the first two or three pages, from there, it either gets refined or goes circular. Simply jumping into a thread to make a comment without even even reading a little bit of it is just rude, and I think that's what the impression was.