... Both companies do what they do for the money when all is said and done. Neither is going to take a chance on killing their cash cows by betraying the users of their products and services.
Here we go again with the false equivalencies. Don't you guys have any other argument technique, or is that all they teach at shill school?
I don't think either of them do what they do primarily for money. Apple 2.0 is driven by the desire to make great products and the money is incidental. Google is driven by megalomania and a desire to dominate and control, a very similar corporate psychology to Microsoft under Gates. And, besides, Google has repeatedly, to use your word, betrayed users, they don't give a damn about users, users are just fodder for them.
If Google is so evil, stealing every bit of information they can from you, intruding on your privacy at every opportunity, why is Apple turning you over to them in return for 30 pieces of silver? What would that make Apple?
Another day and several posts later and not a single one of the resident "Google is evil" AI members is willing to explain the conundrum and answer two easy questions, instead resorting to insults and vague accusations in their responses. That in itself gives you the answer.
Another day and several posts later and not a single one of the resident "Google is evil" AI members is willing to explain the conundrum and answer two easy questions, instead resorting to insults and vague accusations in their responses. That in itself gives you the answer.
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
By not blocking all sites as Phishing if they have AdSense ads? By letting you choose to add Gmail to Mail on their OSes?
By letting Google sell apps on the App Store? Google isn't breaking any laws with these apps but Apple probably would be if they denied Google to be on their App Stores simply because they are Google.
The main difference boils down if you want to be the customer or the product. Soylent Goog is people! But there's nothing wrong with that.
I use Google Apps to funnel business email with my domain and local phone exchange through them. I pay a whopping $5/month for it and I'm grateful I don't need to setup my own mail server which would cost more money and tok much time with less reliability, but Charleston Heston and I are aware of why the price is so reasonable.
Another day and several posts later and not a single one of the resident "Google is evil" AI members is willing to explain the conundrum and answer two easy questions, instead resorting to insults and vague accusations in their responses. That in itself gives you the answer.
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
Yes that was his question and a valid one in my opinion. Perhaps it is not about the money, but instead Apple allows Google to be the default because they feel it is the best search engine and Apple just wants to offer an improved user experience to their customers, but somehow I suspect it is more about the money.
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
Sure you understand it. Apple could integrate Bing into their OS for search. They could use Yahoo. They could even go so far as to use DuckDuckGo. They don't.
If Google was really the evil, thieving, privacy-invading company that a handful of members here repeat often and vehemently then Apple would be no better for making them the recommended and default search provider on Apple devices, an implicit endorsement of Google. You can't have it both ways. Either Apple is knowingly selling you out to the devil for a price, a "slimy Apple", or good and evil don't matter as it's all about the money, or Apple doesn't consider Google an intrusion or threat to their customers, choosing to integrate Google as the best available search experience and the one for Apple owners to trust. Two of those three don't portray Apple in the best light.
Sure you understand it. Apple could integrate Bing into their OS for search. They could use Yahoo. They could even go so far as to use DuckDuckGo. They don't.
If Google was really the evil, thieving, privacy-invading company that a handful of members here repeat often and vehemently then Apple would be no better for making them the recommended and default search provider on Apple devices, an implicit endorsement of Google. You can't have it both ways. Either Apple is knowingly selling you out to the devil for a price, a "slimy Apple", or good and evil don't matter as it's all about the money, or Apple doesn't consider Google an intrusion or threat to their customers, choosing to integrate Google as the best available search experience and the one for Apple owners to trust. Two of those three don't portray Apple in the best light.
Which is it?
Why make it so binary like a child's fairytale where the dichotomy between good and evil are mutually exclusive with no overlap? Apple clearly doesn't operate the way Google does when it comes to your personal information but that doesn't mean they will not allow you to use Google's services.
I agree with mstone that it's likely about money as to why it's the primary engine in Safari but it's also the best search (of course jragosta might issue with me saying that since there is no way to definitively prove it). However, since it's not the only search engine included I don't see why that's a problem.
If we want to make something with many facets simple I guess we can say Apple is evil and doesn't support a democratic republic because it does business in China. I think that's as foolish as saying Apple is evil or supports evil by allowing users to access Google's services from their devices.
PS: I really dislike the use of the word evil. I think Google acts in less honest ways towards 'us' (not using the word customer) than Apple but in no way does that make them evil. When Google moves their HQ from Mountain View to an extinct volcano in the middle of the ocean with a skull carved on one side of the rock face then we can start to talk about a company being evil.
One scenario is that to be fair to the other search engines, Apple sets the default to which ever search engine is the highest bidder. In that case it is not necessarily an implicit endorsement, just a simple, fair, transaction. If they were to set that coveted default status based on some anti-competitive favoritism then that could be viewed as unfair. Sort of how AI alters links to 9to5 Mac...dumb.
Touchscreen are nearly worthless on Laptops and destops....
The excellent trackpads are far better in almost every way when using a laptop or desktop app. There might be a few paint program that would benefit form a touch screen, but quite limited....
This only means Google does what Google do best - checks what others do and tries to duplicate/improve what they think that has some potential.
Thus the switch from old school to touch-screen smartphones for Android after iPhone was released.
And implementation of touch screen in laptops for Chromebook, after Windows 8 started this trend on Windows laptops and AIOs.
I actually don't mind them doing this. I don't think that any company should held market hostage in general things like this. I mean, imagine what would happen should Toshiba (or was it Compaq?) has got a patent on clamshell laptops design, and refuse to license it to others? There would be no MBPs, ThinkPads... all the good machines we use and like nowadays.
My concern here is - is that OS really set for touch? Last time I checked it, it didn't look like touch friendly environment. If so - what is the point?
Why make it so binary like a child's fairytale where the dichotomy between good and evil are mutually exclusive with no overlap? Apple clearly doesn't operate the way Google does when it comes to your personal information but that doesn't mean they will not allow you to use Google's services.
I agree with mstone that it's likely about money as to why it's the primary engine in Safari but it's also the best search (of course jragosta might issue with me saying that since there is no way to definitively prove it). However, since it's not the only search engine included I don't see why that's a problem.
If we want to make something with many facets simple I guess we can say Apple is evil and doesn't support a democratic republic because it does business in China. I think that's as foolish as saying Apple is evil or supports evil by allowing users to access Google's services from their devices.
PS: I really dislike the use of the word evil. I think Google acts in less honest ways towards 'us' (not using the word customer) than Apple but in no way does that make them evil. When Google moves their HQ from Mountain View to an extinct volcano in the middle of the ocean with a skull carved on one side of the rock face then we can start to talk about a company being evil.
The "evil" tag comes from certain AI members' comments, and that's the only reason for using that particular word. I completely agree that "good and evil", "black and white" or even "yes or no" often have fuzzy edges.
Where we would disagree is that you apparently aren't considering Apple's endorsement of Google as the default search engine for iPhones, iPads and the like as a de-facto "Apple Seal of Approval". What's your reasoning if that's correct? I think most users of Apple products trust them to make the right feature choices, By choosing Google as their default, recommended search partner aren't they telling the average Apple user that Google is both trusted and the right choice for most? Sure Apple customers can look for a different search provider if they are aware of some reason why they should. I suspect most accept whatever Apple already chose for them.
Gotta laugh at this nice bit of trolling from cnet. Google can show Apple a thing or two because their laptop has LTE and a touchscreen? 1) since the device essentially requires an internet connection putting LTE on the laptop is a no brainer. But I can see people eating through data plans quite quickly. 2) Adding touchscreen seems to be more about being able to check a feature off a list than anything else. Right now Chrome OS isn't optimized for touch so what's the point? Also I think the jury is still out on whether touchscreen on laptops is the way to go and is what people want. Apple thinks muti-touch gestures via trackpad is a better way to go.
So no cnet, Google hasn't shown Apple anything other than they're bad at copying Apple's laptop designs.
Gotta laugh at this nice bit of trolling from cnet. Google can show Apple a thing or two because their laptop has LTE and a touchscreen? 1) since the device essentially requires an internet connection putting LTE on the laptop is a no brainer. But I can see people eating through data plans quite quickly. 2) Adding touchscreen seems to be more about being able to check a feature off a list than anything else. Right now Chrome OS isn't optimized for touch so what's the point? Also I think the jury is still out on whether touchscreen on laptops is the way to go and is what people want. Apple thinks muti-touch gestures via trackpad is a better way to go.
So no cnet, Google hasn't shown Apple anything other than they're bad at copying Apple's laptop designs.
I don't think it's a great first effort from Google either. The price is too high and the local storage is a bit too low IMO. I'm not even a fan of the design.
Anyway, Google Chrome IS supposedly touch-optimized, tho I've no idea how well it's done. I'm sure there will be frequent improvements if the rate of Chrome updates keeps pace with the past. I've never used it, nor have most folks yet so it could be fairly poor right now. Dunno, but the touch efforts from Google certainly aren't new. It was noted to be in develop over two years ago.
Knowledge is power. Fear is often the result of lack of knowledge.
1. Location. Some have expressed the idea that "Google knows everywhere you go". Well, not unless you use one of their services, and you've enabled location. Similarily, doing a Siri search tells Apple where you are as well. In either case, just turn off your location. Sometimes I do that; most often I do want localized search results.
When the government wants to know where you've been, they usually go straight to the phone companies instead. For anything else, both Apple and Google terms of service state they cooperate with legal requests.
2. What info have they have stored about us, and can we delete it.
Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/ and you can see and edit all your searches, profile. You can even empty or disable custom voice files that are used to help with your own recognition. (Apple also stores such files.)
Then open a window to http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and you can see, and edit, the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.
You'd probably be surprised how boring your profile actually is.
--
If you still worry about Google, then just don't use their services. Problem solved. However, a lot of us prefer Google over other search engines.
What I do when I want to make some private searches on a shared family tablet, is simply open a new search page that I'm not signed in on. I also turn off search history in the settings link at the bottom of the page. Then the searches are not associated with my account, and they're not remembered,
The "evil" tag comes from certain AI members' comments, and that's the only reason for using that particular word. I completely agree that "good and evil", "black and white" or even "yes or no" often have fuzzy edges.
Where we would disagree is that you apparently aren't considering Apple's endorsement of Google as the default search engine for iPhones, iPads and the like as a de-facto "Apple Seal of Approval". What's your reasoning if that's correct? I think most users of Apple products trust them to make the right feature choices, By choosing Google as their default, recommended search partner aren't they telling the average Apple user that Google is both trusted and the right choice for most? Sure Apple customers can look for a different search provider if they are aware of some reason why they should. I suspect most accept whatever Apple already chose for them.
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, just to argue on a forum that you don not favor. Pretty interesting on your character, do you often like wasting time, do you do anything productive with your life?
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple.
That's where you're wrong. I'm extremely interested in Apple, their innovations and their products. Watching their growth, the interactions they have with other tech players, the influences they have on the industry and the business moves they make is nearly akin to watching an HBO series. I admire Apple. I also admire the influence Google has had on the industry too, Apple included. You've just mistaken what not hating Google and everything they do means. It's not anti-Apple even tho the most diehard Apple fans may think so.
Now that I've answered your question do you have the honesty to answer mine? Repeated once more in post 185 if your forgot them. Surprise me as I don't think you do.
Give it a rest. I gave your original question credit as being a valid argument and also responded with what I thought was a reasonable explanation (post 190). You neither acknowledged or challenged my comment so now I think you are only trying to stir up trouble.
I already noted the same as you did two posts prior to that as the second of three possibilities. My apologies to you for not specifically acknowledging your post. Your opinion was absolutely a valid one, and one I tend to agree with. It's more about the money than anything else, tho if Google was that bad not even the money would be enough.
EDIT: Thank you MStone for bringing to my attention that I was doing just what I dislike seeing others do. Taunting another forum member is just a form of trolling and absolutely not acceptable. More apologies to you for needing to point it out to me and to punkndrublic for being the target of the taunt. I've gone back and edited that post.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
... Both companies do what they do for the money when all is said and done. Neither is going to take a chance on killing their cash cows by betraying the users of their products and services.
Here we go again with the false equivalencies. Don't you guys have any other argument technique, or is that all they teach at shill school?
I don't think either of them do what they do primarily for money. Apple 2.0 is driven by the desire to make great products and the money is incidental. Google is driven by megalomania and a desire to dominate and control, a very similar corporate psychology to Microsoft under Gates. And, besides, Google has repeatedly, to use your word, betrayed users, they don't give a damn about users, users are just fodder for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, but all signs point in [the direction of OS X becoming touch enabled]. ...
I disagree, with all your points and all of your analysis, All these things point to enhanced gesture support, not to touch support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Just to be clear is that a vote for "Apple is slimy" or "Apple doesn't consider Google evil"? I don't want to misread your intent.
I'm pretty sure it's a vote for "Gatorguy is becoming such an obvious shill", just so you're clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Let me ask a simple question:
If Google is so evil, stealing every bit of information they can from you, intruding on your privacy at every opportunity, why is Apple turning you over to them in return for 30 pieces of silver? What would that make Apple?
Another day and several posts later and not a single one of the resident "Google is evil" AI members is willing to explain the conundrum and answer two easy questions, instead resorting to insults and vague accusations in their responses. That in itself gives you the answer.
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
By not blocking all sites as Phishing if they have AdSense ads? By letting you choose to add Gmail to Mail on their OSes?
By letting Google sell apps on the App Store? Google isn't breaking any laws with these apps but Apple probably would be if they denied Google to be on their App Stores simply because they are Google.
The main difference boils down if you want to be the customer or the product. Soylent Goog is people! But there's nothing wrong with that.
I use Google Apps to funnel business email with my domain and local phone exchange through them. I pay a whopping $5/month for it and I'm grateful I don't need to setup my own mail server which would cost more money and tok much time with less reliability, but Charleston Heston and I are aware of why the price is so reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Another day and several posts later and not a single one of the resident "Google is evil" AI members is willing to explain the conundrum and answer two easy questions, instead resorting to insults and vague accusations in their responses. That in itself gives you the answer.
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
Yes that was his question and a valid one in my opinion. Perhaps it is not about the money, but instead Apple allows Google to be the default because they feel it is the best search engine and Apple just wants to offer an improved user experience to their customers, but somehow I suspect it is more about the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't understand your question. In what way is Apple selling you to Google? By including their search engine in the browser? You can change that to another or use no search at all.
Sure you understand it. Apple could integrate Bing into their OS for search. They could use Yahoo. They could even go so far as to use DuckDuckGo. They don't.
If Google was really the evil, thieving, privacy-invading company that a handful of members here repeat often and vehemently then Apple would be no better for making them the recommended and default search provider on Apple devices, an implicit endorsement of Google. You can't have it both ways. Either Apple is knowingly selling you out to the devil for a price, a "slimy Apple", or good and evil don't matter as it's all about the money, or Apple doesn't consider Google an intrusion or threat to their customers, choosing to integrate Google as the best available search experience and the one for Apple owners to trust. Two of those three don't portray Apple in the best light.
Which is it?
Why make it so binary like a child's fairytale where the dichotomy between good and evil are mutually exclusive with no overlap? Apple clearly doesn't operate the way Google does when it comes to your personal information but that doesn't mean they will not allow you to use Google's services.
I agree with mstone that it's likely about money as to why it's the primary engine in Safari but it's also the best search (of course jragosta might issue with me saying that since there is no way to definitively prove it). However, since it's not the only search engine included I don't see why that's a problem.
If we want to make something with many facets simple I guess we can say Apple is evil and doesn't support a democratic republic because it does business in China. I think that's as foolish as saying Apple is evil or supports evil by allowing users to access Google's services from their devices.
PS: I really dislike the use of the word evil. I think Google acts in less honest ways towards 'us' (not using the word customer) than Apple but in no way does that make them evil. When Google moves their HQ from Mountain View to an extinct volcano in the middle of the ocean with a skull carved on one side of the rock face then we can start to talk about a company being evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Which is it?
It doesn't have to be either or.
One scenario is that to be fair to the other search engines, Apple sets the default to which ever search engine is the highest bidder. In that case it is not necessarily an implicit endorsement, just a simple, fair, transaction. If they were to set that coveted default status based on some anti-competitive favoritism then that could be viewed as unfair. Sort of how AI alters links to 9to5 Mac...dumb.
Thus the switch from old school to touch-screen smartphones for Android after iPhone was released.
And implementation of touch screen in laptops for Chromebook, after Windows 8 started this trend on Windows laptops and AIOs.
I actually don't mind them doing this. I don't think that any company should held market hostage in general things like this. I mean, imagine what would happen should Toshiba (or was it Compaq?) has got a patent on clamshell laptops design, and refuse to license it to others? There would be no MBPs, ThinkPads... all the good machines we use and like nowadays.
My concern here is - is that OS really set for touch? Last time I checked it, it didn't look like touch friendly environment. If so - what is the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why make it so binary like a child's fairytale where the dichotomy between good and evil are mutually exclusive with no overlap? Apple clearly doesn't operate the way Google does when it comes to your personal information but that doesn't mean they will not allow you to use Google's services.
I agree with mstone that it's likely about money as to why it's the primary engine in Safari but it's also the best search (of course jragosta might issue with me saying that since there is no way to definitively prove it). However, since it's not the only search engine included I don't see why that's a problem.
If we want to make something with many facets simple I guess we can say Apple is evil and doesn't support a democratic republic because it does business in China. I think that's as foolish as saying Apple is evil or supports evil by allowing users to access Google's services from their devices.
PS: I really dislike the use of the word evil. I think Google acts in less honest ways towards 'us' (not using the word customer) than Apple but in no way does that make them evil. When Google moves their HQ from Mountain View to an extinct volcano in the middle of the ocean with a skull carved on one side of the rock face then we can start to talk about a company being evil.
The "evil" tag comes from certain AI members' comments, and that's the only reason for using that particular word. I completely agree that "good and evil", "black and white" or even "yes or no" often have fuzzy edges.
Where we would disagree is that you apparently aren't considering Apple's endorsement of Google as the default search engine for iPhones, iPads and the like as a de-facto "Apple Seal of Approval". What's your reasoning if that's correct? I think most users of Apple products trust them to make the right feature choices, By choosing Google as their default, recommended search partner aren't they telling the average Apple user that Google is both trusted and the right choice for most? Sure Apple customers can look for a different search provider if they are aware of some reason why they should. I suspect most accept whatever Apple already chose for them.
Gotta laugh at this nice bit of trolling from cnet. Google can show Apple a thing or two because their laptop has LTE and a touchscreen? 1) since the device essentially requires an internet connection putting LTE on the laptop is a no brainer. But I can see people eating through data plans quite quickly. 2) Adding touchscreen seems to be more about being able to check a feature off a list than anything else. Right now Chrome OS isn't optimized for touch so what's the point? Also I think the jury is still out on whether touchscreen on laptops is the way to go and is what people want. Apple thinks muti-touch gestures via trackpad is a better way to go.
So no cnet, Google hasn't shown Apple anything other than they're bad at copying Apple's laptop designs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57570862-94/google-laptop-shows-apple-a-thing-or-two/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Gotta laugh at this nice bit of trolling from cnet. Google can show Apple a thing or two because their laptop has LTE and a touchscreen? 1) since the device essentially requires an internet connection putting LTE on the laptop is a no brainer. But I can see people eating through data plans quite quickly. 2) Adding touchscreen seems to be more about being able to check a feature off a list than anything else. Right now Chrome OS isn't optimized for touch so what's the point? Also I think the jury is still out on whether touchscreen on laptops is the way to go and is what people want. Apple thinks muti-touch gestures via trackpad is a better way to go.
So no cnet, Google hasn't shown Apple anything other than they're bad at copying Apple's laptop designs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57570862-94/google-laptop-shows-apple-a-thing-or-two/
I don't think it's a great first effort from Google either. The price is too high and the local storage is a bit too low IMO. I'm not even a fan of the design.
Anyway, Google Chrome IS supposedly touch-optimized, tho I've no idea how well it's done. I'm sure there will be frequent improvements if the rate of Chrome updates keeps pace with the past. I've never used it, nor have most folks yet so it could be fairly poor right now. Dunno, but the touch efforts from Google certainly aren't new. It was noted to be in develop over two years ago.
http://www.ifans.com/blog/27492/
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/02/chromes-giant-touch-optimized-menu.html
Knowledge is power. Fear is often the result of lack of knowledge.
1. Location. Some have expressed the idea that "Google knows everywhere you go". Well, not unless you use one of their services, and you've enabled location. Similarily, doing a Siri search tells Apple where you are as well. In either case, just turn off your location. Sometimes I do that; most often I do want localized search results.
When the government wants to know where you've been, they usually go straight to the phone companies instead. For anything else, both Apple and Google terms of service state they cooperate with legal requests.
2. What info have they have stored about us, and can we delete it.
Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/ and you can see and edit all your searches, profile. You can even empty or disable custom voice files that are used to help with your own recognition. (Apple also stores such files.)
Then open a window to http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and you can see, and edit, the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.
You'd probably be surprised how boring your profile actually is.
--
If you still worry about Google, then just don't use their services. Problem solved. However, a lot of us prefer Google over other search engines.
What I do when I want to make some private searches on a shared family tablet, is simply open a new search page that I'm not signed in on. I also turn off search history in the settings link at the bottom of the page. Then the searches are not associated with my account, and they're not remembered,
Instead of being fearful, take control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The "evil" tag comes from certain AI members' comments, and that's the only reason for using that particular word. I completely agree that "good and evil", "black and white" or even "yes or no" often have fuzzy edges.
Where we would disagree is that you apparently aren't considering Apple's endorsement of Google as the default search engine for iPhones, iPads and the like as a de-facto "Apple Seal of Approval". What's your reasoning if that's correct? I think most users of Apple products trust them to make the right feature choices, By choosing Google as their default, recommended search partner aren't they telling the average Apple user that Google is both trusted and the right choice for most? Sure Apple customers can look for a different search provider if they are aware of some reason why they should. I suspect most accept whatever Apple already chose for them.
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, just to argue on a forum that you don not favor. Pretty interesting on your character, do you often like wasting time, do you do anything productive with your life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple.
That's where you're wrong. I'm extremely interested in Apple, their innovations and their products. Watching their growth, the interactions they have with other tech players, the influences they have on the industry and the business moves they make is nearly akin to watching an HBO series. I admire Apple. I also admire the influence Google has had on the industry too, Apple included. You've just mistaken what not hating Google and everything they do means. It's not anti-Apple even tho the most diehard Apple fans may think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Now that I've answered your question do you have the honesty to answer mine? Repeated once more in post 185 if your forgot them. Surprise me as I don't think you do.
Give it a rest. I gave your original question credit as being a valid argument and also responded with what I thought was a reasonable explanation (post 190). You neither acknowledged or challenged my comment so now I think you are only trying to stir up trouble.
I already noted the same as you did two posts prior to that as the second of three possibilities. My apologies to you for not specifically acknowledging your post. Your opinion was absolutely a valid one, and one I tend to agree with. It's more about the money than anything else, tho if Google was that bad not even the money would be enough.
EDIT: Thank you MStone for bringing to my attention that I was doing just what I dislike seeing others do. Taunting another forum member is just a form of trolling and absolutely not acceptable. More apologies to you for needing to point it out to me and to punkndrublic for being the target of the taunt. I've gone back and edited that post.
.