Of course. Haven't you noticed that KDarling sees every problem in the world as Apple's fault and all of Apple's competitors are angels sent by God, himself.
Hardly, but that speaks worlds about your mindset.
Correcting someone's historical or technical or patent-reading mistakes, is NOT the same as being anti-Apple. Unless that someone thinks they're Apple.
Ditto for correcting bogus Google personal information tirades. Correcting those does not make all the people who spoke up, pro-Google.
I believe that people should make up their own minds...after getting to see all the information. Guys like you seem to hate that idea, and prefer to shout down anyone else by engaging in slur campaigns.
I'm also sure that you truly believe you're doing the right thing somehow, by doing that. We all think we're doing the right thing. That's exactly why there's no need for name calling.
^ Are you actually claiming these patent wars were started by Apple?
Assuming you mean in smartphones, IMO Nokia actually fired the first salvos in 2009 by suing Apple. It took awhile before others like HTC, Moto and the rest got dragged into it. I'm sure there's probably some members here that might disagree with me on who started it.
The link was relevant when I posted it and still relevant. That doesn't mean it's flawless. In the final paragraph it erroneously refers to Apple's filing in District Court as a counterclaim to an administrative action at the ITC. It's simply one link of several I offered you to assist you with your misunderstanding. Unfortunately it took quite a while for some of the facts to register with you.
Got it.
So the link which you considered so accurate and relevant that you had to trot it out is only accurate and relevant when you want it to be, but you can simply ignore the parts you don't like.
Assuming you mean in smartphones, IMO Nokia actually fired the first salvos in 2009 by suing Apple. It took awhile before others like HTC, Moto and the rest got dragged into it. I'm sure there's probably some members here that might disagree with me on who started it.
It's really very simple. The companies who steal IP (or fail to re-negotiate existing contracts **cough** Motorola **cough**) are the ones who started it. Lawsuits are initiated by companies after other attempts to come to a settlement have failed.
However, there's a twist to this.
- Apple and Microsoft do not abuse patents.
- Google/Motorola and Samsung do abuse patents to seek injunctions with SEP's.
In this regard you can't say that Apple and Microsoft initiated the lawsuits against them by being the infringers since Google/Motorola and Samsung are abusing their SEP's to extort money from their competitors. Both Apple and Microsoft would have gladly settled and taken a license deal if the offer was reasonable. So in these cases, it's actually Google/Motorola and Samsung who are the instigators.
To sum up, all this legal action is basically the fault of Google/Motorola and Samsung, either through their infringing of IP or abuse of patents.
It's really very simple. The companies who steal IP (or fail to re-negotiate existing contracts **cough** Motorola **cough**) are the ones who started it. Lawsuits are initiated by companies after other attempts to come to a settlement have failed.
However, there's a twist to this.
- Apple and Microsoft do not abuse patents.
- Google/Motorola and Samsung do abuse patents to seek injunctions with SEP's.
In this regard you can't say that Apple and Microsoft initiated the lawsuits against them by being the infringers since Google/Motorola and Samsung are abusing their SEP's to extort money from their competitors. Both Apple and Microsoft would have gladly settled and taken a license deal if the offer was reasonable. So in these cases, it's actually Google/Motorola and Samsung who are the instigators.
To sum up, all this legal action is basically the fault of Google/Motorola and Samsung, either through their infringing of IP or abuse of patents.
Clear enough for you now?
I still think Nokia started it, tho some of the the same reasons you've listed for pointing to others might apply.
Further, I expect a major announcement by Google before the year is out, one that may do more for putting the brakes on software IP litigation, and particularly from NPE's/PAE's (patent trolls as most of us know them), than anything Congress has been able to do. Some shareholders might initially protest, but I fully expect to see Google form a royalty-free and portfolio-wide IP pool, and including several companies as partners.
Yes, according to indications Google may, for all practical purposes, make their entire library of IP available royalty-free and licensed to those that wish to return the favor by contributing their own to the group. Those royalty-free licensing rights would still retained for group members even if the original holder later decides to sell/transfer any or even all of it. They would be immune to patent litigation based on any of that IP. forever, no matter who might have legal ownership sometime in the future.
Assuming it happens, and several professionals believe it will, it could be the single most effective effort yet made to curb the plethora of IP litigation drowning the mobile industry. I hope to see it become a reality. The millions to be made from royalties isn't worth more than the value of stopping IP suits before they happen and avoiding the legal and business costs IMO.
^ This isn't a fad. It's not like Nokia showed up to the ball in a blue dress and everyone decided to wear blue dresses next year. Individual companies launch lawsuits based on their own specific circumstances. You can't find a beginning and blame a single company.
And I know where you got that idea about Google licensing patents royalty free. It won't happen. This is from the website Google started to deal with patent trolls:
I've made a few posts to their blog and the moderators have not approved any of them. I wonder why? Probably because I pointed out some very real problems with their position and they don't want any negative information to show up. Censoring comments of those who have legitimate concerns - how typical of Google.
There are numerous reasons why their suggestion will never fly:
- What about companies with 20,000 patents making a deal with a company that has 1,000 patents? Surely Google doesn't expect both companies to offer a royalty-free license to their entire portfolio (which 3 out of 4 of their possible agreements would require)? What a deal for the company with only 1,000 patents.
- What about two companies with 20,000 patents each? Seems reasonable until you dig a little deeper. If one company has patents related to manufacturing semiconductors, and when you buy those semiconductors the license is included, then what benefit are having those patents available to a company that isn't involved in semiconductors? There doesn't just have to be an equal number of patents, but they must be of equal value to each other. A company that makes laptops doesn't need all of Samsung's IP related to cell phones, wireless, semiconductors or how to make a fridge.
- Google says this is to battle patent trolls. But they don't give any suggestion as to how this would work in practice. Since patent troll don't manufacture goods they can't really be sued. What leverage does having access to a large pool of patents provide if that pool doesn't have a patent a troll owns? Your only defense would be having a similar patent such that a court might determine you didn't infringe the trolls patent since you have a license to another patent that does the same function.
- How are companies going to recover their enormous investment in IP if they give up the majority of their portfolio royalty-free?
- What about companies that don't sign up? This is useless if only certain companies take part and others don't.
Bottom line is Google steals IP and they feel like they have a right to do so. They have no respect whatsoever for others rights and this has been proven numerous times (like when they tried to digitize books, for example).
Google wants an easy way out of their patent troubles and are looking for a way to get free use of others IP. They are disguising this whole initiative as a method to battle trolls when it really has nothing to do with patent trolls.
Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?
Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?
That would be my guess, at least if that's the field the partner is in. None of the 4 options would indicate otherwise would they? You read 'em just like I did.
As far as there being an uneven contribution in the number of patents, there could be very very few who could contribute a greater number of them than Google who holds more IP than your average tech company. If Google is willing to include theirs I don't see what the holdup would be for those holding far fewer. I think you're a little premature in dismissing the idea and the potential good it could bring with it.
Perhaps because it was a Google idea it's immediately worthy of dissing? I suspect that's your motivation. Twitter has already developed a similar defensive licensing policy tho on a much smaller scale than the one Google envisions. Are you as dismissive of Twitter's try and suggest everything should just continue as is, let the strong survive and the smaller entities get eaten alive and their IP purchased by or transferred to NPE's?
^ Google holds the most patents? Regardless of the actual number, most of them are outdated, useless or part of a standard.
People said Apple should be careful about suing Samsung or Motorola because of their huge patent pool. And what happened? They had to resort to abusing SEP's against Apple because they have little to no IP of any use to Apple. The number of patents means nothing if they are in an area that another company doesn't use or need. Which Samsung and Motorola have found out the hard way. I mentioned this already and you decided to ignore it - what to do when there's an imbalance in IP?
You "suspect my motivation" is because I dislike Google? No, my motivation comes from the fact I've been a software engineer for many years and I'm pro IP. Google has shown through their actions they have no respect for others IP. This is a FACT you can't ignore or twist around. I don't care what they "say" they're going to do - I'll base my opinion on what they HAVE ALREADY done.
^ Google holds the most patents? Regardless of the actual number, most of them are outdated, useless or part of a standard.
People said Apple should be careful about suing Samsung or Motorola because of their huge patent pool. And what happened? They had to resort to abusing SEP's against Apple because they have little to no IP of any use to Apple. The number of patents means nothing if they are in an area that another company doesn't use or need. Which Samsung and Motorola have found out the hard way. I mentioned this already and you decided to ignore it - what to do when there's an imbalance in IP?
You "suspect my motivation" is because I dislike Google? No, my motivation comes from the fact I've been a software engineer for many years and I'm pro IP. Google has shown through their actions they have no respect for others IP. This is a FACT you can't ignore or twist around. I don't care what they "say" they're going to do - I'll base my opinion on what they HAVE ALREADY done.
Okay. so you dislike Google as a company just as I said. Whether your reasoning for it is "right" or not is neither fact nor fiction. It's an opinion tho, and certainly valid. ( by the way, you say you've made numerous comments about the Defensive License that Google won't publish, yet the webpages just launched this week?? You were quick I guess. Where is the comment section?)
As for whether Google holds IP with value how could you be so absolutely certain they do not based on a single Federal Court lawsuit filed by Motorola against Apple (dismissed without ruling) and an ongoing Microsoft suit that already earned a German injunction for MS (currently unenforceable while under appeal... in the US?). That's a far stretch with minimal evidence to back it with. Add in the other 2000+ patents (or was it 3K +) Google already held before acquiring another 17,000 from Motorola, then add in that Google was awarded even more patents than Apple last year (including IP for both hardware and software innovations) and the reach you're making should become even more obvious. Since Google filed it's very first IP claim in company history within the last month I don't believe their portfolio has ever been tested has it?
As it is a company with the huge number and breadth of patents as Google (over 20,000) being willing to license all of them royalty-free may just be enough incentive for other IP holders both large and small to join in as a good first step to dealing with an increasing problem, tipping the scales for rational solutions rather than courtroom actions.
So I'm not ignoring anything you mentioned. On the other hand you're avoiding several of my points I encouraged you to comment on such as:
-From what i can see every option shown for Google's Defensive Patent Portfolio shows that the entire portfolio is included, or minimally anything pertinent to the field-of-use. Are you reading something different? You imply search IP would not be part of it after reading the descriptions.
-Twitter is already using a similar but smaller scale defensive strategy. What is your opinion of it? Is it too a waste of time and thus has no value?
-NPE's are buying, or increasingly being given IP to monetize and enforce, even by the Nokias of tech, and includes patents that are standard-essential . I didn't see your suggestion for a more effective way of dealing with the "trolls", instead just dissing any effort by Google to deal with it.
Any comments at all or is it just a Google-bash?
EDIT: for those not familiar with what we're discussing there's a description here:
Bottom line is Google steals IP and they feel like they have a right to do so. They have no respect whatsoever for others rights and this has been proven numerous times (like when they tried to digitize books, for example).
Google wants an easy way out of their patent troubles and are looking for a way to get free use of others IP. They are disguising this whole initiative as a method to battle trolls when it really has nothing to do with patent trolls.
I agree. Google has NEVER shown any respect for anyone's IP but their own. They have years of history of violating others' IP - with some of the examples truly stupendous - like their first attempt at Google Books.
Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?
I'd bet just about anything that those would never be included. They'll set up this 'royalty free' scam to cover only telecommunications or something like that and will argue that search and advertising are not part of telecommunications.
Stupid me falling for GG yet again. I knew there was a reason I blocked you, and I was foolish enough to unblock some posts and get into a discussion with you.
But I see it's still the same. Never answering others questions, moving the goalposts, outright lying about what someone said. All the while pretending to be non-biased and providing a different view for discussion. Well, I won't make that mistake again.
Stupid me falling for GG yet again. I knew there was a reason I blocked you, and I was foolish enough to unblock some posts and get into a discussion with you.
But I see it's still the same. Never answering others questions, moving the goalposts, outright lying about what someone said. All the while pretending to be non-biased and providing a different view for discussion. Well, I won't make that mistake again.
Hmmm. . . never answering your questions huh? I think you've got the rolls reversed sir. You managed to avoid every question I put to you. As you've apparently no intention of answering now either then blocking my posts to avoid responding to me at all sounds appropriate.
Readers can see who avoided answers and who did not. . .
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't know. It sounds like I'll need to find myself a jury in Juneau, Alaska this Summer.
You can cancel the trial Soli.
Phewww... No doubt I'm not the only one glad to see that finished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This thread stopped be entertaining a long time ago.
Agreed.
Hey KD, answer the question. Do you think Apple is responsible for starting these patent wars? Tough to get a straight answer out of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course. Haven't you noticed that KDarling sees every problem in the world as Apple's fault and all of Apple's competitors are angels sent by God, himself.
Hardly, but that speaks worlds about your mindset.
Correcting someone's historical or technical or patent-reading mistakes, is NOT the same as being anti-Apple. Unless that someone thinks they're Apple.
Ditto for correcting bogus Google personal information tirades. Correcting those does not make all the people who spoke up, pro-Google.
I believe that people should make up their own minds...after getting to see all the information. Guys like you seem to hate that idea, and prefer to shout down anyone else by engaging in slur campaigns.
I'm also sure that you truly believe you're doing the right thing somehow, by doing that. We all think we're doing the right thing. That's exactly why there's no need for name calling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ Are you actually claiming these patent wars were started by Apple?
Assuming you mean in smartphones, IMO Nokia actually fired the first salvos in 2009 by suing Apple. It took awhile before others like HTC, Moto and the rest got dragged into it. I'm sure there's probably some members here that might disagree with me on who started it.
Got it.
So the link which you considered so accurate and relevant that you had to trot it out is only accurate and relevant when you want it to be, but you can simply ignore the parts you don't like.
Figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Assuming you mean in smartphones, IMO Nokia actually fired the first salvos in 2009 by suing Apple. It took awhile before others like HTC, Moto and the rest got dragged into it. I'm sure there's probably some members here that might disagree with me on who started it.
It's really very simple. The companies who steal IP (or fail to re-negotiate existing contracts **cough** Motorola **cough**) are the ones who started it. Lawsuits are initiated by companies after other attempts to come to a settlement have failed.
However, there's a twist to this.
- Apple and Microsoft do not abuse patents.
- Google/Motorola and Samsung do abuse patents to seek injunctions with SEP's.
In this regard you can't say that Apple and Microsoft initiated the lawsuits against them by being the infringers since Google/Motorola and Samsung are abusing their SEP's to extort money from their competitors. Both Apple and Microsoft would have gladly settled and taken a license deal if the offer was reasonable. So in these cases, it's actually Google/Motorola and Samsung who are the instigators.
To sum up, all this legal action is basically the fault of Google/Motorola and Samsung, either through their infringing of IP or abuse of patents.
Clear enough for you now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
It's really very simple. The companies who steal IP (or fail to re-negotiate existing contracts **cough** Motorola **cough**) are the ones who started it. Lawsuits are initiated by companies after other attempts to come to a settlement have failed.
However, there's a twist to this.
- Apple and Microsoft do not abuse patents.
- Google/Motorola and Samsung do abuse patents to seek injunctions with SEP's.
In this regard you can't say that Apple and Microsoft initiated the lawsuits against them by being the infringers since Google/Motorola and Samsung are abusing their SEP's to extort money from their competitors. Both Apple and Microsoft would have gladly settled and taken a license deal if the offer was reasonable. So in these cases, it's actually Google/Motorola and Samsung who are the instigators.
To sum up, all this legal action is basically the fault of Google/Motorola and Samsung, either through their infringing of IP or abuse of patents.
Clear enough for you now?
I still think Nokia started it, tho some of the the same reasons you've listed for pointing to others might apply.
Further, I expect a major announcement by Google before the year is out, one that may do more for putting the brakes on software IP litigation, and particularly from NPE's/PAE's (patent trolls as most of us know them), than anything Congress has been able to do. Some shareholders might initially protest, but I fully expect to see Google form a royalty-free and portfolio-wide IP pool, and including several companies as partners.
Yes, according to indications Google may, for all practical purposes, make their entire library of IP available royalty-free and licensed to those that wish to return the favor by contributing their own to the group. Those royalty-free licensing rights would still retained for group members even if the original holder later decides to sell/transfer any or even all of it. They would be immune to patent litigation based on any of that IP. forever, no matter who might have legal ownership sometime in the future.
Assuming it happens, and several professionals believe it will, it could be the single most effective effort yet made to curb the plethora of IP litigation drowning the mobile industry. I hope to see it become a reality. The millions to be made from royalties isn't worth more than the value of stopping IP suits before they happen and avoiding the legal and business costs IMO.
^ This isn't a fad. It's not like Nokia showed up to the ball in a blue dress and everyone decided to wear blue dresses next year. Individual companies launch lawsuits based on their own specific circumstances. You can't find a beginning and blame a single company.
And I know where you got that idea about Google licensing patents royalty free. It won't happen. This is from the website Google started to deal with patent trolls:
http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/index.html
I've made a few posts to their blog and the moderators have not approved any of them. I wonder why? Probably because I pointed out some very real problems with their position and they don't want any negative information to show up. Censoring comments of those who have legitimate concerns - how typical of Google.
There are numerous reasons why their suggestion will never fly:
- What about companies with 20,000 patents making a deal with a company that has 1,000 patents? Surely Google doesn't expect both companies to offer a royalty-free license to their entire portfolio (which 3 out of 4 of their possible agreements would require)? What a deal for the company with only 1,000 patents.
- What about two companies with 20,000 patents each? Seems reasonable until you dig a little deeper. If one company has patents related to manufacturing semiconductors, and when you buy those semiconductors the license is included, then what benefit are having those patents available to a company that isn't involved in semiconductors? There doesn't just have to be an equal number of patents, but they must be of equal value to each other. A company that makes laptops doesn't need all of Samsung's IP related to cell phones, wireless, semiconductors or how to make a fridge.
- Google says this is to battle patent trolls. But they don't give any suggestion as to how this would work in practice. Since patent troll don't manufacture goods they can't really be sued. What leverage does having access to a large pool of patents provide if that pool doesn't have a patent a troll owns? Your only defense would be having a similar patent such that a court might determine you didn't infringe the trolls patent since you have a license to another patent that does the same function.
- How are companies going to recover their enormous investment in IP if they give up the majority of their portfolio royalty-free?
- What about companies that don't sign up? This is useless if only certain companies take part and others don't.
Bottom line is Google steals IP and they feel like they have a right to do so. They have no respect whatsoever for others rights and this has been proven numerous times (like when they tried to digitize books, for example).
Google wants an easy way out of their patent troubles and are looking for a way to get free use of others IP. They are disguising this whole initiative as a method to battle trolls when it really has nothing to do with patent trolls.
Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Oh, and I guess other companies will get access to Google's search algorithms or IP related to how they target ads so well?
That would be my guess, at least if that's the field the partner is in. None of the 4 options would indicate otherwise would they? You read 'em just like I did.
As far as there being an uneven contribution in the number of patents, there could be very very few who could contribute a greater number of them than Google who holds more IP than your average tech company. If Google is willing to include theirs I don't see what the holdup would be for those holding far fewer. I think you're a little premature in dismissing the idea and the potential good it could bring with it.
Perhaps because it was a Google idea it's immediately worthy of dissing? I suspect that's your motivation. Twitter has already developed a similar defensive licensing policy tho on a much smaller scale than the one Google envisions. Are you as dismissive of Twitter's try and suggest everything should just continue as is, let the strong survive and the smaller entities get eaten alive and their IP purchased by or transferred to NPE's?
^ Google holds the most patents? Regardless of the actual number, most of them are outdated, useless or part of a standard.
People said Apple should be careful about suing Samsung or Motorola because of their huge patent pool. And what happened? They had to resort to abusing SEP's against Apple because they have little to no IP of any use to Apple. The number of patents means nothing if they are in an area that another company doesn't use or need. Which Samsung and Motorola have found out the hard way. I mentioned this already and you decided to ignore it - what to do when there's an imbalance in IP?
You "suspect my motivation" is because I dislike Google? No, my motivation comes from the fact I've been a software engineer for many years and I'm pro IP. Google has shown through their actions they have no respect for others IP. This is a FACT you can't ignore or twist around. I don't care what they "say" they're going to do - I'll base my opinion on what they HAVE ALREADY done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ Google holds the most patents? Regardless of the actual number, most of them are outdated, useless or part of a standard.
People said Apple should be careful about suing Samsung or Motorola because of their huge patent pool. And what happened? They had to resort to abusing SEP's against Apple because they have little to no IP of any use to Apple. The number of patents means nothing if they are in an area that another company doesn't use or need. Which Samsung and Motorola have found out the hard way. I mentioned this already and you decided to ignore it - what to do when there's an imbalance in IP?
You "suspect my motivation" is because I dislike Google? No, my motivation comes from the fact I've been a software engineer for many years and I'm pro IP. Google has shown through their actions they have no respect for others IP. This is a FACT you can't ignore or twist around. I don't care what they "say" they're going to do - I'll base my opinion on what they HAVE ALREADY done.
Okay. so you dislike Google as a company just as I said. Whether your reasoning for it is "right" or not is neither fact nor fiction. It's an opinion tho, and certainly valid. ( by the way, you say you've made numerous comments about the Defensive License that Google won't publish, yet the webpages just launched this week?? You were quick I guess. Where is the comment section?)
As for whether Google holds IP with value how could you be so absolutely certain they do not based on a single Federal Court lawsuit filed by Motorola against Apple (dismissed without ruling) and an ongoing Microsoft suit that already earned a German injunction for MS (currently unenforceable while under appeal... in the US?). That's a far stretch with minimal evidence to back it with. Add in the other 2000+ patents (or was it 3K +) Google already held before acquiring another 17,000 from Motorola, then add in that Google was awarded even more patents than Apple last year (including IP for both hardware and software innovations) and the reach you're making should become even more obvious. Since Google filed it's very first IP claim in company history within the last month I don't believe their portfolio has ever been tested has it?
As it is a company with the huge number and breadth of patents as Google (over 20,000) being willing to license all of them royalty-free may just be enough incentive for other IP holders both large and small to join in as a good first step to dealing with an increasing problem, tipping the scales for rational solutions rather than courtroom actions.
So I'm not ignoring anything you mentioned. On the other hand you're avoiding several of my points I encouraged you to comment on such as:
-From what i can see every option shown for Google's Defensive Patent Portfolio shows that the entire portfolio is included, or minimally anything pertinent to the field-of-use. Are you reading something different? You imply search IP would not be part of it after reading the descriptions.
-Twitter is already using a similar but smaller scale defensive strategy. What is your opinion of it? Is it too a waste of time and thus has no value?
-NPE's are buying, or increasingly being given IP to monetize and enforce, even by the Nokias of tech, and includes patents that are standard-essential . I didn't see your suggestion for a more effective way of dealing with the "trolls", instead just dissing any effort by Google to deal with it.
Any comments at all or is it just a Google-bash?
EDIT: for those not familiar with what we're discussing there's a description here:
http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/comparison/
a general discussion of Defensive Patent Licensing here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120613/04320119301/defensive-patent-license-solution-to-patent-problems-just-way-to-highlight-them.shtml
and one on Google efforts specifically here:
http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=bad46f51-b2c0-41a3-9ef8-0908315ade35
and here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/google-starts-looking-for-allies-in-patent-self-help/
I agree. Google has NEVER shown any respect for anyone's IP but their own. They have years of history of violating others' IP - with some of the examples truly stupendous - like their first attempt at Google Books.
I'd bet just about anything that those would never be included. They'll set up this 'royalty free' scam to cover only telecommunications or something like that and will argue that search and advertising are not part of telecommunications.
Stupid me falling for GG yet again. I knew there was a reason I blocked you, and I was foolish enough to unblock some posts and get into a discussion with you.
But I see it's still the same. Never answering others questions, moving the goalposts, outright lying about what someone said. All the while pretending to be non-biased and providing a different view for discussion. Well, I won't make that mistake again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Stupid me falling for GG yet again. I knew there was a reason I blocked you, and I was foolish enough to unblock some posts and get into a discussion with you.
But I see it's still the same. Never answering others questions, moving the goalposts, outright lying about what someone said. All the while pretending to be non-biased and providing a different view for discussion. Well, I won't make that mistake again.
Hmmm. . . never answering your questions huh? I think you've got the rolls reversed sir. You managed to avoid every question I put to you. As you've apparently no intention of answering now either then blocking my posts to avoid responding to me at all sounds appropriate.
Readers can see who avoided answers and who did not. . .