Jobs and Mac say "no thanks" to BluRay

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-20-2008, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes.

rw

LOLOL. Can you imagine a download of just your favorite scenes. How would you put that in context to the rest of the movie? LOL

**Mr Peabody** · 10-20-2008, 07:23 PM

A company called Amex has made an outboard Blu-ray drive especially designed to be used with Apple products. It's hard to believe Apple don't want a slice of that pie but maybe they feel after licensing fees the effort isn't worth it for any profit left.

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-20-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

A company called Amex has made an outboard Blu-ray drive especially designed to be used with Apple products. It's hard to believe Apple don't want a slice of that pie but maybe they feel after licensing fees the effort isn't worth it for any profit left.

Mr. P, Liscensing fees for bluray technology are not that expensive for anyone already on the board of the BDA. What Apple doesn't want to do is pay any liscensing fees, which is why they support displayport(which is an open standard with no fees to pay) over HDMI which has a small fee that must be paid.

Rumor has it that if Apple continues this kind of anti-bluray behavior, they will not have their seat that much longer. I think they will get with the program eventually, or they will have a very hard time negotiating future liscensing for movies for Itunes. Microsoft is already having a tough time getting more top tier Disney and Sony movies because of their support for HD DVD. They are already smarting from the fact the most studios have turned away from using VC-1 to using AVC, which has cost them in royalty payments.

**kexodusc** · 10-21-2008, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes.

rw

Interesting...I bet many would feel ripped-off an awful lot less if they paid $0.99 just to watch the previews, which are often the best parts of the movie anyway...

nightflier · 10-21-2008, 04:05 PM

Well, you can keep on insulting me, lil't, but that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments. You're kind of like the McCain of this debate, and we all know what's happened to his poll numbers. But while I'm sure you'd love to continue throwing insults (most children are like that), let's get back to the argument.

- Whether you like the quality or not, that TV with the iPod dock (not deck, by the way), is still out there for sale. Likewise, the AppleTV is out there too and even though people are using it primarily for audio, it is already directly connected to iTunes and makes the transition to movies pretty simple for the average consumer.

- That LG player that's connected directly to Netflix, must give you fits, huh? What if that's the hot seller this x-mas season? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

- If we take CDs and BRs as being the highest quality formats out there, then compressed files and downloads are somewhere below that right? Well guess which audio medium is outselling the CD? Why could the same not happen for lower-quality video? While you love to bash lower quality video, there is still the very real possibility that someone would pay a fraction of the price for it (compared to BR). There are two factors that play into this: the files are smaller and these files won't need 1080p/DTS-MA capable setups to be enjoyed.

- You dismiss anything that isn't hugely profitable. That's very much like the music industry's position was and now very much the stance of the movie industry. My simple point is that this is myopic. At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, I don't think that's the time to be posturing with expensive alternatives. People are being very choosy this fall about what they will pay for. I am thus fairly certain that a full audio/video setup and the highest quality movies are less important than just being able to see the damn film, regardless of resolution. Even movie theaters are hurting big time. Your position is very much that of the fat cats, and that is why I think you are way off base. We won't find that out right away (so please don't waste everyone's time by debating me point for point the minute I post). But over time, I believe that the movie industry will swallow its pride and be forced to join the download bandwagon.

You can believe otherwise. You can rant & rave. You can cry foul. You can continue to whine. God knows, we've seen you do this over & over again. But progress is progress. If Apple has a technology that works and is, if not better, at least enough for the majority of consumers, then that's the technology that will win out. BR and it's copy protection will still be there, but what will that matter when the majority of the movies are on something a couple of notches below it? I think your inability to see the potential of iPod movies and downloads is shortsighted and pompous to say the least.

So instead of continuing your childish behavior, why don't we return to this discussion in a couple of years and see who was right?

**Mr Peabody** · 10-21-2008, 08:46 PM

Any one have a theory as to why DTS-MA seems not to be used very much on BR movies? Dolby had the most use in DVD but DTS had a good showing of titles, on BR DTS-MA seems to be down right scarce. Good for me I guess, my player can't handle it. I do find it curious.

nightflier · 10-22-2008, 03:24 PM

Because those nitwits in Hollywood couldn't come up with a single standard, so we'll have the same asinine shenanigans that we had with DTS: it will be supported only one some select titles.

nightflier · 10-23-2008, 12:24 PM

Well, what do you know? Lenovo is also joining the Display Port bandwagon, by including it in their new x301 series laptops. Since we have to purchase some new laptops at my work, I'll see if we can squeeze in a 301 in the purchase.

By the way, I did a little hunting around regarding the Display Port. and found a couple of interesting links:

- HDMI to Display Port cable ($40):
http://www.hdtvsupply.com/displaypor...i-adapter.html

- Samsung's 30" Display Port LCD (no price yet):
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/s...yport-game-on/

In reading up on DisplayPort 1.1, I noticed that it's been with us for a while already and that it was approved by VESA in 2006. Apparently these are the companies that currently support it:

AMD,
Analogix,
Apple,
ASRock,
ASUSTeK,
Dell,
Genesis Microchip,
Hewlett-Packard,
Hosiden Corporation,
Intel,
Integrated Device Technology,
JAE,
Lenovo,
Luxtera,
Molex,
NVIDIA,
NXP Semiconductors,
Palit Microsystems Palit,
Parade Technologies,
Philips,
Quantum Data,
Samsung,
Sparkle Computer,
Texas Instruments,
Tyco Electronics.

Computer-side heavy, I know, but I think Phillips and Samsung are the two big home entertainment names here. It's also looking like the support for display port is mostly coming from companies based in the Far East. Sony was also expected to add the Display Port on its XBR6 series televisions, but that did not happen. Apparently they will be waiting out the debate brewing between Display Port and HDMI. There are also other technologies such as USB/Kleer vying for a share of that market, so there's a lot of unknowns.

What is clear is that Display Port is not as capable of a standard as HDMI. It's primary limitations being:

1. No xvYCC color space support
2. No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream support
3. No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
4. No compatibility with DVI

But I think that the Display Port proponents are banking on these specs not being important to the average consumer who may not have equipment (i.e. the money to purchase the necessary equipment) to take advantage of these. And even if they do, how many have their systems optimized to truly see the benefits of the xvYCC color space, and how many movies are there really that have DTS-MA support? The Display Port camp may have found a niche that they can exploit.

Of course HDMI has the advantage of being the de-facto standard in home electronics, but it hasn't made those inroads on the computer side, and that's a space that Display Port could definitely fill. Granted, DVI was a miserable failure in that same space (and having a pre-pro with DVI and no HDMI, I am acutely aware of that), but I also think that TV manufacturers aren't as interested in getting stuck in the crossfire of this new format war. My guess is that they'll quietly add Display Ports to their TVs in addition to HDMI and let the sparks fly elsewhere. As a consumer, I applaud the choice and would much prefer having the option, rather than being locked into one standard. Anyhow, here's an even-keeled article on the technology that lists many of the pros and cons:

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=...leid=CA6594089

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-24-2008, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by nightflier

Well, you can keep on insulting me, lil't, but that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments. You're kind of like the McCain of this debate, and we all know what's happened to his poll numbers. But while I'm sure you'd love to continue throwing insults (most children are like that), let's get back to the argument.

Well, this is worth a penny. Here it is...... and a tissue and toilet paper as well. You are more like McCain than I am. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes true(at least in your empty head it does)

- Whether you like the quality or not, that TV with the iPod dock (not deck, by the way), is still out there for sale. Likewise, the AppleTV is out there too and even though people are using it primarily for audio, it is already directly connected to iTunes and makes the transition to movies pretty simple for the average consumer.

Apple TV has horrible picture quality. If they are using it for audio, then it couldn't be high resolution audio because all Apple TV supports is lossy formats. Not much good in a lossless world is it? That TV with the Ipod deck, dock, hookup or whatever it is has suffered from dismal sales. It is going to be dropped from LG lineup, that is for certain.

- That LG player that's connected directly to Netflix, must give you fits, huh? What if that's the hot seller this x-mas season? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

More prognostication? There are two bluray players also able to download Netflix, and I hope they do well on the market. However, when the folks that buy it put netflix offerings against the bluray PQ, I am sure netflix will not be their choice.

-

If we take CDs and BRs as being the highest quality formats out there, then compressed files and downloads are somewhere below that right? Well guess which audio medium is outselling the CD? Why could the same not happen for lower-quality video? While you love to bash lower quality video, there is still the very real possibility that someone would pay a fraction of the price for it (compared to BR). There are two factors that play into this: the files are smaller and these files won't need 1080p/DTS-MA capable setups to be enjoyed.

I hate to deliver this bad news to you, but the CD market in spite of its nearly seven year slide is still twenty times the size of the download market. What you cannot seem to get through your empty head is music is digital files, small digital files compared to video. Research after research has shown that people will buy low quality MP3 files because they are cheap, convient and they like the song(quality be damn). However, with larger and larger video monitors, there is push for better quality video, which is why Bluray is doing so well now. We can forgive low quality audio, but not low quality video. Secondly, the folks that purchase these low quality audio files do not care about audio or video quality. That is why a computer geek(much like yourself) will sit in front of a computer monitor(that does not support the proper colorspace for HD video and is definately uncalibrated for SD video) and watch a movie or television show, and listen to the audio on cheap, low performing computer speakers(2 at that). The film and video industry is not supported by these people, the computer industry is

- You dismiss anything that isn't hugely profitable. That's very much like the music industry's position was and now very much the stance of the movie industry. My simple point is that this is myopic.

Money is the driving force behind business. Does your company give away its services for free? I think not, or you wouldn't be employed. It takes money to create a product, do you know of anyone who creates a product, markets it, but it doesn't cost a dime?

Dummy(that can't be insulting to you, its accurate), the music industry didn't lower the price of CD's for decades, that cannot be said for the cost of a DVD or Bluray can it? The music industry, and the film and video industry are quite different. The day you get that through your thick skull, is the day you will finally have some sort of epiphany(though I cannot imagine a dummy becoming less of one, especially you)

Who cares what you think, you don't run a film studio do you? You are just another uneducated joe attempted to pass you computer based logic on the film industry.

At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, I don't think that's the time to be posturing with expensive alternatives. People are being very choosy this fall about what they will pay for. I am thus fairly certain that a full audio/video setup and the highest quality movies are less important than just being able to see the damn film, regardless of resolution.

This is your perspective, and is not supported by any data I have seen over any recession we have experienced in decades. A two hundred and fifty dollar bluray player, and twenty dollar disc are not high ticket items. During our last recession, DVD players sales grew more in 2001-2003 than from 1997 to 2001. Disc sales tripled in that two years compared to the same period. Rentals went through the roof during that period. Since Bluray player are cheaper than a new computer, I think your company is in much more danger than Sony, Disney or Fox.

Even movie theaters are hurting big time. Your position is very much that of the fat cats, and that is why I think you are way off base. We won't find that out right away (so please don't waste everyone's time by debating me point for point the minute I post). But over time, I believe that the movie industry will swallow its pride and be forced to join the download bandwagon.

Boy, you sure did bring in a red herring. Hey brightness, movie theaters have been hurting for close to a decade, where have you been, under a rock? The studio will shift to downloading when

1. It makes them money, which it isn't now.
2. When the infrastructure is there, which it is not.
3. When the quality of the download equals what we currently get. 1080p, lossless 16bit or 24bit 48 or 96khz sample rate audio bit for bit. Until it can, it will never get me as a consumer. I buy 100-200 disc a year, that is who the film and video business is looking for, not some cheap azz downloader who rents, not buys.

You can believe otherwise. You can rant & rave. You can cry foul. You can continue to whine. God knows, we've seen you do this over & over again.

Please tell me you said this while staring in the mirror.

But progress is progress. If Apple has a technology that works and is, if not better, at least enough for the majority of consumers, then that's the technology that will win out.

Who said downloading is the only way for progress to take place, kinda one deminisional thinking isn't it(but typical for you). Apple technology is not 1080p. Apple technology is not lossless audio. Apple TV is not a staple for hometheater owners. Apple TV may work for computer geeks who do not care about video or audio quality, but to a hometheater enthusiast who desire quality, its not good enough.

BR and it's copy protection will still be there, but what will that matter when the majority of the movies are on something a couple of notches below it? I think your inability to see the potential of iPod movies and downloads is shortsighted and pompous to say the least.

Downloads have copy protection as well, you know this or you should. You have a maximum amount of devices that you can transfer a file to, and for rental a certain time period to watch. I think you ability to put everyone in the same frame as yourself(you know, does not care a bit about quality) is narrow minded. You think to small, you are out of touch with the average hometheater enthusiast, and when it comes to marketing trends in the film and video business, you are going in the opposite direction. That is why it is never good for you to think. Nobody wants to sit and watch a movie on a 3.5" screen, they watch television programming, and music videos. Nobody wants to watch while listening to two channel audio. If that is your idea of a premiere event, great, but its not mine.

So instead of continuing your childish behavior, why don't we return to this discussion in a couple of years and see who was right?

Why wait. We already have a rich history of your predictions that already have not come to fruition. Oh, you better hope a ship load of Ipods do not go down in the ocean. Its going to raise the price of Ipods on the shelves. Wasn't it you who said you couldn't buy new equipment because you had other responsibilities? Was buying pampers for yourself one of them?

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-24-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by nightflier

Because those nitwits in Hollywood couldn't come up with a single standard, so we'll have the same asinine shenanigans that we had with DTS: it will be supported only one some select titles.

This is how smart you are idiot. Universal and Fox both have contracts to release all of their blurays in Dts MA. Warner is currently in negotiation with Dts as well for simular agreement. This show just how stupid it is for a computer geek with limited knowledge of the film industry to come to these kinds of conclusions. There are more than 100 titles currently with Dts MA audio on them. You wanna try again?

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-24-2008, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by nightflier

Well, what do you know? Lenovo is also joining the Display Port bandwagon, by including it in their new x301 series laptops. Since we have to purchase some new laptops at my work, I'll see if we can squeeze in a 301 in the purchase.

By the way, I did a little hunting around regarding the Display Port. and found a couple of interesting links:

- HDMI to Display Port cable ($40):
http://www.hdtvsupply.com/displaypor...i-adapter.html

- Samsung's 30" Display Port LCD (no price yet):
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/s...yport-game-on/

In reading up on DisplayPort 1.1, I noticed that it's been with us for a while already and that it was approved by VESA in 2006. Apparently these are the companies that currently support it:

AMD,
Analogix,
Apple,
ASRock,
ASUSTeK,
Dell,
Genesis Microchip,
Hewlett-Packard,
Hosiden Corporation,
Intel,
Integrated Device Technology,
JAE,
Lenovo,
Luxtera,
Molex,
NVIDIA,
NXP Semiconductors,
Palit Microsystems Palit,
Parade Technologies,
Philips,
Quantum Data,
Samsung,
Sparkle Computer,
Texas Instruments,
Tyco Electronics.

Computer-side heavy, I know, but I think Phillips and Samsung are the two big home entertainment names here. It's also looking like the support for display port is mostly coming from companies based in the Far East. Sony was also expected to add the Display Port on its XBR6 series televisions, but that did not happen. Apparently they will be waiting out the debate brewing between Display Port and HDMI. There are also other technologies such as USB/Kleer vying for a share of that market, so there's a lot of unknowns.

Thanks for proving my point. All computer manufacturers. Philips and Samsung make transmitters that support data transfer for both HDMI and Displayport. HDMI is not an unknown, it is the standard data tranfer interface for the CE industry. It will be tomorrow, and the day after that as well, so there is no chance in hell you are going to see another interface for Bluray, DVD, cable boxes or any other video based technology. That Samsung television is being marketed to the computer industry, not the consumer electronics side. The specs of the television bare this out. 10bit color depth? My processor supports 48bit color depth and my television and projector can play it back in full glory. A 6 second response time? There are LCD panels already out that do better. 1000:1 contrast? Well I must admit, not many LCD panels do that much better, plasma's got them beat in this area.

Lets interject some realism here

http://hdmi.org/pdf/InterfaceOff_Feb2007.pdf

This comes from a person who reports on the computer industry itself, Not so rosy for displayport is it? He says many of the same things I have said, and why your prediction are so dang....well.... simple minded.

Founding members of HDMI
Hitachi, Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation
Philips Consumer Electronics International B.V.
Silicon Image, Inc.
Sony Corporation
Thomson, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation

All manufacturers of video based players.

What is clear is that Display Port is not as capable of a standard as HDMI. It's primary limitations being:

1. No xvYCC color space support
2. No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream support
3. No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
4. No compatibility with DVI

But I think that the Display Port proponents are banking on these specs not being important to the average consumer who may not have equipment (i.e. the money to purchase the necessary equipment) to take advantage of these. And even if they do, how many have their systems optimized to truly see the benefits of the xvYCC color space, and how many movies are there really that have DTS-MA support? The Display Port camp may have found a niche that they can exploit.

These specs brightness are a part of the bluray spec. The bluray spec is not going to change with the introduction of Displayport. Nobody is going to give up Dts MA just to support a new interface between components, and it is stupid to think otherwise. Especially if it is a less capable technology for video related material than HDMI is. Please, do not think anymore. If anyone has purchased a DLP, plasma or LCD in the last two years, the display is optimized for xvYCC color space. Even my dinosour CRT projector and RPTV supports it. There are more than 100+ movies with Dts MA on them, and many more on the way via Universal, Fox, and perhaps Warner as well. This shows just how far behind the curve you are when it comes to hometheater. You don't even know the Bluray standards, so your comments are just as off base as your lame predictions.

Of course HDMI has the advantage of being the de-facto standard in home electronics, but it hasn't made those inroads on the computer side, and that's a space that Display Port could definitely fill. Granted, DVI was a miserable failure in that same space (and having a pre-pro with DVI and no HDMI, I am acutely aware of that), but I also think that TV manufacturers aren't as interested in getting stuck in the crossfire of this new format war. My guess is that they'll quietly add Display Ports to their TVs in addition to HDMI and let the sparks fly elsewhere. As a consumer, I applaud the choice and would much prefer having the option, rather than being locked into one standard. Anyhow, here's an even-keeled article on the technology that lists many of the pros and cons:

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=...leid=CA6594089

HDMI is the de facto standard in hometheater, and that is not going to change. The BDA is not going to start dropping manditory stuff, or alter its specs just to use Displayport. HDMI was not designed for the computer industry, so in roads there are not important. I am going to file this prediction right next to the one you said that HD DVD was going to win, and along with the other predictions you made(all ten pages of them), in the garbage. There is no format war(except in your twisted head), HDMI is for CE, Displayport is for the computer industry. Its just that simple, you make it difficult trying to push the interests of the computer industry on the film and video industry. There is a reason the two are seperate entities.

**Mr Peabody** · 10-24-2008, 04:33 PM

Are these movies with Dts-MA listed anywhere?

NF, you may want to drop in on AtomicAdam's thread about blogs, he had a computer/software/website question you might be able to help with

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-24-2008, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

Are these movies with Dts-MA listed anywhere?

NF, you may want to drop in on AtomicAdam's thread about blogs, he had a computer/software/website question you might be able to help with

Mr P.
No real need for a list here. All fox titles have Dts MA tracks, as well as New Line Cinema stuff. All Universals have Dts-MA tracks, and if things keep going positively in negotiations(Dts is really wheeling and dealing around town) Warner will have all of its releases in Dts MA as well.

I did a 7.1 mix for Nightmare Before Christmas that was released in Dts MA 7.1 a couple of weeks ago, and look for other titles from Disney that will include it as well(I think Disney will be moving away from PCM unfortunately).

**Mr Peabody** · 10-24-2008, 06:56 PM

I saw Pinnochio will have a 7.1 mix, I wonder how they do that from a mono original soundtrack. I hope they turn out better than some of the DVD's I've heard that attempt to do a surround mix from mono or old stereo. The largest problem is the tone of the original, it's impossible to match that with something from today. You'd almost have to do the whole thing over or strip everything away but the vocals then redo the sound effects.

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-24-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I saw Pinnochio will have a 7.1 mix, I wonder how they do that from a mono original soundtrack. I hope they turn out better than some of the DVD's I've heard that attempt to do a surround mix from mono or old stereo. The largest problem is the tone of the original, it's impossible to match that with something from today. You'd almost have to do the whole thing over or strip everything away but the vocals then redo the sound effects.

Actually Mr. P, its is quite easy to get a 7.1 mix from Pinnochio. Disney keeps its original elements(the seperate stems for effects, music and dialog) in near perfect condition. All we have to do is take those stems and digitize them, de hiss and de pop them, give them directional cues via joystick panning(or programming) tweak the EQ, and boom there you are. Remember, the mono mix is a compendium of the original stems. Just like they were mixed for mono at the time(most theaters were mono) does not mean they cannot be mixed for multichannel later. We do not use final mixes to create other mixes, we use the original stems to do that. A lot of repurposing in the past never went back to the original stems. They just integrated newly recorded elements with the old elements which is not really the right way to repurpose a soundtrack, but the only way if your original elements are in poor condition, and cannot be restored. Its not as difficult(but it is time consuming) as you think.

**Feanor** · 10-25-2008, 03:44 AM

Sir T and 'flier are at it again. Wasn't it after a acrimonious clash with the latter that Sir T stomped off the last time? Well I hope that doesn't happen again though Sir T and I have disagreed about this and that.

Also, I'm just as glad at time that I'm so far behind the curve that all the minutiae they're clawing each other about is petty much irrelevant to me. They contrary predictions will have worked out one way or the other before I have to worry about them.

**Sir Terrence the Terrible** · 10-25-2008, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Feanor

Sir T and 'flier are at it again. Wasn't it after a acrimonious clash with the latter that Sir T stomped off the last time? Well I hope that doesn't happen again though Sir T and I have disagreed about this and that.

You might want to go back and read the post again. It wasn't me that stomped off the last time.

Also, I'm just as glad at time that I'm so far behind the curve that all the minutiae they're clawing each other about is petty much irrelevant to me. They contrary predictions will have worked out one way or the other before I have to worry about them.

There is really nothing to work out. Displayport MAY be a computer interface, and HDMI is the de facto standard for CE. The CE industry is not going to alter specs, and drop features just to accomodate a computer interface. We have already seen what happens when the computer industry takes a role in the CE business. Its the disaster called DVI which had all kinds of problems interfacing with HDMI, and had too many issues till it was finally dropped for HDMI. Displayport is free and open until HDCP has to be layered in, then its not free anymore because HDCP requires a liscense, and without that liscense you are not going to get content.

Its not any more difficult than this.

**Worf101** · 10-27-2008, 05:21 AM

"Can't we all jes... git along????"

Ah guess not!!!!! Sigh, what happens when you like two guys who just keep pokin' one another in the eye and tappin' one another in the ball sack. Play nice dang it!!!

Da Worfster

nightflier · 10-27-2008, 03:58 PM

...that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments.

Let's face it, your insults only make you look more and more stupid. Keep it up, it's not going to endear you to anyone here...