XPost: comp.mobile.android, alt.os.linux, alt.comp.os.windows-10
From: this@ddress.is.invalid
nospam wrote:
> In article , Frank Slootweg
> wrote:
>
> > > he hasn't said *why* he wants this, and quite likely, there's an even
> > > easier solution.
> >
> > He *has* said why he wants/needs this - a fixed ip address on his
> > phone while at home
>
> that's not a why.
Duh! I said "He *has* said". I.e. you said he hasn't, I say he has.
The "a fixed ip address on his phone while at home" is an elaboration
of "this", because it would be silly to talk about "this" if it isn't
clear what "this" refers to. You might want to look up the concept of
'context'.
> he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
> that he knows very little about networking.
He *has* stated the problem he needs to solve. And you'd better worry
about your reading/comprehension problems than about his alleged lack of
networking knowledge.
> his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all
> the problems it will cause for both himself and others.
There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.
> > -, but as usual you spout all kind of bollocks
> > without even knowing what the problem is.
>
> he never said what the problem is, so nobody, including you, has any
> idea.
He *has* said what the problem is. Sofar the only one having no idea
is you.
> > And yes, his want/need *is* a
> > legitimate one.
>
> no it isn't.
>
> there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address.
In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.
To compensate for your extreme clue-resistance, I'll give you two
clue-by-fours:
- It's common to describe a problem where?
- It's irrelevant that it's a phone. It has exactly nothing to do with
the device being a phone. He actually *first* uses the term "device"
several times, before he talks about "phone".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
