MSM No Longer Useful So...

[DC Tom]

 

Let me make this very clear [...] I do not need to repeat myself any more than I already have.

 

Welcome to my world.

 

I usually just type "You're an idiot," because it's quicker.

[Azalin]

 

I'm arguing because you make little sense, and most arguments against net neutrality and ICANN are contradictory tin foil hat conspiracies. But I see this is going nowhere when one side believes they are all knowing, and gets frustrated when others don't see things precisely the way their expert minds do.

 

It makes little sense to you because you're arguing a political position against an industry position. I have not been trying to argue with you, I've been attempting to inform you. Nothing that I have stated in my discussion with you is my opinion, but rather fact and information from within the industry. You can take it or leave it, but it appears to me that your conclusions are based in confirmation bias and pro-regulatory opinion.

[OCinBuffalo]

RE: Net Neutrality

 

Net Neutrality can't get passed by Congress. So, it gets regulated into being by the FCC, and, we're supposed to think that's OK?

How in the hell are any of you OK with it? Get a F'ing grip. That is fascism, on its face, and only an unmitigated moron can't see this for what it is.

 

I've already proven, years ago, that Net Neutrality is a farce, and has nothing to do with morality, or safety, or rights, or any of that. It has to do with 1 thing only: software vs hardware, just like practically every other major IT fight does.

 

An instructive example of hardware vs. software? You can't build a native app for an IPhone without literally owning a mac(or, as we do, using a mac hosting service to get around this), only using their programming language, paying a $100 fee, and then? Only they decide what apps go on the store, and their decision process USED to take as much as 1 month(one guy had to wait 4). Denial was common. Competition, outcry from developers, and bad press has forced them end most of this. But then, after approval, you can't charge what you want for your app, no matter what it does, or how much time you put into it. Your price is arbitrarily capped, with nothing other than leftist ideology given as the reason why.

 

Now, tell me: that is what a hardware company is currently doing to individual programmers as well as companies, right now, and that's OK...

...but hardware companies who want to charge major software companies for hogging their resources is bad?

 

Does anyone not see WTF is happening here, and the contradiction, or do I have to go over it again?

 

However, Reality: never think that a hardware company will ultimately win at lock-in, or anything else. They never do. There is now this, and there has been this for quite some time. See? Software will always find a way to perturb, avoid, or destroy any limitation placed upon it: not just by hardware, but by governments and competing software companies as well. Microsoft used to be patent everything and then try to sue other software companies out of existence. Software's response? Open source, which has utterly crushed them. Now, after the whipping they took, they are releasing open source products See here: new Microsoft IDE that would have cost you ~$400 when .net first came into being, now costs you: nothing.

 

The little guys that Net Neutrality claims to defend(Lie. It defends Google and Netflix), defeated Microsoft all by themselves. So, WHY do we need Net Neutrality? We don't. What we need is to recognize that software vs. hardware is an eternal struggle, and that the government getting involved is 10x more likely to F things up worse, rather than fixing anything.

 

But most of all: we need to recognize that this is about $$$$$$$, period. All the "moral" arguments and "freedom" arguments and all of it, from both sides?

 

Utter BS.

Edited September 22, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Azalin]

 

Welcome to my world.

 

I usually just type "You're an idiot," because it's quicker.

 

He's always seemed like a nice enough guy. I prefer to save the "idiot" moniker for the likes of Gatorman.

RE: Net Neutrality

 

Net Neutrality can't get passed by Congress. So, it gets regulated into being by the FCC, and, we're supposed to think that's OK?

How in the hell are any of you OK with it? Get a F'ing grip. That is fascism, on its face, and only an unmitigated moron can't see this for what it is.

 

I've already proven, years ago, that the Net Neutrality is a farce, and has nothing to do with morality, or safety, or rights, or any of that. It has to do with 1 thing only: software vs hardware, just like practically every other major IT fight does.

 

An instructive example of hardware vs. software? You can't build a native app for an IPhone without literally owning a mac(or, as we do, using a mac hosting service to get around this), only using their programming language, paying a $100 fee, and then? Only they decide what apps go on the store, and their decision process USED to take as much as 1 month(one guy had to wait 4). Denial was common. Competition, outcry from developers, and bad press has forced them end most of this. But then, after approval, you can't charge what you want for your app, no matter what it does, or how much time you put into it. Your price is arbitrarily capped, with nothing other than leftist ideology given as the reason why.

 

Now, tell me: that is what a hardware company is currently doing to individual programmers as well as companies, right now, and that's OK...

...but hardware companies who want to charge major software companies for hogging their resources is bad?

 

Does anyone not see WTF is happening here, and the contradiction, or do I have to go over it again?

 

However, Reality: never think that a hardware company will ultimately win at lock-in, or anything else. They never do. There is now this, and there has been this for quite some time. See? Software will always find a way to perturb, avoid, or destroy any limitation placed upon it: not just by hardware, but by governments and competing software companies as well. Microsoft used to be patent everything and then try to sue other software companies out of existence. Open source has utterly crushed them. Now, after the whipping they took, they are releasing open source products :loi: See here: new Microsoft IDE that would have cost you ~$400 when .net first came into being, now costs you: nothing.

 

The little guys that Net Neutrality claims to defend(Lie. It defends Google and Netflix), defeated Microsoft all by themselves. So, WHY do we need Net Neutrality? We don't. What we need is to recognize that software vs. hardware is an eternal struggle, and that the government getting involved is 10x more likely to F things up worse, rather than fixing anything.

 

But most of all: we need to recognize that this is about $$$$$$$, period. All the "moral" arguments and "freedom" arguments and all of it, from both sides?

 

Utter BS.

 

You're correct, but I've not even bothered with the nuts & bolts aspect of it. My position has been based solely on principle. They didn't build it, they have no right to regulate it.

[What a Tuel]

RE: Net Neutrality

 

Net Neutrality can't get passed by Congress. So, it gets regulated into being by the FCC, and, we're supposed to think that's OK?

How in the hell are any of you OK with it? Get a F'ing grip. That is fascism, on its face, and only an unmitigated moron can't see this for what it is.

 

I've already proven, years ago, that Net Neutrality is a farce, and has nothing to do with morality, or safety, or rights, or any of that. It has to do with 1 thing only: software vs hardware, just like practically every other major IT fight does.

 

An instructive example of hardware vs. software? You can't build a native app for an IPhone without literally owning a mac(or, as we do, using a mac hosting service to get around this), only using their programming language, paying a $100 fee, and then? Only they decide what apps go on the store, and their decision process USED to take as much as 1 month(one guy had to wait 4). Denial was common. Competition, outcry from developers, and bad press has forced them end most of this. But then, after approval, you can't charge what you want for your app, no matter what it does, or how much time you put into it. Your price is arbitrarily capped, with nothing other than leftist ideology given as the reason why.

 

Now, tell me: that is what a hardware company is currently doing to individual programmers as well as companies, right now, and that's OK...

...but hardware companies who want to charge major software companies for hogging their resources is bad?

 

Does anyone not see WTF is happening here, and the contradiction, or do I have to go over it again?

 

However, Reality: never think that a hardware company will ultimately win at lock-in, or anything else. They never do. There is now this, and there has been this for quite some time. See? Software will always find a way to perturb, avoid, or destroy any limitation placed upon it: not just by hardware, but by governments and competing software companies as well. Microsoft used to be patent everything and then try to sue other software companies out of existence. Software's response? Open source, which has utterly crushed them. Now, after the whipping they took, they are releasing open source products See here: new Microsoft IDE that would have cost you ~$400 when .net first came into being, now costs you: nothing.

 

The little guys that Net Neutrality claims to defend(Lie. It defends Google and Netflix), defeated Microsoft all by themselves. So, WHY do we need Net Neutrality? We don't. What we need is to recognize that software vs. hardware is an eternal struggle, and that the government getting involved is 10x more likely to F things up worse, rather than fixing anything.

 

But most of all: we need to recognize that this is about $$$$$$$, period. All the "moral" arguments and "freedom" arguments and all of it, from both sides?

 

Utter BS.

 

Hogging their resources? We are all paying customers to these companies even the evil large Netflix.

 

That would be like paying for one of those apps, and the developer saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, you are using this app way too much. You need to pay more than everyone else because we have had to increase server load because of you.

 

If the ISP's want to raise the price of internet at any point they can to offset the increased costs across the board. However they won't because this isn't about costs, it is about a power play on both ends. On one end to control what a paying customer "Netflix" gets what speeds (aka did you pay your protection money today?). And on the consumer end, capping data to ensure Customers are filtered through their own affiliates. They are trying to turn the internet into some distorted version of cable television because they are losing their grip on cable television as a result of the internet.

Edited September 23, 2016 by What a Tuel

[GG]

 

Hogging their resources? We are all paying customers to these companies even the evil large Netflix.

 

That would be like paying for one of those apps, and the developer saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, you are using this app way too much. You need to pay more than everyone else because we have had to increase server load because of you.

 

 

Yeah, now you're getting it. If you drink more coffee than the guy next to you, should Starbucks charge both of you the same?

Edited September 23, 2016 by GG

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Yeah, now you're getting it. If you drink more coffee than the guy next to you, should Starbucks charge both of you the same?

Of course not.

 

However someone should slap both of them for drinking ****ty coffee.

[What a Tuel]

 

Yeah, now you're getting it. If you drink more coffee than the guy next to you, should Starbucks charge both of you the same?

 

Data should never be monetized like this. But hey, if you believe the mobile internet landscape is amazing then all the power to you. It is anti everyone except the telecommunications companies who have everyone under their thumb.

 

"Hey you only have a 2gb data limit, but we partnered with Netflix so you can stream all you want from the providers we tell you to!"

 

If you don't see a problem with this, then I don't know what to tell you. They are the providers of access to the internet, not to be confused with the gate keepers of what we can utilize the internet for.

Edited September 23, 2016 by What a Tuel

[/dev/null]

 

Data should never be monetized like this. But hey, if you believe the mobile internet landscape is amazing then all the power to you. It is anti everyone except the telecommunications companies who have everyone under their thumb.

 

"Hey you only have a 2gb data limit, but we partnered with Netflix so you can stream all you want from the providers we tell you to!"

 

If you don't see a problem with this, then I don't know what to tell you. They are the providers of access to the internet, not to be confused with the gate keepers of what we can utilize the internet for.

 

[GG]

Data should never be monetized like this. But hey, if you believe the mobile internet landscape is amazing then all the power to you. It is anti everyone except the telecommunications companies who have everyone under their thumb.

 

"Hey you only have a 2gb data limit, but we partnered with Netflix so you can stream all you want from the providers we tell you to!"

 

If you don't see a problem with this, then I don't know what to tell you. They are the providers of access to the internet, not to be confused with the gate keepers of what we can utilize the internet for.

So essentially you want government intervention to protect your God-given right to stream Youtube videos?

[Azalin]

 

"Hey you only have a 2gb data limit, but we partnered with Netflix so you can stream all you want from the providers we tell you to!"

 

 

Are you referring to your mobile data as having a 2G cap, or are you saying that you or someone you know has a monthly data cap on your ethernet DSL/ digital cable?

[What a Tuel]

 

Are you referring to your mobile data as having a 2G cap, or are you saying that you or someone you know has a monthly data cap on your ethernet DSL/ digital cable?

 

I am referring to mobile data and how if ISP's had their way, they would cap ethernet as well. This was in response to someone saying they should be billed on a usage basis like coffee.

 

This isn't about infrastructure, this is a power play for control. The mobile industry did it perfectly with their caps - albeit they at least have some valid reasoning - but not quite good enough reasoning for the gouging they are doing, and are milking consumers dry. It's a cash cow, and equivalent to the "minutes" epidemic of the 90's. They milked that dry too.

 

So essentially you want government intervention to protect your God-given right to stream Youtube videos?

 

You don't quite understand that it isn't about streaming. It is about the power of cutting off access to the internet through the monetization of data which the mobile phone industry has perfected and the ISP's envy. If that's what you want because you think it is fair use of the ISP's infrastructure then fine. But realize it isn't because these companies are trying to recoup the cost on their infrastructure, it is a power play to obtain control.

[Azalin]

 

I am referring to mobile data and how if ISP's had their way, they would cap ethernet as well. This was in response to someone saying they should be billed on a usage basis like coffee.

 

This isn't about infrastructure, this is a power play for control. The mobile industry did it perfectly with their caps - albeit they at least have some valid reasoning - but not quite good enough reasoning for the gouging they are doing, and are milking consumers dry. It's a cash cow, and equivalent to the "minutes" epidemic of the 90's. They milked that dry too.

 

 

You don't quite understand that it isn't about streaming. It is about the power of cutting off access to the internet through the monetization of data which the mobile phone industry has perfected and the ISP's envy. If that's what you want because you think it is fair use of the ISP's infrastructure then fine. But realize it isn't because these companies are trying to recoup the cost on their infrastructure, it is a power play to obtain control.

 

Okay, so we can assume that this entire time you've been referring to caps on mobile devices and not on home internet. Now that we've established that, do you know why there are caps on mobile data, and why you get charged for increased data usage?

 

These two sentences from your third paragraph: "You don't quite understand that it isn't about streaming. It is about the power of cutting off access to the internet through the monetization of data which the mobile phone industry has perfected and the ISP's envy."

 

Do you stand by that assertion?

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Hogging their resources? We are all paying customers to these companies even the evil large Netflix.

 

That would be like paying for one of those apps, and the developer saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, you are using this app way too much. You need to pay more than everyone else because we have had to increase server load because of you.

 

If the ISP's want to raise the price of internet at any point they can to offset the increased costs across the board. However they won't because this isn't about costs, it is about a power play on both ends. On one end to control what a paying customer "Netflix" gets what speeds (aka did you pay your protection money today?). And on the consumer end, capping data to ensure Customers are filtered through their own affiliates. They are trying to turn the internet into some distorted version of cable television because they are losing their grip on cable television as a result of the internet.

Did you not get what I said at all? Apple is guilty of much worse than the ISPs. Period. Apple is #1 on the list of "Hardware companies behaving badly", and has been for literally MY ENTIRE CAREER Steve Jobs: the Totalitarian...and you are complaining about the ISPs? They are nothing. Whatever power you say they have is easily overcome. Steve Jobs got fired from his own company: because he was easily overcome.

 

WE DO NOT NEED the government to pre-determine how things are going to go(right, like they did with Obamacare?), and act, because the government, most of all, never knows how things are going to go, and never understands the full the consequences of its actions. How many examples of this do I need to cite? We do not need a sweeping, regulate-everything 2000 page effort on this. We need the government to aim small, and therefore, miss small: which, btw, is exactly what Trump's childcare program does. Every part of it can be tweaked with minimal effort and containable consequence. NONE of Net Neutrality can be changed without major disruption, because it is a top-down, multiple inter-dependency approach. It's yet another house of cards from the Democrats, just like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and Global Warming.

 

Your scenario above has < 25% chance of becoming a reality. What you are saying is possible, but you do not know, because: It is predicated on "point in time" thinking. Good IT doesn't do point in time, we do over time, and thus, measure our efforts by their responsiveness to change, NOT current market share(that's for you, Wall Street buffoons).

 

Just because your scenario might exist at 1 point in time, does NOT mean everything will stay that way: frozen in time. In fact, every single working part of your scenario above can be forced/changed/made irrelevant such that a different outcome is not only possible, but likely.

 

Ultimately: you are describing a Hardware Utopia. If it ever exists, it will for 2 months, tops, and then will be invaded and destroyed by Software. Ask IBM about its PC Utopia.

 

EDIT: When you are done asking IBM? Understand, that at one point in time, your entire argument above against the ISPs, WAS the argument against IBM, and its PC.

Edited September 24, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[What a Tuel]

 

Okay, so we can assume that this entire time you've been referring to caps on mobile devices and not on home internet. Now that we've established that, do you know why there are caps on mobile data, and why you get charged for increased data usage?

 

These two sentences from your third paragraph: "You don't quite understand that it isn't about streaming. It is about the power of cutting off access to the internet through the monetization of data which the mobile phone industry has perfected and the ISP's envy."

 

Do you stand by that assertion?

 

No, I have not been referring to mobile caps this whole time. Mobile caps are what the home internet ISP's aspire to have which is why I mentioned them.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/when-will-isp-data-caps-cost-consumers-more-money.aspx

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-ceo-data-caps-usage-based-pricing-henry-blodget-ignition-2015-12

 

Nope, they aren't trying to monetize data for home internet at all. Usage based pricing for internet is a ridiculous thing aimed at "cord cutters" because these ISP's are losing money to people unsubscribing from cable television. It is certainly not because their infrastructure cannot handle it. Admittedly Mobile data has more infrastructure reasonings behind their caps, however they are far too low, and are gouging customers with jacked up rates for more data, and overage fees.

[Azalin]

 

No, I have not been referring to mobile caps this whole time. Mobile caps are what the home internet ISP's aspire to have which is why I mentioned them.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/when-will-isp-data-caps-cost-consumers-more-money.aspx

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-ceo-data-caps-usage-based-pricing-henry-blodget-ignition-2015-12

 

Nope, they aren't trying to monetize data for home internet at all. Usage based pricing for internet is a ridiculous thing aimed at "cord cutters" because these ISP's are losing money to people unsubscribing from cable television. It is certainly not because their infrastructure cannot handle it. Admittedly Mobile data has more infrastructure reasonings behind their caps, however they are far too low, and are gouging customers with jacked up rates for more data, and overage fees.

 

You really need to learn a bit about how the technology works. Comcast was originally a cable television company on par with Time Warner. Both of those companies have infrastructures built around their original coaxial cable system. They used to offer faster internet than phone companies due to the digital cable systems they put in place, because their coaxial carriers were able to handle more traffic. The problem is that fiber is capable of handling much higher transmission speeds, and companies like Alcatel, Fujitsu, etc invested all their R&D into multiplexing and transport technology to be deployed on fiber optics. There's very little that cable companies can do at this point without ripping out their coaxial network and putting in fiber. Time Warner started putting data caps on their customers years ago - not in an effort to "monetize data", but instead to manage the ever increasing load on the network.

 

Seriously, this isn't complicated stuff.

 

Data caps on wireless are there for the same purpose. The network can only handle so much at a time, despite the speed in which the technology is being upgraded. Remember 3G? Then it became 4G? Now we have 4GLTE, with 5G right around the corner. Have you noticed how each new technology is faster than it's predecessor? Or that cost of data plans relative to the monthly data limits has become more affordable? Despite the improvements in the technology, it still isn't anywhere near being what it will become in the next decade - the technology is racing to catch up with customer demand, and the only reason that demand exists is because of the divestiture of AT&T in the early-mid 80's, creating 7 RBOCS (aka "baby bells") and a separate long distance carrier, with whom MCI became the first major competitor. The only reason we even have an internet right now is because the federally regulated monopoly was broken, and free markets were introduced into the industry. Period.

 

Your belief that ISPs aspire to place data caps on home internet is fallacy, mainly because most ISPs already employ multi-tiered pricing by offering different levels of bandwidth for home internet. By coincidence, grocery stores offer lower prices per pound on meat when purchased in the larger family packs. That's the exact same thing.

[GG]

 

 

Seriously, this isn't complicated stuff.

 

 

 

Save your typing next time. His mind is set, evidence be damned.

[What a Tuel]

 

You really need to learn a bit about how the technology works. Comcast was originally a cable television company on par with Time Warner. Both of those companies have infrastructures built around their original coaxial cable system. They used to offer faster internet than phone companies due to the digital cable systems they put in place, because their coaxial carriers were able to handle more traffic. The problem is that fiber is capable of handling much higher transmission speeds, and companies like Alcatel, Fujitsu, etc invested all their R&D into multiplexing and transport technology to be deployed on fiber optics. There's very little that cable companies can do at this point without ripping out their coaxial network and putting in fiber. Time Warner started putting data caps on their customers years ago - not in an effort to "monetize data", but instead to manage the ever increasing load on the network.

 

Seriously, this isn't complicated stuff.

 

Data caps on wireless are there for the same purpose. The network can only handle so much at a time, despite the speed in which the technology is being upgraded. Remember 3G? Then it became 4G? Now we have 4GLTE, with 5G right around the corner. Have you noticed how each new technology is faster than it's predecessor? Or that cost of data plans relative to the monthly data limits has become more affordable? Despite the improvements in the technology, it still isn't anywhere near being what it will become in the next decade - the technology is racing to catch up with customer demand, and the only reason that demand exists is because of the divestiture of AT&T in the early-mid 80's, creating 7 RBOCS (aka "baby bells") and a separate long distance carrier, with whom MCI became the first major competitor. The only reason we even have an internet right now is because the federally regulated monopoly was broken, and free markets were introduced into the industry. Period.

 

Your belief that ISPs aspire to place data caps on home internet is fallacy, mainly because most ISPs already employ multi-tiered pricing by offering different levels of bandwidth for home internet. By coincidence, grocery stores offer lower prices per pound on meat when purchased in the larger family packs. That's the exact same thing.

 

I understand all of this. What you don't understand is that these company's are using this as an excuse to move forward a plan to combat the relative loss of people cord cutting their TV. There are countless quotes of these CEO's backing this up. The fact that you think both can't manage their infrastructure and put together a combative plan to regain control of the media market is just plain naive. Cable companies are able to do plenty with the coaxial cable still, in fact I believe they just made a change to enable them to utilize more of it, and increase speeds as a result of the competition FIOS brought. Fiber might be faster, but FIOS hasn't enabled that speed yet, and Time Warner has eclipsed them in increasing speeds in upper packages of internet access.

 

"The cost of increasing [broadband] capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic," says Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic, an independent ISP based in Santa Rosa, Calif.

 

"We want to make sure our products meet the needs of customers for what they want to do and it does not inhibit them or force them to make decisions on how they want to use the product. The nice part of technology and what has happened is that transport costs continue to decline and by putting in the packet optical fabric it takes away a lot of those constraints," McCarthy said. "There may be a time when usage-based pricing is the right solution for the market, but I really don't see that as a path the market is taking at this point in time." CEO Dan McCarthy - Frontier Communications

 

"I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down." CEO Jerry Kent - Suddenlink in reference to the data caps of 250-550gb that they have placed in the St. Louis area.

 

As for your meat comparison, how can you say they aren't trying to monetize data but then make a comparison to meat in a grocery store that monetizes data?

Edited September 26, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

 

I understand all of this. What you don't understand is that these company's are using this as an excuse to move forward a plan to combat the relative loss of people cord cutting their TV. There are countless quotes of these CEO's backing this up. The fact that you think both can't manage their infrastructure and put together a combative plan to regain control of the media market is just plain naive. Cable companies are able to do plenty with the coaxial cable still, in fact I believe they just made a change to enable them to utilize more of it, and increase speeds as a result of the competition FIOS brought. Fiber might be faster, but FIOS hasn't enabled that speed yet, and Time Warner has eclipsed them in increasing speeds in upper packages of internet access.

 

"The cost of increasing [broadband] capacity has declined much faster than the increase in data traffic," says Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic, an independent ISP based in Santa Rosa, Calif.

 

"We want to make sure our products meet the needs of customers for what they want to do and it does not inhibit them or force them to make decisions on how they want to use the product. The nice part of technology and what has happened is that transport costs continue to decline and by putting in the packet optical fabric it takes away a lot of those constraints," McCarthy said. "There may be a time when usage-based pricing is the right solution for the market, but I really don't see that as a path the market is taking at this point in time." CEO Dan McCarthy - Frontier Communications

 

"I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down." CEO Jerry Kent - Suddenlink in reference to the data caps of 250-550gb that they have placed in the St. Louis area.

 

As for your meat comparison, how can you say they aren't trying to monetize data but then make a comparison to meat in a grocery store that monetizes data?

 

I have had more meaningful discussions with Gatorman. Believe whatever the hell you want, facts be damned. I'm not wasting any more time with you.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I have had more meaningful discussions with Gatorman. Believe whatever the hell you want, facts be damned. I'm not wasting any more time with you.

 

Others have appreciated the conversation.