Perhaps I misread the dialectic somehow. I was taking the point back to the thesis of the article (that Jobs was quite wrong in his characterization of best br

Perhaps I misread the dialectic somehow. I was taking the point back to the thesis of the article (that Jobs was quite wrong in his characterization of best browsing ever), a thesis which g0atbutt was supplying support for. Support which you seemed to be trying to counter or undermine in you comment with things like "Just because it doesn't do exactly what you want doesn't mean it's handled badly - it still does what it does gracefully and without errors or slowdowns" and "It does after all not claim to be able to hold pages open indefinitely...". As you were countering the support being given for the thesis, I took it that you were attacking the article's thesis (thus defending Jobs' characterization). But then your comment moved the goal for what constituted "best" so far that it functionally proved the thesis of the article. I apologize that I was overly eager to point this oddness out and did so badly.