There is a big difference. A person with a wealth of $100 million shouldn't be called a billionaire which is why I wrote that comment. :) I don't get why you

There is a big difference. A person with a wealth of $100 million shouldn't be called a billionaire which is why I wrote that comment. :) I don't get why you wrote what you did as a response to mine; I just made a factual correction. (I even stated that the point still stands.) Edit: This was not an argument over the meaning of the word 'billionaire'; the post I replied to likely assumed that Wozniak was a billionaire (defined in the way that over 99% of Americans would understand it) and I mentioned that it doesn't seem that is the case. If you're arguing about the alternative definitions of 'billionaire', it could have been an interesting sidenote, but ultimately the definition that I am using is what most Americans (i.e. the country Woz lives in) would assume and to use another definition in this context is poor communication. The whole point of the post I responded to was just saying that if Woz wasn't working with Jobs, he might not have been as rich as he is now; no judgment was made on what it means to be "rich enough", etc.