[gaustin]

I never claimed it did. Further, I don't think there is a dichotomy here.

You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways. You were privileged enough to do it in the way that presumable pleased you most. There is a hint of toyness to it in that respect.

[khedoros1]

You certainly implied that it did.

> You could have solved your problem in a dozen other ways.

Hmm. And what ways would those be? First, I simplified when I said that "I" bought the monitor. It was a gift, bought for me, that I didn't have particular choice in. Second, I'm unaware of "a dozen" ways to solve the problem of displaying a computer's output. If you'd care to list the ones you're thinking of...

[gaustin]

> You certainly implied that it did.

"in my book" is often used to cast a statement as opinion. So something "definitely" being X "in my book" is pretty clearly not meant to be any sort of argument (necessary! sufficient! proof! -- gag me with conversation killers) where I come from.

I don't think there's any good way to define a toy in any hard-and-fast way, so rubbing words like "necessary" on it is just not in play.

In the original discussion, lamp oil was interesting when framed as a toy. The background given was enough for me to think of it as such as part of the thought experiment. I gave a couple of dimensions that I think supported its toyness when some balked.

You could: 1) not have a monitor on your desk 2) use a smaller monitor 3) use a laptop 4) get a bigger desk

Each of these has a number of ways you might achieve them, easily meeting or exceeding the throw-away number I posited.

For example, with (1) you might use a school computer lab. Or you might eschew computer use altogether. Or you might borrow a computer when necessary. Or you might devise an alternate mounting scheme. Or you might get a lap desk, so you need less real-desk surface for other things.

Anyway, we're way off in some boring-ass woods. The woods that kept me from participating here for years.

Good day, human.