In , nospam suggested:

Constantly you misunderstood the OP and even finally admitted it,

why do you talk about yourself in the third person?
the op was you, and i didn't misunderstand anything.
stop lying.

You're already misunderstanding the original post again.

You can get away with just making things up with the gullible iOS users,
but not with those on the linux and android newsgroups.

I only listed verifiable facts.
http://i.cubeupload.com/sOFWCj.gif

Nospam misses the entire question in the original post:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.
Carlos ER responds (correctly):
Yes, he did say it. And it is a legitimate reason.

Nospam incorrectly stated:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.
William Unruh correctly replied:
I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go.
He HAS said why.
Nospam finally admitted that the original question was always clear:
eventually he did, but not initially.

Nospam counters erroneously time and time again:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has
demonstrated that he knows very little about networking.

Framk Slootweg correctly replies:
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.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
he hasn't said *why* he wants this

Frank Slootweg counters correctly:
He *has* said why he wants/needs this - a fixed ip address
on his phone while at home -, but as usual you spout all
kind of ******** without even knowing what the problem is.
And yes, his want/need *is* a legitimate one.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
Google "address reservation".
You don't want a fixed IP address on a phone.
Carlos replies (correctly):
Not true, he does.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
that's not a why.
Framk Slootweg responds:
Duh! I said "He *has* said". I.e. you said he hasn't, I say he has.

You might want to look up the concept of 'context'.

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.

Nospam continues to say that the original post didn't ask the question:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.

I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go.
He HAS said why.

eventually he did, but not initially.
Carlos E.R. responds again:
He did, on the first post:

Nospam then starts obsessing over semantics:
it's dynamically assigned. it's just that the dhcp server reserves
the same one each time.
Mark Lloyd responds, exasperated:
Strange use of the word "dynamic", for something that DOESN'T change.
Possibly theres confusion between a DYNAMIC process and a STATIC value.

Mark Lloyd says:
"Static is fixed, not changing.
Nospam replies:
technically true

Nospam opines:
it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every time he
leaves the house and back again when he returns.
Carlos E.R. responds:
Not at all.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all
the problems it will cause for both himself and others.

Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
he never said what the problem is, so nobody, including you,
has any idea.

Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
He *has* said what the problem is.
Sofar the only one having no idea is you.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address.
Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.

Nospam retorts incorrectly:
You want it in DHCP so it will work anywhere.
Carlos replies correctly:
It will work everywhere perfectly as it is.

Pascal Hambourg agrees:
A static address for a device is set on the device, not on the router

Nospam erroneously responds:
it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every
time he leaves the house and back again when he returns.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address.
Frank Slootweg replies (correctly):
In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.
To compensate for your extreme clue-resistance, I'll give you
two clue-by-fours:

Nospam says (incorrectly):
no it definitely is *not*. a static ip *will* cause problems,
both for him *and* others.
Frank Slootweg responds:
You seem to think that your use of terms is some kind of standard.
Guess what, it isn't!

Nospam repeatedly gets the original question wrong:
As such not having to figure out what the IP address of the phone is
each time he does so is a convenience and he wants that convenience.
William Unruh correctly responds:
if he was interested in convenience, he wouldn't be asking about static
ips. he'd be asking about dns so he doesn't need to remember any ips.

Nospam says his opinion:
it's the proposed solution that's bad.
Carlos E.R. (exasperated) replies:
Your opinion noted.