Clutz:
I appreciate your attempt to use your analytical skills (which I'm sure must be prodigious). However:
The wording of my reply did not suggest that you should divine *my* age (hence the irrelevance of psychic friends), nor get literal-minded about the subject of ageism generally. It suggested, rather, that nearly everyone past a certain age was aware of the Newton already. That would hold especially true on a site like this, if you stop to think about it.
As for guessing the identities of Apple users: Anyone who owns an iPod qualifies. But again: The point is the Newton's dated ubiquity.
No point in making semantic stretches involving misreadings of the obvious out of some wounded sense of pride. No point in our derailing this thread with petty skirmishes involving conjectured slights that were never even intended. One can always visit John Cleese's argument booth for that sort of verbal revolving door.
Dweebgal:
There's a difference between an ageist put-down and a cultural reference demographic. Look at it this way: If steam-driven flamingo wallets had become rare by 1989, then I can't presume you'd remember seeing one. All I can presume is not to know whether you had or hadn't.
Actually, your post helps to prove my point, which is that (a) most of us know about the Newton already and (b) Apple has yet to make a decent handheld PDA, which is probably due to Jobs's not having cared (so far).