Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 00:16 In article <fcl236pkbdr20l179bqh8vib0hc9otgamc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone > calls. except this isn't just a phone, it's a multipurpose device. the phone is one of many functions. some people use the phone part a lot, others don't use it much at all. > Well, then, call it a "mobile internet device" or a "portable > music/video player". Don't call it a phone if is isn't a phone. it's all three. go watch the original iphone introduction. :) > What you have is a butterfly that you are still calling a caterpillar > just because it started out as a caterpillar. not quite.
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 00:19 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:51:08 -0400, in <fcl236pkbdr20l179bqh8vib0hc9otgamc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:43:48 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >wrote: >>that's even sillier than before. the *main* purpose of a car is to go >>someplace. > >And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone >calls. The main purpose is whatever the owner wants it to be. >>however, as a mobile >>internet device or a portable music/video player, it can't be beat. > >Well, then, call it a "mobile internet device" or a "portable >music/video player". Don't call it a phone if is isn't a phone. > >What you have is a butterfly that you are still calling a caterpillar >just because it started out as a caterpillar. So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels? ;) -- John Old saying in litigation: When you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table (and your opponent).
From: tony cooper on 5 Jul 2010 00:20 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:04:56 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:42:26 -0400, in ><slk236pj37v1vdckqqqcgpcu8jfqoip47t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:04:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >>wrote: > >>>tmobile 3g coverage is worse than at&t, which is worse than >>>sprint/verizon. and yes, i've tried them all. > >So have I, and that's not what I've experienced. > >>John likes to defend his little camera by saying that you can't >>compare results unless you've used his specific brand and model > >You like to bash my "little camera" by saying (with pejoratives) it >can't do things it actually does quite nicely for me. > >What I actually say is you can't make valid criticisms if you have no >experience with that particular product. Yet, you presume to make global comments about T-Mobile compared to other carriers disregarding that what you have experienced has nothing to do with what other people experience in other parts of the country. > >>In this specific area, T-Mobile has slightly better coverage than >>Verizon. However, for some reason, T-Mobile has a great deal of >>trouble making connection if you are inside a building. All providers >>are blocked by some buildings, but T-Mobile has more trouble in >>buildings where other services do not. >> >>When my wife worked, one of her office mates had T-Mobile and my wife >>has Verizon. The office mate's husband would call his wife on my >>wife's phone because his wife's phone would not pick up the call. >>When the office mate would walk outside of the building, her T-Mobile >>phone worked fine. > >One anecdotal example does not a proof make. I'm not offering that anecdote as proof. It's an example. The local newspaper's tech writer wrote a series on the various carriers and readers responded. The in-building complaints were the tech writer's observation and many readers wrote in with complaints about this. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 5 Jul 2010 00:24 In article <7tl2361fdatga0gh7qau85ad323fafbi7a(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>tmobile 3g coverage is worse than at&t, which is worse than > >>sprint/verizon. and yes, i've tried them all. > > So have I, and that's not what I've experienced. your experience is valid *for you* not for others. > >John likes to defend his little camera by saying that you can't > >compare results unless you've used his specific brand and model > > You like to bash my "little camera" by saying (with pejoratives) it > can't do things it actually does quite nicely for me. great. but it's not the best choice for others. why can't you accept that? > What I actually say is you can't make valid criticisms if you have no > experience with that particular product. yet you do exactly that. > >and have his specific skills. > > What I actually say is if you have a problem with a particular product > that others don't have, then you have less skill with that product than > they do. > > Both statements are patently true. or the product is not designed well. > But never let a little thing like facts get in the way of bashing when > you have nothing more persuasive to say. take your own advice sometime. > One anecdotal example does not a proof make. yet that's what you use to back up your claims. your experience with t-mobile might be great, but others don't find that to be the case, as surveys have shown.
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 00:25
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:20:39 -0400, in <o0n236tkgc1ibgtn3n3ocptskaq3ak71jm(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:04:56 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>What I actually say is you can't make valid criticisms if you have no >>experience with that particular product. > >Yet, you presume to make global comments about T-Mobile compared to >other carriers disregarding that what you have experienced has nothing >to do with what other people experience in other parts of the country. My comments are actually about (a) my own experience and research, and (b) what's available to everyone. >>One anecdotal example does not a proof make. > >I'm not offering that anecdote as proof. It's an example. The local >newspaper's tech writer wrote a series on the various carriers and >readers responded. The in-building complaints were the tech writer's >observation and many readers wrote in with complaints about this. A few more anecdotal examples do not a proof make either. "Garbage in, garbage out." -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |