Alan Baker
On 2014-06-30 18:39:39 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
On 6/30/2014 2:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

Apple Fan Not
On 2014-06-30 18:25:28 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

On 6/30/2014 2:11 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

On 2014-06-30 18:08:16 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

On 6/30/2014 12:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

On 2014-06-30 16:39:01 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

Yes there was. The need to be able to actually view streaming content in a more immersive manner than the teeny weeny iphone screen allowed.....

You think that it takes a lot of imagination to realize that a larger screen will give a better viewing experience? [many LOLs follow]

Maybe they should come out with a huge screen device then...maybe call it an 'iPad'.

riiiiiiiiiiight. Try sticking an iPad in your pocket.....

Try doing the same with some phablets...

Yeah, I suppose if you're going to try stuffing an ipad mini or a Samsung Glaxy Note 8 in a pocket, you'd have difficulty, but then those aren't true 'phablets. Any phablets >designed< as such generally do fit in pockets however. My 5.7" screen Note III is one of the largest phablets out there, and it fits in my shirt or coat pocket just fine.

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

You really are an *idiot*. You don't even know what a 'no true scptsman' fallacy is. What? Did you just get a bazooka joe gum wrapperwith 'no true scotsman fallacy' on it, and now just love to hear yourself use your new $10 phrase?

'duh, ooooh geeeee! no true sotsman fall-uh-seeee....duh, oi geeeeee!"

'When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"),[2] creating an implied tautology. It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements by adding "true" or "real" to the subject.'

Vwery good, you've pasted a Wiki definition which doen't apply.

What 'fallacy' did I assert or "exclude a specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule", or create an implied tautology, or create an unnecessary requirement by adding true or real to the subject?

duh. Oi geeee!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

You asserted that phablets could fit into a pants pocket, and then when faced with a counterexample, you declared that that example wasn't "true 'phablet'".

What counterexample? ipad mini? Sorry, but the fundamental question is whether it's a phablet to begin with. It isn't so it's an invalid example. Therefore it isn't a "true phablet" either, because it wasn't designed as such. You've still failed to point out any fallacy, also.

"Yeah, I suppose if you're going to try stuffing an ipad mini or a Samsung Galaxy Note 8 in a pocket, you'd have difficulty, but then those aren't true 'phablets."

And that is excluding a specific case just how again... *exactly*?

It is excluding the specific case of the Samsung Galaxy Note 8.

And how did I exclude the Galaxy note 8? I said it was not a

phablet<, not that it wasn't a phone.

You said it wasn't a "true phablet", Fanboy.

Well?

Alan Baker
Well?

Or creating an unecessary requirement by adding "true" or "real"?

Seriously? You can't read your own words?

Oh, so I used the word 'true', and by your limited pea brain understanding, that makes it a "no true scotsman' fallacy, eh? Even though, the ipad was never designed to be a >phablet< and hence can't be considered a true phablet ("True" being specifically designed as such). Never mind the ipad's form factor well exceeds what is generally considered a phablet, between a 5" & 7" screen size.(as proof was provided to you before regarding this).

Man, you're fucking dense....

And you're ignoring that the Samsung Galaxy Note 8 was also declared "no true phablet" by you...

Apple Fan Not
Well?

Alan Baker
Well?

"Samsung Galaxy Note 8" "[isn't a] true 'phablets'".

And it isn't.... just as an ipad mini isn't a cb radio, 8 track player, or even a CD player even though it can perform similar fuctions to all those devices.

<http://gizmodo.com/5986485/galaxy-note-80-hands-on-the-8-inch-tablet-as-an-8-inch-phone>

Well?

Well what? The article you linked to does not even use the term phablet in it... ... not *once*

YOU LOSE!

Apple Fan Not
How is that? YOUR definition of "phablet" was that it's a larger device with built-in phone capability (i.e. not added via Skype, etc.).

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
Not just a larger device, a but primarilly a phone device with tablet functionality with a screen size between 5" & 7".

Alan Baker
Really? When did that become your definition?

Apple Fan Not
But I'm guessing that right about now, you'll start shifting the goalposts and adding yet another constraint on your definition.

:-)

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
Nope. the Note 8 has a screen size that exceeds what is generally considered a phablet screen size.

Alan Baker
Generally considered by whom besides yourself now that it suits your argument?