Subject | Re: Google Copying Apple.....Almost as bad as Samsung |
From | Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy |
Date | 07/01/2014 06:57 (07/01/2014 00:57) |
Message-ID | <lotf2v$jau$2@dont-email.me> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy |
Followups | Alan Baker (7m) > Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy |
Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboywhich argument would that be? I've made several.
On 7/1/2014 12:45 AM, Alan Baker wrote:Alan BakerHarry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
On 2014-07-01 04:44:00 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:Harry Mudd the Anti-FanboyAlan Baker
On 7/1/2014 12:38 AM, Alan Baker wrote:Apple Fan NotHarry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
On 2014-07-01 04:32:53 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:On 7/1/2014 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:It shows your level of integrity.On 2014-07-01 04:17:58 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:Yes.How about it? Are you claiming that that is one of the "other defining parameters"?How about being able to hold and operate a phablet one-handed? That's not an unreasonable requirement for a phablet.At least you admit it. I do the same thing myself....a *lot*.Yeah... "n"."And the you"? What kind of Canuck syntax is that?And the you engaged in the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.I did say 'generally' meaning there may be exceptions, kinda like the way you like to twist 'typically'."Any phablets >designed< as such generally do fit in pockets however."provide a cite where I >specifically< said ">ALL< phablets fit in pants pockets". I mean, generally phablets do, but i never quite said exactly that. NOTE: the 'generally' is just like you like to twist 'typically', and means there may be exceptions.Nope. Wrong again.circular argument.It can, but not when in the context of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.As soon as 'Harry' used the word 'true' as a qualifier, the jig was up.Why is that? "True" can carry the context of "primarily designed as"It did precisely. In a nutshell:And your usage perfectly followed the fallacy as illustrated.like hell it did...
"All phablets fit in pants pockets... ...except the Galaxy Note 8... ...but that's not a true phablet"."s"."A few weasel word"? A "Few"(meaning more than one) is contradicted by the singular "Weasle word". You really are syntactically challenged aren't you?A few weasel word, but close enough.
Happens when you think more quickly than you can type.Not a problem for you I'm sure.No reply?The Galaxy Note 8 was designed as a phablet.
You were supposed to supply some other criteria besides screen size that it didn't meet, but you punked out on that, too.
And are you just thinking this up as you go along?
Maybe I am, so what?That's just size restated.Because it doesn't sound like something you actually had worked out before.How about it being able to be hip-holstered? try that with an ipad mini or a Note 8.
What are the other "other defining parameters", Fanboy?
riiiiiiigght.
How about it being relevant as a means of portability/carryability.
Your only argument is still "It can't be a true phablet because it's too big". Now to me, that's not "other parameters". That is ONE parameter: size.
By portability/carryability, I also mean being able to carry it hip holstered with a belt clip/holster. Show me the belt clip/holster made for an iPad mini
No? I thought not....We can keep working on this if you like. Personally I don't see why your pressing the point like you are since I never claimed the Note 8 or ipad mini couldn't be a phone, just that they aren't really good as phablets..Apple Fan Not
You could simply admit you made a fallacious argument...
-- my favorite company is *anybody* BUT >Apple<!Alan BakerHarry Mudd the Anti-FanboyYou claim to never have said the iPad was a phablet.I claim it because it is so.If this indeed true, you sure seem to be spinning your wheels with circular arguments over this whole issue trying to tie me up in knot over an issue I have complete clarity on...And you keep trying to bring the iPad into this to avoid the fact that both declared the Galaxy Note 8 to be a phablet, but then declared it wasn't a "true phablet".
Still syntactically and logically challenged I see....
LOL