Alan Baker
On 2014-07-06 16:17:19 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
On 7/6/2014 12:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

Alan Baker
On 2014-07-06 16:06:43 +0000, Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy said:

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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.....

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

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

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
riiiiiiiiiiight. Try sticking an iPad in your pocket.....

Alan Baker
Try doing the same with some phablets...

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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

Alan Baker
designed< as

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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.

Alan Baker
"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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!"

Alan Baker
'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.'

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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!

Alan Baker
<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'".

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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.

Alan Baker
"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."

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
And that is excluding a specific case just how again... *exactly*?

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

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
And how did I exclude the Galaxy note 8? I said it was not a

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

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

Well?

Well?

Failure to address the issue.

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
Or creating an unecessary requirement by adding "true" or "real"?

Alan Baker
Seriously? You can't read your own words?

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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....

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

Well?

Well?

Failure.

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

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
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.

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

Well?

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

YOU LOSE!

Alan Baker
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?

Well?

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?

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
That's not something that just now suits my argument, it's been my argument for months.

Alan Baker
Failure to answer the question.

Harry Mudd the Anti-Fanboy
I didn't answer your question because it was based on a flawed premise.

Alan Baker
Fine: Generally considered by whom besides yourself?

Now you'll have to find another excuse to run away.

TechFeed calls it an '8" phablet'

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5xOrPyaxes>

So does TechAdvisor:

'Samsung Galaxy Note 8 video review - 8in phablet is good, but expensive'

<http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/videos/3460128/samsung-galaxy-note-8-video-review--8in-phablet-is-good-but-expensive/>

And there are lots of others.