From: John Navas on
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:44:45 -0400, in <i0rhrs12o7r(a)news3.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/4/2010 8:44 PM, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:36:33 -0400, in
>> <gs2236t9l6h3oq0fsvq4mj4qi1vf5o5cmi(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't get my mind around this. Your "phone" has WiFi, GPS, music,
>>> and camera functions. A phone should have phone functions. Without
>>> the phone functions, it's an electronic device but it's not a phone.
>>
>> That position is getting increasingly shaky.
>> Time to declare victory and move on.
>
>You seem to be confusing a "phone", which is a device for talking, with
>a "PDA", which is a device for doing a bunch of other stuff that doesn't
>involve talking.
>
>If you can't talk on it then it's not a phone.

On the contrary -- it's a phone if it has the capability of being used
as a phone, whether that particular capability is used or not, and there
are plenty of mobile phones that can make calls over Wi-Fi without
paying for any phone service whatsoever.

--
Best regards,
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: tony cooper on
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:44:38 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:58:45 -0400, in
><vme2365c5aaoaecooe3rejdqflnbp6n799(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:40:27 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>
>>>the engine is a substantial part of the car's functionality. for some
>>>people, cellular is a small part of what a smartphone can do.
>>
>>Small, possibly, but usually essential. I note that no one has said
>>that they have a phone but don't use it as a telephone. And, I don't
>>expect anyone to say this is the case unless they haven't paid the
>>bill and their phone service has been cut off.
>
>I know people using both iPhones and Android phones without regular
>phone service as combo iPod, Wi-Fi Internet device, and Wi-Fi phone.

Sure you do, John. Sure you do.

Perhaps, on second thought, you do. Like you, they know no one who
wants to talk to them.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:13:17 -0400, in
<u1j236lg5p2fdg6lvi1p6sipo20vv370j0(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>Mostly, with an iphone that doesn't make phone calls, you can look
>cool with your iphone.

Tony, Tony, Tony! The horse is not only dead but rotting and stinking
up the joint! You've been told some of the many things a smartphone can
usefully do that don't require phone service, so why are you still
beating that long long long since dead horse?

--
Best regards,
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: John Navas on
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:15:03 -0400, in
<kej236h1rrdgm5k9uqgcitha5rgu14g7f9(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:44:38 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:58:45 -0400, in
>><vme2365c5aaoaecooe3rejdqflnbp6n799(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:40:27 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>the engine is a substantial part of the car's functionality. for some
>>>>people, cellular is a small part of what a smartphone can do.
>>>
>>>Small, possibly, but usually essential. I note that no one has said
>>>that they have a phone but don't use it as a telephone. And, I don't
>>>expect anyone to say this is the case unless they haven't paid the
>>>bill and their phone service has been cut off.
>>
>>I know people using both iPhones and Android phones without regular
>>phone service as combo iPod, Wi-Fi Internet device, and Wi-Fi phone.
>
>Sure you do, John. Sure you do.
>
>Perhaps, on second thought, you do. Like you, they know no one who
>wants to talk to them.

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: Robert Coe on
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:58:01 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:
: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:46:47 -0400, in
: <3le13656ffgfbfmk7a1qjruf480jah7ptl(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM>
: wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 08:22:35 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com>
: >wrote:
: >: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:24:18 -0500, in
: >: <c5udnf473PSPtK3RnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com>
: >: wrote:
: >:
: >: >Sorry, it was long so I didn't read it carefully enough. But I should
: >: >have. I congratulate your daughter on getting pictures of kids with her
: >: >P&S's since it is without doubt the number one reason I've seen people
: >: >use (who have kids) as to why they move to DSLRs, to take pictures of
: >: >kids, in motion.
: >:
: >: Then they've been sold a bill of goods, because dSLRs are no more (and
: >: arguably less) well suited to that then compact digitals.
: >
: >John, I believe you know a fair amount about a lot of things. But you couldn't
: >be more wrong about that.
:
: In your opinion and style. Not in mine. Yes, I have used both a great
: deal, and do have the experience to back that up. And it's a bit
: arrogant to call somebody "wrong" just because they don't agree with
: you.

How much photography of young children have you actually done? I suspect the
answer is "not much". Otherwise I don't see how you could possibly think a
DSLR isn't better than a P&S for that kind of photography. According to my
daughter, P&Ses may be catching up, but I don't believe they're there yet.

Bob