 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / December 2007New iPhones to use 3G network
The iPhone just got even better! http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3933866 > The iPhone just got even better! > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3933866 I recall seeing an article a few days ago saying the iPhone would eventually get 3g, but I didn't bother to bookmark it. My personal take on this is that its the customer calling the shots, not SJ and Apple. It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no battery life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door. If that were to happen Plan to carry around a few extra. > The iPhone just got even better! > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3933866 > It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one was > battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no battery > life. Maybe there going to make a battery access door. Battery life was _never_ the reason for the lack of 3G on the first version of the iPhone. If battery life was a concern then they wouldn't have included 802.11g either. Battery life was a rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack of 3G. > If that were to happen Plan to carry around a few extra. Battery life will be shorter than with EDGE, but will still be acceptable. Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G, as they are losing a lot of sales to other devices due to this issue. The major reason that the iPhone has been doing so poorly in Europe is the lack of 3G. Sales have been far, far, below expectations. The price is one issue, but people would have paid the price if the iPhone had 3G, which is even more important in Europe because there is less free WiFi than in the U.S.. >> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one >> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rationalization used by Apple when they were criticized for the lack > of 3G. Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that does nothing at all. I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical. There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially in the logic department).  SignatureMike >>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one >>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box that > does nothing at all. Geez you're dense. I was explaining to Kevin Weaver that battery life will _not_ be an issue in the 3G iPhone. He apparently actually believed those that claimed the reason 3G wasn't on rev 1 was due to battery life. > I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" what > Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical. There's no need to speculate, as the actual reasons for the lack of 3G on rev 1 were never a secret, and they had nothing to do with battery life. > There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially > in the logic department). I am neither an iPhone hater nor a fanboy. Just someone that happens to know that battery life had nothing to do with Apple's decision to not include 3G on rev 1. Next time do at least a little research before making a fool of yourself. Oxford provides enough idiocy for the entire group, and we don't need another one. >>>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st >>>> one was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Geez you're dense. Wow, is that, like, your best shot? Cuz I gotta tell ya' I'm not really feelin' it. > I was explaining to Kevin Weaver... <schnipp> I see: "you" were explaining to Kevin Weaver. Just like Oxford you post under multiple IDs. >> I am amused over how some of the iPhone-haters believe they "know" >> what Apple's true intentions were. Hysterical. > > There's no need to speculate, as the actual reasons for the lack of > 3G on rev 1 were never a secret, and they had nothing to do with > battery life. Prove it. >> There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys >> (especially in the logic department). > > I am neither an iPhone hater nor a fanboy. Just someone that happens > to know that battery life had nothing to do with Apple's decision to > not include 3G on rev 1. Uh huh. Right, Tom... err, Scott... > Next time do at least a little research before making a fool of > yourself. Oxford provides enough idiocy for the entire group, and we > don't need another one. Bullshit. Let's see, Oxford changes posting names and who else does that. Oh yea, you just did that too. Looks like I was right on the money. SignatureMike It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could be done with a software update. > It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could be > done with a software update. Even if they could, which I doubt. Apple wants the $$$ > It seems they could have set up the iPhone so this sort of change could be > done with a software update. 3G requires 3G hardware. If Apple could do that with a software update, maybe they could also download a little printer into it, too! >>> It's still going to suck. The reason for not doing it in the 1st one >>> was battery life. Now that it's going to be added, there will be no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There is a fine line between the iPhone-haters and the fanboys (especially > in the logic department). No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling in. > No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. > By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But > send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling > in. If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue. And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so thoughtfully wrote. Now go away AssHat >> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. >> By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now go away AssHat Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$ Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd) >>> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No >>> thanks. By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$ > Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd) You do realize that all companies must make money or they fail. And I'm hardly an Apple fanboi. I bought mine when the price of the phone dropped to be = < the cost of a new iPod + the cost of a new phone. Both of which I needed. I'm also noone's sock puppet. Which just the very least research would show. > No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks. Frankly, compared to many other smartphones, including mine (an HTC Wizard) the iPhone has a phenominal battery lie. I'd willingly weld my phone's battery door shut in exchange for the iPhone's per-charge life! > By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. > But send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ > rolling in. I wouldn't be happy with that either, although if you're not afraid of a soldering iron, I don't expect it to be a problem. Considering how much volume of my phone is wasted by the plastic walls of the battery compartment that could've been used by more battery volume, I'm not sure I completely disagree with their decision. > Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box > that does nothing at all. I just bought one of those from Duracell. It's a clear blister pack apparently powered by the 4 AA batteries inside, that says it's good until Dec. 2013. ;-) >> Then by your logic the only acceptable device is a battery in a box >> that does nothing at all. > > I just bought one of those from Duracell. It's a clear blister pack > apparently powered by the 4 AA batteries inside, that says it's good > until Dec. 2013. ;-) See what I'm talking about??!! Now *that's* good battery life. SignatureMike > Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G, 1) there is no such thing as "pre-announce"--it was simply announced, as opposed to shipped 2) Apple did no such thing. AT&T announced it. Apple remained mute on the subject, and expressed a 'we don't comment on product development' response when asked. > > Apple had no choice but to pre-announce 3G, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the subject, and expressed a 'we don't comment on product development' > response when asked. Almost, but not quite true. Steve Jobs has a few times reportedly said that a 3G iPhone is in the works ... Plans for using the faster 3G data connection in the iPhone have not been secret. Steve Jobs has stated that a 3G iPhone is coming, but that the delay is due to excessive battery life consumption with existing 3G chipsets. The iPhone presently uses the EDGE network for its data connectivity. In reality his actual comment, back in September, was .. "Our phone has a talk time of 8 hours and that's really important when you want to use your phone for internet and music. 3G needs to get back up to 5+ hours, something we think well see later next year." http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/19/3g-iphone-in-the-works/ As well as at the MacWorld San Francisco 2007 Steve Jobs stated during the iPhone's Macworld San Francisco 2007 keynote that they are planning on making "3g phones and all sorts of other amazing things in the future" QuickTime clip (1.7MB): http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/09/18/3giphoneplan.mov > The iPhone just got even better! > > http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3933866 Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have made it too bulky and power consuming! >> The iPhone just got even better! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and > would have made it too bulky and power consuming! He won't- he'll never acknowledge the thread. > > The iPhone just got even better! > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have > made it too bulky and power consuming! No, wait--complete the story. Steve Jobs can do no wrong and knows everything, and he knew for a fact that 3G was an unnecessary waste of battery power because everyone had constant access to WiFi. Steve Jobs is never wrong, therefore this "rumor" that AT&T put out must be nothing but bullshit. Proof of that: Apple hasn't confirmed this "rumor". Since Steve Jobs has already spoken on how 3G isn't necessary, the circle is closed. 3G isn't necessary, will only weaken the battery unnecessarily, and therefore won't ever be provided. And the iPhone will be the only phone on the market in a few years. > > > The iPhone just got even better! > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And the iPhone will be the only phone on the market in a few years. Nope. Microsloth will make one and it'll sell only about 30,000 in two years (with 39,999 of those "sold" to staff as Christmas bonuses). ;-) > > The iPhone just got even better! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have > made it too bulky and power consuming! I've not been following your pissing contest, but my recollection is that Jobs said something to the effect that 3G would eventually arrive once various issues (I recall power consumption) were resolved, correct? As such, this press release isn't really newsworthy, particularly since it didn't mention when this incremental improvement will become available: I.E. "It has been announced that a product will eventually be made better". Whoopie doo. In the meantime, our downtown already has free WiFi, plus a "free for our customers" WiFi from one of the two local major broadband providers. There's two Starbuck's for the iPhones, plus there's a few "we freely give out our WiFi's passwords to our customers" local businesses. YMMV. -hh > Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have > made it too bulky and power consuming! this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??, but they are working hard to fix the current 3G chip design first, then helping AT&T build out the network if Steve gives the go ahead. Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until they can move forward. Hopefully that will be known Tuesday morning / Jan 15th in San Fran, this is the same event that totally upstaged CES last year, so it's going to be an impressive morning. Only 45 days away... Are you going? http://www.macworldexpo.com/ - >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's >> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and >> would have made it too bulky and power consuming! > > this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??, You said they would never use 3g. > but they are working hard > to fix the current 3G chip design first, No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip. > then helping AT&T build out > the network if Steve gives the go ahead. False. > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go > with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the > Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until they can > move forward. Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you saying that wifi will be dead soon? > >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's > >> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You said they would never use 3g. yes, not in its current form. it's abundantly clear the current 3G chipset isn't up to Apple's engineering standards so they can't use it. > > but they are working hard > > to fix the current 3G chip design first, > > No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip. Apple is one of the top engineering firms in the world. Remember when they had to go into Intel and clean up their design processes? Apple is the primary master of small electronics in the world. Nobody in the PC side, MP3 side or Phone side can measure up to their level of skills with chip design. If 3G is fixable, only Apple has the ability to do it. If not, 4G or WiMax will be used. > > then helping AT&T build out > > the network if Steve gives the go ahead. > > False. You have no clue do you Cozmic, quick talking out your a.s and deal with the facts. > > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may go > > with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you saying > that wifi will be dead soon? WiFi remains the primary data access method for iPhone users since it's around twice as fast as 3G. Stick with facts Cozmic. In article <linuxlovesosx-D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>, > > You said they would never use 3g. > > yes, not in its current form. Wait a minute. Please place the goalposts in one place. You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G". Therefore, you can't qualify it now. But Apple is going to use 3G. The cat's out of the bag. And you are outed as being the ignorant a.shole you are. > > > You said they would never use 3g. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please place the goalposts in one place. the goal posts are solid... i've been quite careful to never say apple wouldn't use 3G, it's just in its current form it's unworkable for a quality based product. > You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G". > Therefore, you can't qualify it now. oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be used in a quality based product. that has never been a secret, except perhaps to you. > But Apple is going to use 3G. The cat's out of the bag. And you are > outed as being the ignorant a.shole you are. And exactly when did Apple say they weren't? You just like to twist facts, I do not. In article <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>, > > > yes, not in its current form. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the goal posts are solid... i've been quite careful to never say apple > wouldn't use 3G, Bullshit. > > the goal posts are solid... i've been quite careful to never say apple > > wouldn't use 3G, > > Bullshit. where is the proof? waiting. In article <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>, > > You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G". > > Therefore, you can't qualify it now. > > oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are > coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be > used in a quality based product. Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment. You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack. You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you? > > oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are > > coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be > > used in a quality based product. > > Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're > functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment. not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering. > You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack. okay, please post a link where i said "the iPhone will never do 3G", i never even said anything remotely close to that. > You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you? ah, and you do know you have to provide evidence if you make such a claim, don't you? waiting. In article <linuxlovesosx-BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>, > > Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're > > functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment. > > not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering. Poor battery engineering, more likely. Gee, plenty of other devices don't have a problem with battery life. I wonder why the iPhone does. Oh, wait--bad engineering of the power system, from the battery on up. Never mind. > In article > <linuxlovesosx-BF0DD9.09093001122...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Poor battery engineering, more likely. Oddly enough, Apple is using the same Li-Ion package as the rest of industry. This makes this cowardly troll's "speculation" clearly wrong. > Gee, plenty of other devices don't have a problem with battery life. I > wonder why the iPhone does. > > Oh, wait--bad engineering of the power system, from the battery on up. > > Never mind. For posterity: Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out02b.usenetserver.com! news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com! in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com! fe49.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.cellular.attws Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network Organization: Nasty Designs References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j. 6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net> <Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx- BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) x-no-archive: yes Message-ID: <elmop-F7ED83.13585401122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> Lines: 17 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:58:53 EST Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:58:54 -0500 Hypocrite. -hh In article <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1-db95ea14cfa9@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Poor battery engineering, more likely. > > Oddly enough, Apple is using the same Li-Ion package as the rest of > industry. This makes this cowardly troll's "speculation" clearly > wrong. Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.) Or poor/slipshod engineering overall. Let's face it: Steve Jobs's mania for batteries that can't be taken out and replaced by the end user was an engineering decision made by a non-engineer, made by a marketing huckster, and forced him to come up with some bullshit about how "we don't want to do 3G because of battery life". When you make bad decisions, you have to face their consequences. > For posterity: WTF is that all about? > In article > <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1-db95ea14c...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.) Wrong, again. > Or poor/slipshod engineering overall. What's that phrase you just used? Oh yeah: "Moving the Goalposts". Hypocrite. > Let's face it: Steve Jobs's mania for batteries > that can't be taken out and replaced by the end user was an engineering > decision made by a non-engineer, made by a marketing huckster, and > forced him to come up with some bullshit about how "we don't want to do > 3G because of battery life". Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, so I'll not begrudge you if you happened to get lucky on getting a couple of points correct - - but it is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter if the battery is user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the available power too quickly. My BB has a user replaceable battery ... and it isn't particularly convenient to do. Its not like pulling a couple of AA's out of a digital camera or GPS (my Garmin sucks power a tad more than I like). > When you make bad decisions, you have to face their consequences. Agreed, and you, being an anonymous coward troll, hiding behind X-No- Archive, have made a bad decision. Now do as you say and face its consequences. BTW, here's something topical for everyone ... except you ... to read and appreciate: http://blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2007/11/anonymous_posts_ignore_the_ess.html > > For posterity: > > WTF is that all about? Posterity, John. -hh In article <a05de97c-e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>, > because it doesn't matter if the battery is > user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the > available power too quickly. The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly for any other 3G unit, a.shole. That's the whole point. No moving of goalposts here. On Dec 2, 8:28 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop @nastydesigns.com> wrote: > > because it doesn't matter if the battery is > > user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the > > available power too quickly. > > The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly > for any other 3G unit, a.shole. In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G. > That's the whole point. Wrong, because the issue of power consumption of 3G was relative to 2G. And 2G does have substantially different power consumption, but also lower bandwidth. As such, the trade-off is a classical one of capability versus capacity. > No moving of goalposts here. Only in your mind, when your eyes are closed. -hh Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out03b.usenetserver.com! news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com! in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com! fe01.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.cellular.attws Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network Organization: Nasty Designs References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j. 6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net> <Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx- BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> <elmop- F7ED83.13585401122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1- db95ea14cfa9@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <elmop- AABC87.18060001122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <a05de97c- e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) x-no-archive: yes Message-ID: <elmop-C06598.08283702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> Lines: 14 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:28:35 GMT Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:28:37 -0500 In article <772f7592-41f6-48e3-bb5d-71cbc3c80920@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly > > for any other 3G unit, a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lower bandwidth. As such, the trade-off is a classical one of > capability versus capacity. So, asshat, tell us how every other manufacturer manages to make a good 3G handset without excuses like "oh, but it takes too much POWER! <whine>"? It's a simple question. You can dance around it for everyone's enjoyment, or you can answer it for everyone's benefit. I can only guess which choice you'll make. > > > The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly > > > for any other 3G unit, a.shole. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 3G handset without excuses like "oh, but it takes too much POWER! > <whine>"? First, define "good". > It's a simple question. You can dance around it for everyone's > enjoyment, or you can answer it for everyone's benefit. > > I can only guess which choice you'll make. It does appear to be a simple question to simpletons. The reality is that anyone can make & sell a product that has all sorts of 'features' for consumers to compare. However, merely having a feature does not automatically translate into good product usability, due to less overt considerations such as package size/ weight and operational life on a single battery charge that aren't in the big print on the packaging, and/or aren't noticed by consumers. For example, look at how frequently a glossy ad for a laptop neglects to mention its weight. Dell is irritatingly bad at offering this information. Personally, if there's some feature on a cellphone that cuts its effective battery life down to less than 2 days, thanks, but please offer me a phone without that damn "feature". FWIW, this is one of the reasons why I personally disagree with the convergence of cellphone and MP3 player being a "good" idea. While this includes Apple's iPhone, do note that it also is referring to a lot of other new cellphones on the market. What all this means is that perhaps you'll be smart enough to eventually grok that the cellphone marketplace is currently in the same marketplace situation where PC word processors were ~25 years ago, despite the realities of the Pareto Principle. -hh > On Dec 2, 8:28 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop @nastydesigns.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which > means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G. In reality, the 3G chipsets are extremely efficient, with very little power being used for processing and overhead. Almost all the power goes directly into transmitting, and that power consumption is inherent to 3G and chipset improvements can't solve it. No one took the excuse of 3G chipset inefficiency seriously, and I don't think Apple ever said such a thing. There were several reasons that Apple didn't put 3G on the first iPhone, but none of them were related to the efficiency of 3G chipsets. SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: > In reality, the 3G chipsets are extremely efficient, with very little > power being used for processing and overhead. Almost all the power goes > directly into transmitting, and that power consumption is inherent to 3G > and chipset improvements can't solve it. So what you're saying is that the power consumption issues of the 3G chipset are fundamental, and can't be improved upon through 'just' efficiency: that low hanging fruit is gone. As such, to reduce total power consumption will require changes in the design objectives such that less power is needed "at whatever efficiency". For a notional example, one could cut the total transmission power to reduce power draw. > No one took the excuse of 3G chipset inefficiency seriously, and I don't > think Apple ever said such a thing. Reportedly, Jobs made the claim in September while in London; see: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aAoHevYzQJgw&refer=us In reading it again now, what I see is that we need to remember that Total Power consumption and Efficiency are interrelated, but they're also distinct elements of the whole: the battery only cares about total power draw and not its constituent parts. In the end, if you're power-limited, you either have to boost efficiency, cut transmission output, or do some combination of both. And if you say that all of the efficiency gains have already been taken, then the only way left to go is to cut the output. There is no such thing as a free lunch (as I'm learning from some GaN chipset work I'm funding for '08). > There were several reasons that Apple didn't put 3G on the first iPhone, > but none of them were related to the efficiency of 3G chipsets. There's classically a variety of reasons, some major some minor. As outsiders, we have no way of knowing for sure what the truth is; all we have is what is made public, such as SJ's claim and other insights, such as that patent infringement lawsuit. In general, I'm personally not so cynical of Apple's general credibility to not believe that power issues were entirely not an issue, which is what Tickle-Me-Troll- Elmo is trying to claim. -hh In article <a05de97c-e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>, > > Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.) > > Wrong, again. If anyone is Oxford it is Elmo P. Shagnasty!!! Both handles post like trolls. I think Oxford and Elmo are some ones idea of a joke. The joke being to see how stupid the iPhone haters will get. While someone could possibly be as dumb as Elmo, it is not credible that Oxford could be for real. SignatureCharles > In article > <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1-db95ea14cfa9@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > forced him to come up with some bullshit about how "we don't want to do > 3G because of battery life". The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery. > The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery. Apple seems to think it does. It says: "Built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery" right on the tech specs page at apple.com. >> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > right on the tech specs page at apple.com. Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery. > >> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery. And the resulting battery drain should be called LiPo-suction. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" On Dec 1, 11:05 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > > > You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G". > > > Therefore, you can't qualify it now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're > functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment. Which includes the chip on which the 3G is implemented. > You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack. > > You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you? And saying that while using the "X-No-Archive" command to try to avoid having your words recorded for posterity makes you a coward. For posterity, here's your posts hidden headers: Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!uns- out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com! fe49.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.cellular.attws Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network Organization: Nasty Designs References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j. 6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net> <Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) x-no-archive: yes Message-ID: <elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> Lines: 17 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:05:29 EST Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:05:31 -0500 Oh, and a hypocrite too. -hh In article <27c463c1-ef3a-4715-92a4-2768af811058@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you? > > And saying that while using the "X-No-Archive" command to try to avoid > having your words recorded for posterity makes you a coward. Ummmmm.....no, not at all. > In article > <27c463c1-ef3a-4715-92a4-2768af811...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ummmmm.....no, not at all. Your actions reveal your claims to be lies. -hh Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com! news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns- out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com! fe62.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.cellular.attws Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network Organization: Nasty Designs References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j. 6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net> <Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> <elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <27c463c1- ef3a-4715-92a4-2768af811058@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) x-no-archive: yes Message-ID: <elmop-34231F.18062501122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> Lines: 10 X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:06:24 EST Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0500 >> >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after >> >> he's spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > chipset isn't up to Apple's engineering standards so they can't use > it. Again- not what you originally said. You said that there was no need for 3G on the iPhone and that Apple would never use the technology. You were wrong- admit it. >> > but they are working hard >> > to fix the current 3G chip design first, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > skills with chip design. If 3G is fixable, only Apple has the ability > to do it. If not, 4G or WiMax will be used. Really? http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/11/29/3g-iphone-sooner-rather- t han-later/ "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk for $23 apiece." That doesn't look like Apple to me. >> > then helping AT&T build out >> > the network if Steve gives the go ahead. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You have no clue do you Cozmic, quick talking out your a.s and deal > with the facts. I am dealing with the facts- Apple has no input or control over the network. >> > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may >> > go with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > WiFi remains the primary data access method for iPhone users since > it's around twice as fast as 3G. Stick with facts Cozmic. No it's not. > Really? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk > for $23 apiece." yes, but last time I looked this was 2007. > That doesn't look like Apple to me. ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple. stick with facts, Cozmic. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- 7E37D3.10360701122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net: >> Really? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > yes, but last time I looked this was 2007. Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away. >> That doesn't look like Apple to me. > > ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple. Cite? > >> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it > >> calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the > earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away. how do you know that? if apple helps broadcom meet it's engineering goals, it could happen in as many as 44 days. Remember the biggest electronics event in on the west coast "macworld" happens on Jan 15th. the iPhone is already far and away the best, highest revenue producing phone of all time. got back from a client yesterday that already had 2, but the mother said her 6 year old daughter was crying to get one of her own for christmas. wow... > >> That doesn't look like Apple to me. > > > > ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple. > > Cite? www.apple.com and www.fortune.com SJ, ranked the most powerful business man in the world... http://snipurl.com/1uh91 facts can hurt... sorry Cozmic for being so truthful... >> >> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated >> >> device it calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > how do you know that? It's a publicly stated fact. > if apple helps broadcom meet it's engineering > goals, it could happen in as many as 44 days. Remember the biggest > electronics event in on the west coast "macworld" happens on Jan 15th. Never happen. > the iPhone is already far and away the best, highest revenue producing > phone of all time. got back from a client yesterday that already had > 2, but the mother said her 6 year old daughter was crying to get one > of her own for christmas. wow... So, Apple is greedy. That kind of blows your whole portrayal of them. In article <linuxlovesosx-9E90F8.13185401122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > SJ, ranked the most powerful business man in the world... <snort> Yeah, right. >> The iPhone just got even better! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have > made it too bulky and power consuming! It won't be bulky and the power consumption will be lower. That's the reason they didn't implement it yet. >>> The iPhone just got even better! >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It won't be bulky and the power consumption will be lower. That's the > reason they didn't implement it yet. My 3G phone is far from bulky and has very good battery life. Wanna try again? "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99F97F1FBD8Aisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 12:29 PM: >>>> The iPhone just got even better! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > My 3G phone is far from bulky and has very good battery life. Wanna try > again? What phone? How big is its screen? SignaturePicture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z Feel free to ask for the recipe. > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99F97F1FBD8Aisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 12:29 PM: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What phone? How big is its screen? And, does it run full screen video, proper web browser and a fully touch-screen interface?? Nope, didn't think so. :-) >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99F97F1FBD8Aisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 12:29 PM: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And, does it run full screen video, proper web browser and a fully > touch-screen interface?? Nope, didn't think so. :-) I decided I needed functionality, not child's toyys. It has 3G, GPS, a word processor, and seamlessly syncs to my business email. Does the iPhone do any of that? Nope, didn't think so. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99F98C0025361isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 1:45 PM: >>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >>> Xns99F97F1FBD8Aisheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 12:29 PM: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Does the iPhone do any of that? Nope, didn't think so. So they each do things the other does not. OK. What one do you have... just curious. SignatureComputers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination. --Albert Einstein > "CozmicDebris" <luser@adelhpia.net> stated in post > Xns99F98C0025361isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/1/07 1:45 PM: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So they each do things the other does not. OK. What one do you have... > just curious. Out of the box, the iPhone syncs to my business e-mail. With ssh, who needs a local word processor? GPS? What about Google maps? SignatureMr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham, Former Australian Labour Leader > Out of the box, the iPhone syncs to my business e-mail. > With ssh, who needs a local word processor? GPS? What about > Google maps? Well, Oxford, when the network is down, how do you do that ssh? Why doesn't Google Maps's new features work on the iPhone? > I decided I needed functionality, not child's toyys. It has 3G, GPS, a > word processor, and seamlessly syncs to my business email. > > Does the iPhone do any of that? Nope, didn't think so. You really need to go look at the specs for the iPhone. then do get back to us. When you do get back to us, let us know what make and model your phone is and also the carrier, so we can all have a good laugh. SignatureMr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham, Former Australian Labour Leader > > I decided I needed functionality, not child's toyys. It has 3G, GPS, a > > word processor, and seamlessly syncs to my business email. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > model your phone is and also the carrier, so we can all have a > good laugh. Another Oxford sock puppet. Hey, Oxford--when will you realize that you are incapable of hiding from the world? >> You really need to go look at the specs for the iPhone. >> then do get back to us. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Another Oxford sock puppet. I am? the things I learn on usenet. SignatureMr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States. There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham, Former Australian Labour Leader > > Another Oxford sock puppet. > > I am? the things I learn on usenet. Hey - I was supposed to be Oxford's sockpuppet for all of yesterday! Stop crowding :-) Apparently, this is the biggest insult that this anonymous coward troll can think of. -hh In article <34ba1348-52b0-4375-9004-9aea426d6d66@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Apparently, this is the biggest insult that this anonymous coward > troll can think of. hmmmmmm. "anonymous coward troll". How's this: just so YOU aren't tarred with the same brush, let's see your real name, your address, and your phone number. -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote: > > Apparently, this is the biggest insult that this anonymous coward > > troll can think of. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How's this: just so YOU aren't tarred with the same brush, let's see > your real name, your address, and your phone number. First, I'm not the one hiding behind X-No-Archive, so I could suggest that you go first. Second, who I am is well known, as is too my "-hh" handle, which I've been using for over a decade. That you've not already figured it out means that you've not lifted a finger to Google anything, which means that you're not only a cowardly troll, but a lazy one too. Third, you could have simply checked out the registration information for the domain that I'm posting this from. Obviously, you didn't bother to do that. BTW, here's a photo of said house at that address: http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/old/newgarage.jpg If you weren't so pitifully lazy, you could plug that address into Google Maps and you can see that the house/driveway layout matches. The only major difference is that the color of the vehicle parked in that location on the driveway is red on Google, whereas in the above photo, the parked vehicle is obscured by a gray Covercraft Evolution III cover. And FWIW, I'm not going to bother to ask who/where you are IRL because you're a coward who would never do it anyway. Of course, you'll probably come up with some lame excuse for your own personal shortcomings. This is predicable and expected from an anonymous cowardly nobody. -hh In article <53ef784b-a380-4f73-b239-50d84962117c@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > > hmmmmmm. "anonymous coward troll". > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > First, I'm not the one hiding behind X-No-Archive, so I could suggest > that you go first. No no, you're the one who made the claim. x-no-archive doesn't make anyone anonymous. But your name, -hh, certainly doesn't say who YOU are. So since you brought it up, put your money where your mouth is. Stop being an anonymous coward troll, and tell us your name, your address, and your phone number. > In article ><53ef784b-a380-4f73-b239-50d84962117c@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > being an anonymous coward troll, and tell us your name, your address, > and your phone number. Notice he also said in that post: >> Third, you could have simply checked out the registration information >> for the domain that I'm posting this from. Obviously, you didn't >> bother to do that. I think he already told you what you're asking him for. Does he get some money now? Dennis Ferguson > >> First, I'm not the one hiding behind X-No-Archive, so I could suggest > >> that you go first. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I think he already told you what you're asking him for. No, he didn't. The proper answer isn't, "Go search for it." The proper answer to someone accusing another of being an "anonmymous coward" is to spell out your name, address, and phone number--because after all, to by anonymous is to be a coward, right? And -hh (now THERE'S a name) wouldn't want to be considered a COWARD, would he? I mean, there's no REASON to stick with -hh and anonymity, right? > [-hh wrote]: > > >> First, I'm not the one hiding behind X-No-Archive, so I could suggest [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > wouldn't want to be considered a COWARD, would he? I mean, there's no > REASON to stick with -hh and anonymity, right? And as I predicted, you've come up with lame excuses for your own personal shortcomings. Utterly predicable and expected from the anonymous cowardly nobody that you are. And the answer wasn't "Go search for it", but pointing out that the information was trivially obvious and pointing you directly at one source. FYI, another obvious source is to go read the Title bar of the top page of the domain that my email address is from. Oh, and just to remind you that it is indeed my domain: http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/elmo.jpg And as was suggested, "You First", to prove that you're not a hypocrite as well as a coward. Afterall, I really doubt that you're Mr. John Byrd from Memphis. Nobody respects a whiner, "Elmo". Especially those whose self esteem is so pitiful that they demean themselves just to try to get a little bit of attention. -hh In article <3c046d52-f481-49bd-bcd7-40a3186119e3@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > > I think he already told you what you're asking him for. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And as I predicted, you've come up with lame excuses for your own > personal shortcomings. Really? MY shortcomings? YOU accuse others of being "anonymous cowards," then when told to put up or shut up, you come back with, "Search for it!" rather than put your money where your mouth is. You're as transparent as Oxford. > In article > <3c046d52-f481-49bd-bcd7-40a318611...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cowards," then when told to put up or shut up, you come back with, > "Search for it!" rather than put your money where your mouth is. So much for the "You First". Here's a hint for you: my last name is the same as the domain name I'm posting from: Huntzinger Now how about an equal amount of disclosure ... including a way to verify that you're not lying ... from you? (waiting for YA dodge from "Elmo") -hh In article <3cc13aae-fe7c-4959-aff2-1f6aec7c8c3e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Really? MY shortcomings? YOU accuse others of being "anonymous > > cowards," then when told to put up or shut up, you come back with, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Here's a hint for you: my last name is the same as the domain name > I'm posting from: Huntzinger Wheeeeeee! now THAT'S not being an anonymous coward, is it. Yeah, right. You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > In article > <3cc13aae-fe7c-4959-aff2-1f6aec7c8...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. And there's the dodge, as predicted. What you don't realize "Elmo" is that I never needed to play your tune: this is USENET, where it is run by the Court of Public Opinion. And as per Dennis Ferguson's public comment (thanks BTW), my response was already found to have been sufficient by the audience, despite your pathetic whining to the contrary. And FWIW, if you were actually good at Googling, you would have found the whole story behind my short .sig, including the amount of IRL money that was involved. -hh In article <7d7b92cf-f3c0-4962-aef4-e9cba009f6f7@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > > And there's the dodge, as predicted. No dodge at all. You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > In article > <7d7b92cf-f3c0-4962-aef4-e9cba009f6f7@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. He did what you asked; you dodged. It's time to pull up your pants, since it's already too late to save your shoes. You got pwned, no question about it. And for the record you don't even seem to "get" what this little sub-thread was about. To a casual observer it seems -hh thought it was a bit odd to have your own posts deliberately set to not archive while simultaneously making this remark: "You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?" Then you called claimed he--and others--were in fact Oxford. This when the writing styles were not even remotely similar. No cookie for you, Elmo... SignatureMike -- Mike > He did what you asked; you dodged. It's time to pull up your pants, since > it's already too late to save your shoes. You got pwned, no question about > it. Thus speaks the Court of Public Opinion...again! > And for the record you don't even seem to "get" what this little sub-thread > was about. To a casual observer it seems -hh thought it was a bit odd to > have your own posts deliberately set to not archive while simultaneously > making this remark: "You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, > don't you?" Thanks for reading with comprehension :-) Overall, Elmo's remark was worth pointing out because it was clearly one of a hypocrite. A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite :-) > Then you called claimed he--and others--were in fact Oxford. This when > the writing styles were not even remotely similar. > > No cookie for you, Elmo... Speaking of "cookies", does the IP address of 66.121.14.82 happen to have any particular significance to anybody? Its in southern California, near LA. -hh In article <618c8573-aa2a-4566-85b5-9075d3cfb8f1@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite :-) You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > In article > <618c8573-aa2a-4566-85b5-9075d3cfb...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite troll ... who's also a bad loser :-) :-) and IP address 66.121.14.82 is in southern California, near LA, and its owner uses a PPC Macintosh running OS X. -hh > and IP address 66.121.14.82 is in southern California, near LA, and > its owner uses a PPC Macintosh running OS X. It is actually in northern California (the *.anhm01.* bit is an mistake in their DNS database) and the Mac is certainly Intel since PPC machines are too precious now to run an Apple operating system. Show me a link and I'll click it. Dennis Ferguson In article <c988d0e2-91b0-47d4-a655-b80f1caae02d@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > > A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite troll ... who's also a bad > loser :-) :-) You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. > > A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite troll ... who's also a bad > > loser :-) :-) > > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. Where did I ever ask you to spell out your name and address? Cite, please. -hh -- "You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?" - by some pathetic cowardly anonymous hypocrite troll, said while he was hiding behind an 'X-No-Archive:yes; post :-) In article <32d37f10-e09e-4122-8391-44a3c6fb216f@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > > A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite troll ... who's also a bad > > > loser :-) :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where did I ever ask you to spell out your name and address? You accused me of being a "cowardly anonymous troll". You don't like the anonymity? You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message