Must choose one: 6610, t600, t68i, r520m, P280, v66?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
19:09:59 GMT, "Avanti" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> I'm referring to the Sony Ericsson Z600
><http://www.sonyericsson.com/z600/>,
>> not the Motorola V600 -- totally different.
>
>I see, I did wait eagerly for the Z600 and was sorely dissapointed by the
>thickness of the unit compared to the T39 and the plastic look, shame really
>as otherwise I would be not considering another unit after just 6 months

While I do think the Z600 is a bit on the thick side, it's quite light, fits
well in the compact leather holster I got, has a great feature set, and the
look seems pretty nice to me. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the
small size of the external display. And while the large internal color
display is better than most, it's still hard to read in bright sunlight. But
all in all I'm very pleased with the phone. The only alternative that tempted
me was the Motorola V525.

The T39 was and still is a great phone, except the display, while sharp and
easily readable in bright sunlight, is painfully small, especially for WAP.
And while it has a metal frame, the front and sides are plastic, and I know
from experience that the phone is more fragile than the metal frame suggests.

Speaking of disappointment, I was initially pretty excited by the announcement
of the new EDGE-enabled Z500a ... until I noted that for some inexplicable
reason, Bluetooth was left out! Likewise IR (unlike the K500), so only cable
connection is possible. Whatever were they thinking?!

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Must choose one: 6610, t600, t68i, r520m, P280, v66?

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004
> 19:09:59 GMT, "Avanti" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> I'm referring to the Sony Ericsson Z600
> ><http://www.sonyericsson.com/z600/>,
> >> not the Motorola V600 -- totally different.
> [snip]


> Speaking of disappointment, I was initially pretty excited by the
announcement
> of the new EDGE-enabled Z500a ... until I noted that for some inexplicable
> reason, Bluetooth was left out! Likewise IR (unlike the K500), so only
cable
> connection is possible. Whatever were they thinking?!

Glad you mentioned lack of connectivity on the Z500, now scratched off my
list.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <150820041129093563%[email protected]> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:24:21 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It irrelevant. Usenet is "governed" by the news admins that operate it,
>> and proper conduct is *****ed out in Usenet guidelines. Read and respect
>> them.
>
>I have known Usent for twenty years, including as news admin a few
>times. The point is not whether there are any rules and guidelines, but
>whether Mr Navas is stating and interpreting them correctly. He is not.

On the contrary (as you should know if you really have the experience you
claim).

From "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community"
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/>:

Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups.

Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a posting
appearing in multiple newsgroups. (called 'spamming' for historical
reasons) A posting that is cross-posted (i.e lists multiple newsgroups
on the Newsgroups: header line) to a few appropriate newsgroups is
fine, but even with cross-posts, restraint is advised. For a
cross-post, you may want to set the Followup-To: header line to the
most suitable group for the rest of the discussion.

From "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette"
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1/>

Q: How can I choose what groups to post in?

A: Pick as many as you can, so that you get the widest audience.
After all, the net exists to give you an audience. Ignore those who
suggest you should only use groups where you think the article is
highly appropriate. Pick all groups where anybody might even be
slightly interested.

Always make sure followups go to all the groups. In the rare event
that you post a followup which contains something original, make sure
you expand the list of groups. Never include a "Followup-to:" line in
the header, since some people might miss part of the valuable
discussion in the fringe groups.
...
NOTE: this is intended to be satirical. If you do not recognize
it as such, consult a doctor or professional comedian. The
recommendations in this article should recognized for what
they are -- admonitions about what NOT to do.

>He is telling us that if somebody had a question about Japanese cinema,
>it is forbidden to xpost it to both Japan- and cinema-related groups.
>That is beyond being somehow wrong, it is the exact opposite of how
>usenet is supposed to function.

Articles should only be posted to relevant groups. soc.culture.indian is
devoted to discussions "about India & things Indian", not what cell phone to
buy. That people frequenting the newsgroup might have such knowledge is not a
good excuse for abusing the charter. The cellular.* cross-posts were more
than sufficient -- alt.cellular.gsm alone would have been sufficient and a
good starting point, plus perhaps rec.travel.asia. And of course Google
Groups should be used to search back articles before starting new threads,
since this kind of thing has almost certainly been asked many times before --
a search for "gsm india" returns about 4,350 English articles.

>X-posting was invented precisely for
>such purposes.

Cross-posting was invented to save Usenet resources when appropriately posting
to more than one newsgroup. It wasn't invented for posting to inappropriate
newsgroups.

From "Rules for posting to Usenet"
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/>:

Usually, it is sufficient to post any article to a single newsgroup; the
one that's most relevant to the subject of your article. If the article
is really relevant to multiple newsgroups, then "cross-post" to the
relevant newsgroups by posting the article only once with all newsgroups
named on the "Newsgroups" header line.

From "How to find the right place to post (FAQ)"
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/finding-groups/general/>

Subject: Crossposting to multiple newsgroups

Think very carefully before crossposting to more than one, or perhaps
two, newsgroups. It is considered highly inappropriate to broadcast
your message to a wide selection of newsgroups merely to have more people
read it. Note also that many people automatically ignore articles posted
to more than two or three groups. Follow the general rules of Netiquette
(Usenet etiquette) described in the news.announce.newusers postings above.

From "What is cross-posting? How do I do it?"
<http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/crospost.html>:

The number one rule of cross-posting is that cross-posting should never be
used indiscriminately. If you feel that it is necessary to cross-post,
consider carefully your selection, and keep it down. Avoid cross-posting to
groups that are branches of the same sub-hierarchy, that is don't cross-post
to adjacent newsgroups.

What goes for newsgroup selection in general, also applies to cross-posting.
Never cross-post to newsgroups which do not coincide with your subject.

p.s. If you disagree with any of the above, be so kind as to provide
comparable authoritative citations to back up your position.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup:
alt.cellular,alt.cellular.ericsson,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.motorol
a,alt.cellular.nokia,soc.culture.indian
* Reply to: All; "Alex" <[email protected]>
* Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:22:53 -0500 GMT
* Subj: Re: Must choose one: 6610, t600, t68i, r520m, P280, v66?
======================================================================


A>I have known Usent for twenty years, including as news admin a few
A>times. The point is not whether there are any rules and
A>guidelines, but whether Mr Navas is stating and interpreting them
A>correctly. He is not.


A>He is telling us that if somebody had a question about Japanese
A>cinema, it is forbidden to xpost it to both Japan- and
A>cinema-related groups.
A>That is beyond being somehow wrong, it is the exact opposite of
A>how usenet is supposed to function. X-posting was invented
A>precisely for such purposes.

How many groups have you started or written the charters for? One would
think that anyone with as much experience as you claim to have would
have searched first and realized what an exercise in futility it would
be to argue about a newsgroup charter with the person that wrote same
charter. Or...am I missing something here? I can't say that I
particularly agree with either of your viewpoints, in this particular
instance, but facts are facts, and the fact is I think that John Navas
knows a little bit more about this group's intent and purpose than
either of the participants posting from your IP. Have a good one and
relax a little bit.
--
Jack

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:17:08 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>It irrelevant. Usenet is "governed" by the news admins that operate it, and
>proper conduct is *****ed out in Usenet guidelines. Read and respect them.

While this is correct, your advice is more appropriate for a group
outside the alt.* hierarchy. While it is just as off-topic to post
information in the wrong alt.* group, there is no actual
administration of the alt.* hierarchy.

News administrators, such as Altopia's Chris Caputo, who follow the
true sense of the "law" in the Usenet sense will honor any alt group
creation, as long as it's started with a valid control message. Once
it is, it's up to the individual users to decide whether or not they
want to stay on topic, etc.

That's why so few news admins have their servers configured to
automatically add alt.* groups.
>
>In <150820040009169726%[email protected]> on Sun, 15 Aug 2004 05:04:28 GMT, Kiran
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>You left out the most important part of Alex's post:
>>
>>> > If you haven't paid for it and don't own it, don't try to control it.
>>> > Unless people have elected you to guide them, don't interfere with
>>> > their choice; just make your own choice freely.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:03:18 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <140820041406541610%[email protected]> on Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:02:07 GMT, Alex
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In Dreams I Walk With You <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Not choosing one side or another, I think cross-posting is considered
>>> not done. Normally one should post in each ng *seperately*.
>>
>>Pros and cons of x-posting have been debated to death over many years.
>
>But are defined in relevant Usenet guidelines.
>Be so kind as to read and respect them.

And you should read the part about moderation as it relates to alt.
and the rest of the "big 8."

>Include the one on proper address munging while you're at it. ;-)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:34:58
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:03:18 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>But are defined in relevant Usenet guidelines.
>>Be so kind as to read and respect them.
>
>And you should read the part about moderation as it relates to alt.
>and the rest of the "big 8."

With all due respect, alt.* isn't part of the Big 8, and moderation isn't
relevant in this context.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a
> posting appearing in multiple newsgroups. (called 'spamming' for
> historical reasons) A posting that is cross-posted (i.e lists multiple
> newsgroups on the Newsgroups: header line) to a few appropriate
> newsgroups is fine, but even with cross-posts, restraint is advised.

John, this is getting silly. Nobody disagrees that appropriate xposting
is fine and inappropriate one not fine, we disagree over whether the
inclusion of soc.culture.indian was appropriate. I think it was, you
think not, let's leave it at that

> From "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette"
> <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1/>

Yeah, that's a beautiful article. Doesn't it have anything to say
about you kind of obsession od this kind of debate (which should
be terminated soon)?

> articles should only be posted to relevant groups. soc.culture.indian
> is devoted to discussions "about India & things Indian", not what cell
> phone to buy. That people frequenting the newsgroup might have
> such knowledge is not a good excuse...

Frankly, this is where you seem to be on drugs, when you claim that
phone service in India and what would work best there is not included
in "about India & things Indian". Maybe others see some room for
opinion here?

> Groups should be used to search back articles before starting
> new threads since this kind of thing has almost certainly been
> asked many times before...

Did you do a google search and see if the opinions you are expressing
have been expressed before?

> Cross-posting was invented to save Usenet resources when appropriately
> posting to more than one newsgroup. It wasn't invented for posting to
> inappropriate newsgroups....
> ...
> From "Rules for posting to Usenet"
> If the article is really relevant to multiple newsgroups, then "cross-post"
> to the relevant newsgroups...
>
> p.s. If you disagree with any of the above, be so kind as to provide
> comparable authoritative citations to back up your position.

Thank God, in our country so far there is no "authoritative citation"
on subjective judgments about what is appropriate and relevant and what
is not. You and I need not agree with the OP's judgment (I do and you
don't) but it was clearly within bounds of reason and appropriately
exercised.

Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]> wrote:

> How many groups have you started or written the charters for?

Two.

> One would think that anyone with as much experience as you claim
> to have would have searched first and realized what an exercise in
> futility it would be to argue...

It is futile if we expect to convert each other (almost all discussions
are futile by that standard). It is not futile if we expect to make our
cases so others who are interested can consider our opinions and
make up their own minds.

> about a newsgroup charter with the person that wrote same charter.

By that token we don't need the courts because congressmen and
staffers who wrote a law must know it the best.

Here is the serious point. In any healthy set-up, even the person who
wrote "don't do bad things" cannot be trusted to decide what is
good and bad in all contexts.

Why should John Navas, or me, or you should be regarded as any kind
of authority on what is relevant to India-, Brazil-, Jazz-, Cooking-,
or Cheese-related groups?

> I can't say that I particularly agree with either of your viewpoints,
> in this particular instance, but facts are facts, and the fact is I think
> that John Navas knows a little bit more about this group...

In that case, by all means, take his opinions seriously in making your
own decisions. I have been less impressed with his judgment.

Also, there is no "the fact" here. What you stated is your opinion but
let's even accept it as "a fact". Another fact is that most of this
discussion is about whether soc.culture.indian was appropriate for
inclusion. What kind of authority do you think John Navas is on that
group? Should he decide what qualifies as "about India & things Indian"
and what doesn't?

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <160820040914440292%[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:09:55 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>>[SNIP]

>> p.s. If you disagree with any of the above, be so kind as to provide
>> comparable authoritative citations to back up your position.
>
>Thank God, in our country so far there is no "authoritative citation"
>on subjective judgments about what is appropriate and relevant and what
>is not. You and I need not agree with the OP's judgment (I do and you
>don't) but it was clearly within bounds of reason and appropriately
>exercised.

In other words, you don't have anything to back you up.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <160820040954554977%[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:50:07 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]> wrote:

>> about a newsgroup charter with the person that wrote same charter.
>
>By that token we don't need the courts because congressmen and
>staffers who wrote a law must know it the best.

Courts actually look to the legislative record when interpreting laws.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> In other words, you don't have anything to back you up.

Contrary to your posturing, nor have you backed up anything. You can
keep saying irrelevant groups should not be included, and I can keep
saying that relevant groups can be included. That much is easy. But it
is merely your opinion that the Indian newsgroup is irrelevant in a
question about what gizmo will work well in India. Such subjective
opinions cannot be backed up. Of course, I disagree with your opinion
and think the group was releavnt.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Courts actually look to the legislative record when interpreting laws.

They decide what needs to be looked at---it can be legislative record,
old judgments, foreign cases, opinions filed by various third parties,
whatever, it is their discretion. They also decide how much weight, if
any, to assign to anything. They do the interpreting. The important
point, which you should try not to miss, is that people who write a law
have no role after it passes, they don't get to interpret it. This is
true of any healthy system.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <170820040017152409%[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:12:23 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In other words, you don't have anything to back you up.
>
>Contrary to your posturing, nor have you backed up anything.

On the contrary -
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=HfOTc.7727[email protected]>

>You can
>keep saying irrelevant groups should not be included, and I can keep
>saying that relevant groups can be included. That much is easy.

Indeed.

>But it
>is merely your opinion that the Indian newsgroup is irrelevant in a
>question about what gizmo will work well in India.

That wasn't the question, which is *****ed out in the subject line, and is
irrelevant in any event, since only the GSM band matters, not the particular
country. It's quite clear to anyone with an open mind that cross-posting to
soc.culture.indian is inappropriate, your defense notwithstanding.

>Such subjective
>opinions cannot be backed up.

Of course they can, by the newsgroup charter. Cell phones have nothing to do
with Indian "culture", and they aren't "things Indian".

>Of course, I disagree with your opinion
>and think the group was releavnt.

Which is itself irrelevant (no offense intended), since this is objectively
covered in both guideline FAQs and charters.

It's unfortunate when people take it upon themselves to interpret public
things to their own personal advantage, a kind of Tragedy of the Commons,
because that only serves to hurt Usenet and render it less useful for
everyone, a principal reason that Usenet has been in serious decline. [sigh]

p.s. Speaking of guideline FAQs, see "Address Munging FAQ: Spam-Blocking Your
Email Address" at <http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html> for the
recommended way to "mung" your email address as a protection against spam.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.ericsson - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <170820040031444528%[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:26:52 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Courts actually look to the legislative record when interpreting laws.
>
>They decide what needs to be looked at---it can be legislative record,
>old judgments, foreign cases, opinions filed by various third parties,
>whatever, it is their discretion. ...

Not true.

>... The important
>point, which you should try not to miss, is that people who write a law
>have no role after it passes, they don't get to interpret it. This is
>true of any healthy system.

Not true either.

Courts in our legal system have limited discretion in what can be considered,
chiefly just: (1) the facts of the case at hand; (2) *applicable* precedent
["old judgments"], and (3) the legislative record. In general, considering
such things as "foreign cases" and even "opinions filed by various third
parties" (particularly those without standing) would be reversible error.
There are cases where testimony of lawmakers has been used to clarify the
intent of laws. Courts only have the power to interpret what the law was
intended to be, not to make them itself -- the power to interpret is limited.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>