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

[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>

---

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

[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>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
> ... Cell phones have nothing to do with Indian "culture", and they aren't
> "things Indian".

It won't surprise you by now that I feel that it's quite clear to
anyone with an open mind that x-posting to soc.culture.indian was
appropriate.

What is Indian here are not gsm frequency bands but the facts and
conditions specific to India. For example the signal strengths,
availability of electrical outlets, total cost considerations, which
might make all of the listed models unsuitable, or one model more
suitable than others. A phone could be available in India which was
cheaper and better for local conditions than the all of these. There is
a cdma network too, perhaps unknown to the poster, and if it was better
and cheaper in the cities he intends to visit, someone from India or a
recent visitor could advise him accordingly. Is some model known to
hold out well or poorly in dusty rural areas? These are local issues
and you want to check with those familiar with local conditions.

> Which is itself irrelevant (no offense intended)...

I feel the same way about your opinions in this case.

> It's unfortunate when people take it upon themselves to interpret
> public things to their own personal advantage...

How true. Please consider your own conduct in this light.

Anyway, I had intended to give my .02 and have given at least .20 by
now. I think both sides of the arguments have been laid out quite
well for all to consider. Therefore, I shall let this be my last post.
Thank you for a good discussion.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
> ... Cell phones have nothing to do with Indian "culture", and they aren't
> "things Indian".

It won't surprise you by now that I feel that it's quite clear to
anyone with an open mind that x-posting to soc.culture.indian was
appropriate.

What is Indian here are not gsm frequency bands but the facts and
conditions specific to India. For example the signal strengths,
availability of electrical outlets, total cost considerations, which
might make all of the listed models unsuitable, or one model more
suitable than others. A phone could be available in India which was
cheaper and better for local conditions than the all of these. There is
a cdma network too, perhaps unknown to the poster, and if it was better
and cheaper in the cities he intends to visit, someone from India or a
recent visitor could advise him accordingly. Is some model known to
hold out well or poorly in dusty rural areas? These are local issues
and you want to check with those familiar with local conditions.

> Which is itself irrelevant (no offense intended)...

I feel the same way about your opinions in this case.

> It's unfortunate when people take it upon themselves to interpret
> public things to their own personal advantage...

How true. Please consider your own conduct in this light.

Anyway, I had intended to give my .02 and have given at least .20 by
now. I think both sides of the arguments have been laid out quite
well for all to consider. Therefore, I shall let this be my last post.
Thank you for a good discussion.

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

In <170820041405206424%[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:00:29 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> ... Cell phones have nothing to do with Indian "culture", and they aren't
>> "things Indian".
>
>It won't surprise you by now that I feel that it's quite clear to
>anyone with an open mind that x-posting to soc.culture.indian was
>appropriate.
>
>What is Indian here are not gsm frequency bands but the facts and
>conditions specific to India.

There are no cell phone facts and conditions specific to India that have any
bearing on the >> choice of one of the subject cell phones <<.

>For example the signal strengths,
>availability of electrical outlets, total cost considerations, which
>might make all of the listed models unsuitable, or one model more
>suitable than others.

No more than any other country. That's more than a stretch (as I'm sure you
know).

>A phone could be available in India which was
>cheaper

Again, that's not the OP's question, and not likely in any event, even if it
were on-topic for soc.culture.indian, which it's not.

>and better for local conditions than the all of these.

There are no such local conditions.

>There is
>a cdma network too, perhaps unknown to the poster, and if it was better
>and cheaper in the cities he intends to visit, someone from India or a
>recent visitor could advise him accordingly.

If it's unknown to the OP, then it can't have influenced his (inappropriate)
cross-post, now can it? Regardless, that's better determined in a more
appropriate forum, or better yet on the Web.

>Is some model known to
>hold out well or poorly in dusty rural areas? These are local issues
>and you want to check with those familiar with local conditions.

There aren't such local conditions -- you haven't come up with anything that's
remotely specific to India.

About the only thing specific to India would be the best place to buy a local
prepaid SIM, but that wasn't the OP's question either, and still isn't
on-topic for soc.culture.indian.

>I feel the same way about your opinions in this case.

I have no doubt -- you seem to have little regard for others.

>... Therefore, I shall let this be my last post.

Time will tell.

--
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 <170820041405206424%[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:00:29 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> ... Cell phones have nothing to do with Indian "culture", and they aren't
>> "things Indian".
>
>It won't surprise you by now that I feel that it's quite clear to
>anyone with an open mind that x-posting to soc.culture.indian was
>appropriate.
>
>What is Indian here are not gsm frequency bands but the facts and
>conditions specific to India.

There are no cell phone facts and conditions specific to India that have any
bearing on the >> choice of one of the subject cell phones <<.

>For example the signal strengths,
>availability of electrical outlets, total cost considerations, which
>might make all of the listed models unsuitable, or one model more
>suitable than others.

No more than any other country. That's more than a stretch (as I'm sure you
know).

>A phone could be available in India which was
>cheaper

Again, that's not the OP's question, and not likely in any event, even if it
were on-topic for soc.culture.indian, which it's not.

>and better for local conditions than the all of these.

There are no such local conditions.

>There is
>a cdma network too, perhaps unknown to the poster, and if it was better
>and cheaper in the cities he intends to visit, someone from India or a
>recent visitor could advise him accordingly.

If it's unknown to the OP, then it can't have influenced his (inappropriate)
cross-post, now can it? Regardless, that's better determined in a more
appropriate forum, or better yet on the Web.

>Is some model known to
>hold out well or poorly in dusty rural areas? These are local issues
>and you want to check with those familiar with local conditions.

There aren't such local conditions -- you haven't come up with anything that's
remotely specific to India.

About the only thing specific to India would be the best place to buy a local
prepaid SIM, but that wasn't the OP's question either, and still isn't
on-topic for soc.culture.indian.

>I feel the same way about your opinions in this case.

I have no doubt -- you seem to have little regard for others.

>... Therefore, I shall let this be my last post.

Time will tell.

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

In article <130820040200377505%[email protected]>, Newbie <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Motorola P280 V66
> Nokia 6610 6100
> Sony Ericsson R520M t68i t600
>
> Prices vary somewhat, but not enough to worry about (I have already
> eliminated those I can't afford), so I am going to ignore that factor .

Nokia 6610 is by far the best choice for just making calls - great
reception, great battery life, speakerphone, quality construction
(something that Motorola and Sony Ericsson often have problems with).

The 6610 is the first phone I've kept more than 9 months (going on 15
months now).

In article <130820040200377505%[email protected]>, Newbie <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Motorola P280 V66
> Nokia 6610 6100
> Sony Ericsson R520M t68i t600
>
> Prices vary somewhat, but not enough to worry about (I have already
> eliminated those I can't afford), so I am going to ignore that factor .

Nokia 6610 is by far the best choice for just making calls - great
reception, great battery life, speakerphone, quality construction
(something that Motorola and Sony Ericsson often have problems with).

The 6610 is the first phone I've kept more than 9 months (going on 15
months now).