Michelle Steiner

In article <1kmsd1eeygjw.j5nx3kmqpjfo.dlg@40tude.net>,
salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:

> And it you had read and UNDERSTOOD the thread, you'd know that a fanboi
> claimed that the fact that the antenna was exposed was IRRVELEVANT.

Liar! I said that the fact that the antennas on those other phones were
not exposed was irrelevant to the fact that gripping them in certain
positions was irrelevant.

Thanks for proving yet again your inherent dishonesty.

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

News

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1kmsd1eeygjw.j5nx3kmqpjfo.dlg@40tude.net>,
> salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> And it you had read and UNDERSTOOD the thread, you'd know that a fanboi
>> claimed that the fact that the antenna was exposed was IRRVELEVANT.
>
> Liar! I said that the fact that the antennas on those other phones were
> not exposed was irrelevant to the fact that gripping them in certain
> positions was irrelevant.
>
> Thanks for proving yet again your inherent dishonesty.
>


Thanks for confirming your irrelevance.

salgud

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:50:09 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <1kmsd1eeygjw.j5nx3kmqpjfo.dlg@40tude.net>,
> salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> And it you had read and UNDERSTOOD the thread, you'd know that a fanboi
>> claimed that the fact that the antenna was exposed was IRRVELEVANT.
>
> Liar! I said that the fact that the antennas on those other phones were
> not exposed was irrelevant to the fact that gripping them in certain
> positions was irrelevant.
>
> Thanks for proving yet again your inherent dishonesty.

What Salgud said:

> Sorry, my mistake, I haven't kept up very well with the other makes. So
> which of the Nokias, HTCs, etc have the fully exposed antenna? I missed
> thos somehow.

What you said:

That's irrelevant; that's why you missed it.

Who's the liar?

Michelle Steiner

In article <djs1xycv4o0f.1wegbmpefgdmz.dlg@40tude.net>,
salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> And it you had read and UNDERSTOOD the thread, you'd know that a
> >> fanboi claimed that the fact that the antenna was exposed was
> >> IRRVELEVANT.
> >
> > Liar! I said that the fact that the antennas on those other phones
> > were not exposed was irrelevant to the fact that gripping them in
> > certain positions was irrelevant.
> >
> > Thanks for proving yet again your inherent dishonesty.
>
> What Salgud said:
>
> > Sorry, my mistake, I haven't kept up very well with the other makes.
> > So which of the Nokias, HTCs, etc have the fully exposed antenna? I
> > missed thos somehow.
>
> What you said:
>
> That's irrelevant; that's why you missed it.
>
> Who's the liar?

You are, as the above quote clearly shows.

--
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

nospam

In article <1kmsd1eeygjw.j5nx3kmqpjfo.dlg@40tude.net>, salgud
<spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:

> And it you had read and UNDERSTOOD the thread, you'd know that a fanboi
> claimed that the fact that the antenna was exposed was IRRVELEVANT.

it is irrelevant.

what matters is whether the user can make and receive phone calls and
otherwise use the phone normally.

you do realize that putting a phone behind plastic has some attenuation
too, right? it may be minor but it's not zero.

> We
> weren't disussing the overall quality of the phone's reception, but about
> the relevance of the antenna being fully exposed.

in other words, you are focused on something that does not matter.

the article *you* cite said the phone worked better than before, and in
some cases, signal strength went *up* because it was exposed and
touched.

> Seriously, you have to try to pay attention.

you might try the same.

> You also conveniently skipped the paragraph in between the one I quoted and
> the one you quoted:
>
> "As long as you have a signal strong enough to show five bars on your
> iPhone 4‹between -51dBm and -91dBm‹a 24dB drop in signal strength shouldn't
> drop your call or data connection. However, Apple only uses a very small
> range of signal strength for showing four or less bars, from -91dBm down to
> the usable signal cutoff of -113dBm. If your iPhone displays four bars or
> less, a 24dB attenuation will cut the signal below the useable limit."
>
> Meaning that even with the better reception, if you're in a less than ideal
> reception area (as in, virtually anywhere on the AT&T network), you may
> lose the signal anyway because of the severity of the attenuation. So the
> greatly improved overall reception is more than cancelled by the
> attenuation if you happen to be HOLDING your iPhone 4 while you call.

you conveniently ignore the part that anandtech found the performance
of the iphone 4 to be much better than other iphones, despite the issue
with holding it properly (something common to all cellphones) and able
to maintain calls where it was deemed impossible with other phones.

*that* is what matters.

> Get it now?

quite a bit better than you do.