"Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on
11/22/07 2:19 PM:

> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>> Absurd.
>>>
>>
>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
> phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
> released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
> iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
> nonetheless.
>
> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
> have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
> from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
> which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
>
Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
BS claims:

* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.

* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.

He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley