Apple Wants Engineers for iPhone Antenna Design

[beayn]

@watcha

haha. Keep on believing everything you see on TV. I'm sure EVERY SINGLE advertisement gets stopped before it airs if it is even SLIGHTLY incorrect or exaggerates even just a little. The naivety. I'd love to see you watch infomercials at night and furiously dial their numbers to buy their AWESOME products. No exaggerations or scams on TV. Nope. None. Everything is 100% true.

I'm glad you went and researched the razor example. I found the very article you are quoting from and must list more from it that you conveniently LEFT OUT.

1) "Ads for the Venus Embrace let women know that the razor will help them to reveal their inner goddesses. The "Goddess of the Hunt" featured in one commercial somehow can't find good shoe deals without shaving with five blades."

TOTALLY BELIEVABLE!!! No WONDER this commercial was on the air! /sarcasm.

2) "Few scientists have bothered to study razor types or blade number and the quality of the shave. The lack of research makes it easy for companies to claim that more blades give the best shave. "

3) "Shaving is tricky -- so tricky that more blades just can't solve every issue. It's not like mowing a flat lawn. "

4) "Some old-school barbers say straight razors give the closest shave. By their logic, you can vary the razor's angle to meet every hair, even in wild patches, something you can't do with a safety razor "

5) "Some dermatologists recommend no more than two blades to avoid nicks. When razor heads occupy more area on sharp curves, the razor is harder to control. If the blade can't match the surface, you'll nick yourself"

Hmm, nicks.. sounds like irritation!

6) "Razor burn happens when the blades scrape off a lot of skin with the hair. Avoiding this has nothing to do with blade number. You need a proper shaving technique"

Hmmm.. Don't have the proper technique with your 5 blade razor? More irritation!

7) Men with curly hair are more likely to get ingrown hairs with a closer shave provided by a 5 blade razor. That would be some SUPER irritation right there. Dermatologists recommend using no more than 2 blades for those cases. Gillette's adverts said nothing about curly haired men.

The article you quoted from and conveniently left parts out of to attempt to prove that ADVERTISING IS ALWAYS TRUE doesn't actually prove your point, it disproves it.

It also says absolutely nothing about there being an advertising authority that Gillette had to prove ANYTHING to. Please link this information directly!

You made up: "Since irritation has been scientifically demonstrated to be directly proportional to the contact points you make with your face, CLEARLY more contact is made when you swipe a razor 5 times, than just once."

This proves you fell COMPLETELY for their campaign, just like you fell for Apple's campaign. It was on TV so it MUST BE TRUE!!!

To explain again, You aren't swiping a single razor once, you're swiping 5 razors once, which is the same number of "contacts" on your skin as swiping 1 razor 5 times.

So in conclusion based on your very own article, 5 blades can give you a closer shave, but it can cause more nicks than a smaller blade and can just as easily cause razor burn. 5 blades is also bad for curly haired men. But that's funny, the adverts say more blades = LESS irritation, period!

If you analyze the part you quoted as well, you'll see the flaw the very article mentions - they don't know what the 5th blade is for. For the "catch and cut" process to work, you would actually need 6 blades, otherwise the 5th is useless. OMG 6 BLADES IS BETTER THAN 5, You MUST buy it!!!

Now if I can just get you to google Antennas and come back to the other article, so you can say something based on research rather than "magic" then we can have a real discussion. But remember to read the ENTIRE article like you failed to do on the razor one you just quoted. You can't just go read what you want and make the rest up to suit your needs. Well maybe you can, it's entertaining as hell!

You have proven you're a fanboy time and again, there's no need to keep denying it. You have every Apple product available. You claim they are perfect but you know that you can't argue FOR them if we KNOW you are actually a fanboy so you keep denying it. It's a classic and obvious tactic.

As for me buying an iPhone, I've read more bad reviews on it than good ones, so I won't be buying it, sorry! I know you read a couple of rave reviews about it and believe every commercial you see, but it just isn't a phone I would want. There are better ones for people with real educations as you put it. Oh, and I won't open my eyes to false advertising, sorry! I will always research the product for myself and make my own decisions.

You lose, again!

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘haha. Keep on believing everything you see on TV. I'm sure EVERY SINGLE advertisement gets stopped before it airs if it is even SLIGHTLY incorrect or exaggerates even just a little. The naivety. I'd love to see you watch infomercials at night and furiously dial their numbers to buy their AWESOME products. No exaggerations or scams on TV. Nope. None. Everything is 100% true.’

Lets not exaggerate to make an irrelevant point. My point is not that EVERY single advert will ALWAYS get stopped. My argument is that the APPLE ONE WOULD HAVE been prevented by Microsoft if it presented incorrect facts.

‘) "Ads for the Venus Embrace let women know that the razor will help them to reveal their inner goddesses. The "Goddess of the Hunt" featured in one commercial somehow can't find good shoe deals without shaving with five blades."

TOTALLY BELIEVABLE!!! No WONDER this commercial was on the air! /sarcasm.’

Er, that isn’t in my article, but you should know that the advertising agency makes EXCEPTIONS where EVEN AN IDIOT would realise that a statement isn’t to be taken literally, or it isn’t the case, such as a ‘goddess of the hunt’. I guess you didn’t make that cut :-O

‘2) "Few scientists have bothered to study razor types or blade number and the quality of the shave. The lack of research makes it easy for companies to claim that more blades give the best shave. "’

So therefore, how are you claiming that they’re wrong? ;-)

‘3) "Shaving is tricky -- so tricky that more blades just can't solve every issue. It's not like mowing a flat lawn. "’

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. Did the line in the advert read ‘this solves every issue’… try no? lol

‘4) "Some old-school barbers say straight razors give the closest shave. By their logic, you can vary the razor's angle to meet every hair, even in wild patches, something you can't do with a safety razor "’

So now an old-school barbers word is what you’re clinging to? The article not only says that comment mockingly, it also isn’t relevant, since we’re not comparing razors to BARBERS, we’re comparing razors to RAZORS, lol!

‘5) "Some dermatologists recommend no more than two blades to avoid nicks. When razor heads occupy more area on sharp curves, the razor is harder to control. If the blade can't match the surface, you'll nick yourself"

Hmm, nicks.. sounds like irritation! ‘

Again, 100% incorrect. Nicks are NOT irritation at all, they are TOTALLY DISTINGUISHED. And the advert never said ‘you will get no nicks’ or anything related to nicks.

‘6) "Razor burn happens when the blades scrape off a lot of skin with the hair. Avoiding this has nothing to do with blade number. You need a proper shaving technique"

Hmmm.. Don't have the proper technique with your 5 blade razor? More irritation!’

Er, sorry but I could quite as easily say the exact opposite to this, would it prove me right? Also, ‘Razor bum’ is again, a totally different thing to normal skin irritation. And also, arguably, if you make fewer strokes, you WILL scrape off less of the skin.

‘7) Men with curly hair are more likely to get ingrown hairs with a closer shave provided by a 5 blade razor. That would be some SUPER irritation right there. Dermatologists recommend using no more than 2 blades for those cases. Gillette's adverts said nothing about curly haired men.’

Er, EXACTLY, the advert says NOTHING about curly haired men, and even if this was true, given that the statement would still remain true for most men, it would still be true – less irritation (overall). Not only that, but ingrown hairs AGAIN, are NOT the same thing as ‘irritation’.

‘The article you quoted from and conveniently left parts out of to attempt to prove that ADVERTISING IS ALWAYS TRUE doesn't actually prove your point, it disproves it. ‘

What you meant to say is that I pasted the one RELEVANT comment about Irritation, and you posted a whole host of other IRRELEVANT things which were about nicks, what some random barbers said, and you proved that you have NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to dispute their claim?

‘It also says absolutely nothing about there being an advertising authority that Gillette had to prove ANYTHING to. Please link this information directly!’

Rather than waste my time ‘proving’ to you than an advertising authority exists (common knowledge to ANYONE, pretty much) – just google it. Depending on your country you’ll get different results, but pretty much every country with TV has advertising authorities which require evidence.

‘You made up: "Since irritation has been scientifically demonstrated to be directly proportional to the contact points you make with your face, CLEARLY more contact is made when you swipe a razor 5 times, than just once."’

LMFAO!! Now you’re claiming I ‘made’ IT UP !!!!! LOL! Why don’t I just say you ‘MADE UP‘ all your comments too? Sigh, you must have done very rudimentary research if you didn’t come across that, just google ‘Contact points and irritation’ – you’ll find hundreds of sources.

‘This proves you fell COMPLETELY for their campaign, just like you fell for Apple's campaign. It was on TV so it MUST BE TRUE!!!’

Again, you’re trying to claim something is untrue whilst at the same time trying to say that you have NO SCIENTIFIC evidence. So by your logic, it’s on tv so it MUST NOT BE TRUE? Lmfao! Not only that, but (going back to something relevant) – If Microsoft believed that Apple’s adverts were untrue, they WOULD have scientific evidence to back it up, and they WOULD ask the advert to be removed.

‘To explain again, You aren't swiping a single razor once, you're swiping 5 razors once, which is the same number of "contacts" on your skin as swiping 1 razor 5 times. ‘

That is STILL, the most illogical and idiotic comment possible. You aren’t swiping 5 razors once, each of the 5 blades performs a different role. Not only that, but they are all swiping simultaneously, which clearly will cause a different effect, since the skin doesn’t have chance to ‘bounce back’ and become vulnerable again, like it would in-between swiped. It’s so bizarre how you try to apply logic whilst being totally unaware of all the variables which you haven’t considered. I can tell you were never a scientist, LOL. Yeah, driving a car round a track 5 times is the same as driving 5 DIFFERENT cars at once round a track. We’ll pretend that all of the HUNDREDS of factors which change don’t exist, such as track temperature, wind resistance, time passed, wear on the track, pressure on the track at any one time DON’T EXIST, shall we? It’s exactly the same in the shaving example. You are so …. Rudimentary, lol. Your logic is extremely simplistic and naïve, it’s frankly just not very bright.

‘So in conclusion based on your very own article, 5 blades can give you a closer shave, but it can cause more nicks than a smaller blade and can just as easily cause razor burn. 5 blades is also bad for curly haired men.’

Even if all of that was true, it wouldn’t make the advert untrue. How can you openly post something so obviously irrelevant, and believe it makes any case? LOL

‘But that's funny, the adverts say more blades = LESS irritation, period!’

Not only does none of what you’ve just said even suggest anything to the contrary, even if it did, you’ve already admitted that you don’t have any evidence that it isn’t true – so you’re in fact admitting that your claim that it’s untrue is TOTALLY unfounded, making yourself look like a bit of a fool.

‘If you analyze the part you quoted as well, you'll see the flaw the very article mentions - they don't know what the 5th blade is for. For the "catch and cut" process to work, you would actually need 6 blades, otherwise the 5th is useless. OMG 6 BLADES IS BETTER THAN 5, You MUST buy it!!!’

All that proves is that they don’t know what the 5th blade is for, not that it is useless. You confuse one person not GETTING IT (eg you) , with it being USELESS? If that were true, from your perspective, pretty much the whole world would be useless. (By the way, I know in advance that you wont GET that joke, lol, so what I’m saying is that there’s VERY LITTLE you understand in the world and therefore it must all be useless)

‘Now if I can just get you to google Antennas and come back to the other article, so you can say something based on research rather than "magic" then we can have a real discussion. But remember to read the ENTIRE article like you failed to do on the razor one you just quoted. You can't just go read what you want and make the rest up to suit your needs. Well maybe you can, it's entertaining as hell!’

Again, no content whatsoever. I’ve got the best reply… go and google ‘SOFTWARE’ and see if software gives you the POWER to control displays on the screen, such as numbers or bars. Magical, I tell you ;-)

‘You have proven you're a fanboy time and again, there's no need to keep denying it. You have every Apple product available. You claim they are perfect but you know that you can't argue FOR them if we KNOW you are actually a fanboy so you keep denying it. It's a classic and obvious tactic.’

I’m not a fan-boy at all, I’m just a normal (highly intelligent) superior guy, and I point out simple logic. You, on the other hand, I maybe jumped to conclusions about. It seems you aren’t JUST an anti-apple cry boy, you are just a GENERAL crier who hates corporations and everything they stand for. It’s like you constantly walk around with an inferiority complex, a paranoid feeling that they’re all out to get you. Don’t believe anything anyone ever tells you beayn, the world hates you. LMFAO!

‘As for me buying an iPhone, I've read more bad reviews on it than good ones, so I won't be buying it, sorry! I know you read a couple of rave reviews about it and believe every commercial you see, but it just isn't a phone I would want. There are better ones for people with real educations as you put it. Oh, and I won't open my eyes to false advertising, sorry! I will always research the product for myself and make my own decisions.’

Having read every review on the first 3 pages of Googling ‘Iphone4 Review’ , with them ALL stating that it is the best phone you can get, I can only conclude that the world which hates you must include Apple and the Iphone, and possibly that you’re a little bit cheap, or want to distinguish yourself by your phone because you have no other unique qualities. Whatever the reason, it’s tragic denial when you try to claim you’re not an anti-apple hater.

Maybe I’M OUT TO GET YOU TOO! Better get a different phone from me then, that’ll stop you being a social outcast…. LOL

‘You lose, again!’

Bless, it’s textbook denial really ;-) But you do try VERY hard

 

[beayn]

@watch Blah blah blah too much text so I didn't read it all again.

You said: "Lets not exaggerate to make an irrelevant point. My point is not that EVERY single advert will ALWAYS get stopped."

Actually, you DID say that. Let me quote you:
You said: "Actually, due to the regulations of adverts, seeing something on an advert DOES MEAN IT'S TRUE, in the opinion of the advertising authority. That's PRECISELY what it means."

Then you go on to argue with the very article you quoted from. That is TOO FUNNY! You aren't even arguing with me at this point, you're arguing with yourself. Each of the numbered points I made were points AGAINST a 5 blade razor posted in the VERY ARTICLE you quoted from and you are arguing against them as if I said it! Funny shit! See what I mean though? You argue with every single thing no matter what it is. It's sad really, because you think you're logical when you have zero understanding of logic.

And yes, you did make up that last bit.
There was no mention in your article that there was an advertising authority that gillette had to prove anything to. I'm not saying there is NO advertising authority, I'm saying there was no mention of one that gillette had to prove anything to in the very article you "quoted" from while making it appear that way (eg: lying and twisting things around to suit your needs).

You said: "I’m not a fan-boy at all, I’m just a normal (highly intelligent) superior guy, and I point out simple logic. "

bwhahahah. You are definitely from Texas.

Oh, and keep believing everything you see on TV. ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ALWAYS TRUE!!

You lose, again. Especially when arguing EVERY SINGLE point made in the very article you quoted from. Without any effort I could just copy and paste random stuff from the internet and have you arguing with yourself for months on end. Great stuff.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘Blah blah blah too much text so I didn't read it all again.’

Again, you start to attempt to refute obvious facts by stating that you didn’t read them? Intelligent.

‘You said: "Lets not exaggerate to make an irrelevant point. My point is not that EVERY single advert will ALWAYS get stopped."

Actually, you DID say that. Let me quote you:
You said: "Actually, due to the regulations of adverts, seeing something on an advert DOES MEAN IT'S TRUE, in the opinion of the advertising authority. That's PRECISELY what it means."’

How can you even remotely believe that those two sentences are contradictory? It IS THE CASE that no advert is approved unless the advertising authority believes it to be true. It is ALSO the case that EVEN DESPITE THIS, it doesn’t mean that they can’t get it wrong. Which is where your exaggeration comes in. The factor which makes the Apple adverts NECESSARILY at a higher standard, particularly as regards its claims about Microsoft, is that Apple has THE ADDITIONAL requirement that Microsoft doesn’t object to the advert, which it WOULD DO if the advert wasn’t true.

‘Then you go on to argue with the very article you quoted from. That is TOO FUNNY! You aren't even arguing with me at this point, you're arguing with yourself. Each of the numbered points I made were points AGAINST a 5 blade razor posted in the VERY ARTICLE you quoted from and you are arguing against them as if I said it! Funny shit! See what I mean though? You argue with every single thing no matter what it is. It's sad really, because you think you're logical when you have zero understanding of logic.’

Pointing out that something is irrelevant is not the same thing as saying it’s not true. You should think about that. If I say that the sky is blue, and you argue by saying ‘grass is green’ – I will point out that it is irrelevant, but that isn’t the same thing as arguing with it. I never claimed that the statements weren’t true, I simply stated that they didn’t contradict the adverts claim of less irritation. Yet again, you get the false impression that my logic is bad because you don’t have the intelligence to understand the point being made.


‘And yes, you did make up that last bit.
There was no mention in your article that there was an advertising authority that gillette had to prove anything to. I'm not saying there is NO advertising authority, I'm saying there was no mention of one that gillette had to prove anything to in the very article you "quoted" from while making it appear that way (eg: lying and twisting things around to suit your needs).’

Firstly, claiming I made something up is ridiculous.
Secondly, I never said that it came from the same article, it actually came from the advertising standards authority website – feel free to have a look at it.
Thirdly, if you recognise the obvious fact that there is an advertising authority who approves/rejects advert, you also recognise that in their opinion the advert was not untrue.
Fourthly, you still maintain that it ISN’T true without presenting any evidence that fewer strokes doesn’t mean less irritation (and admitting that you don’t)

‘bwhahahah. You are definitely from Texas.’

LOL

‘Oh, and keep believing everything you see on TV. ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ALWAYS TRUE!!’

Adverts from huge corporations which make claims about other corporations will ONLY EVER be shown on TV if they are correct, due to the massive implications of making false accusations about a company. If Apples adverts were lies, like you claim, Microsoft would have been all over it. Funnily enough, they weren’t, meaning that it only your hate reading too much into the advert which makes you believe it’s untrue. Not only that, but every advert on TV has to be true in the opinion of the advertising agency, so if you want to claim it’s false, you have to prove it. (which you’ve already admitted you can’t)

Not only that, but you’re making a mockery of yourself by effectively saying that ‘ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ALL LIES’ whilst at the same time noting that you have no evidence to suggest it’s untrue.

‘You lose, again. Especially when arguing EVERY SINGLE point made in the very article you quoted from. Without any effort I could just copy and paste random stuff from the internet and have you arguing with yourself for months on end. Great stuff.’

I’m loving that you don’t understand the difference between saying something is untrue and distinguishing something as irrelevant (even though I already explained). Journey back, bright spark, have a look at how many extracts of the pasted content I said were untrue. Then realise that I didn’t, and that I simply distinguished them as referring to other things, such as ‘nicks’ or comparing Barbers to razors instead of razors to razors. You really are so slow, it’s untrue. As I always do, though, I’ll humour your idiocy, and cater for the (non existent) case where I actually did argue against content in an article. In this particular case, the only aim of pasting the text in the article was to help you to realise that swiping one razor 5 times is not necessarily the same as swiping a razor with 5 blades once (your ridiculous idea of logic). Just because one particular part of an article explains the methodology behind 5 razors (and even that wasn’t very good due to them not having a clue about the 5th blade) – doesn’t mean that I endorse or agree with any other part of the article, or even that I agree with the section I pasted (although I do in this case). It simply means that I wanted you to read another possible reality in which your logic would fall down, so you would consider it. It was aimed at making you realising that 5 blades is not necessarily the same as one blade, giving you a possible (highly probably) reality which disproved your claim – showing you that you hadn’t considered all the possibilities. You were welcome to object to it, and claim that the claims were false, but I assume you wont because you probably now realise that it’s true. So EVEN IF I had claimed any of the things you pasted weren’t true (which I didn’t, I described them as IRRELEVANT), it wouldn’t change the fact that the plausible explanation as to why 5 blades is not the same as 1 blade 5 times can still stand. Bear in mind, of course, that this point is just to prove you wrong in the HYPOTHETICAL situation that I had said anything else in the article wasn’t true, just to humour you ;-)

 

[beayn]

@watcha

You said: "Again, you start to attempt to refute obvious facts by stating that you didn’t read them? Intelligent."

Did I say somewhere in that line that I was refuting anything that I did not read? In case you haven't noticed, I don't respond to EVERY SINGLE LINE you write. I pick out a few things and respond to them.

You said: "Not only that, but you’re making a mockery of yourself by effectively saying that ‘ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ALL LIES’ whilst at the same time noting that you have no evidence to suggest it’s untrue."

Making shit up again. I said nothing about all advertisements being lies, I said that false advertising happens all the time. It's your twisted "logic" that turns what I said into something else. I realize you need SOMETHING to argue about, but making it up as you go along is just too typical of you. You need to start trying to come up with REAL things to argue about.

I provided evidence that the Apple ads are untrue. It claims that all PCs crash and no Macs ever crash. I have multiple PCs and have built and sold multiple PCs that never crash. I know people with Macs who crash. Even with those small samples, it makes Apple's claims untrue.

I agreed in a previous post that PCs crash more than Macs, as they should. They are required to run on an unimaginable number of hardware configurations while Macs have just a few. They also run far more 3rd party software and drivers. To think that so many different companies, authors and hardware vendors are going to get it right every time is just dumb.

That said, the Apple ads don't claim PCs crash more than Macs, they claim PCs ALWAYS crash and Macs NEVER crash. Clearly a lie. Why doesn't MS go after them? There's at least one good reason.

You said: "If Apples adverts were lies, like you claim, Microsoft would have been all over it. "

So you're a Microsoft Spokeswoman now? You can say for sure that they would most definitely decide to go after Apple? There are tons of reasons why they might decide not to. I am not going to bother saying any of them because you will simply argue some retarded logic against them that makes zero sense while claiming you know what MS would do. Instead I'll let you think carefully about a good reason why MS wouldn't go after them for such ads. Think hard now. If you're intelligent you'll figure it out. If you're not, you won't. I'm not going to help you with this one. You're on your own.

I skimmed over that huge wall of text in the end. You go on about the razor issue claiming that I am the one who came up with the 7 points against razors. I quoted the very article you quoted from. You argued with the article, not myself. Keep it up though, it's quite amusing. Razor burn and nicks are most definitely skin irritation. You can use your twisted logic all you want in another lame attempt to argue, but in the end you always look retarded. If you ask anyone else who actually shaves, they will agree with the very article you quoted, that is actually against 5 blade razors.

The rest of that ginormous paragraph - learn to break it up. Didn't read. Always drivel and twisted argumentative "logic" anyway.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

First of all…. LOL you typed a reply which took you TIME. Ergo I win (LMFAO @ beayn logic)

‘Did I say somewhere in that line that I was refuting anything that I did not read? In case you haven't noticed, I don't respond to EVERY SINGLE LINE you write. I pick out a few things and respond to them. ‘

Well, lets be clear then. If you haven’t read my comments, and you claim you are only disputing anything you read, then you’re NOT disputing my comments now? Meaning you lose? :O

‘Making shit up again. I said nothing about all advertisements being lies, I said that false advertising happens all the time’

You also said that you had no evidence that the advert you ‘know’ is untrue isn’t true. It’s an assumption, which is my point. If you’re going to claim an advert is false, have some evidence.

‘I provided evidence that the Apple ads are untrue. It claims that all PCs crash and no Macs ever crash’

Sorry, but you also said that you weren’t stupid and that you didn’t read my ‘wall’ of comments. You’re going to have to provide evidence of the advert in question, specifically making those claims.

‘I have multiple PCs and have built and sold multiple PCs that never crash. I know people with Macs who crash. Even with those small samples, it makes Apple's claims untrue.’

Firstly, you’re gonna have to provide evidence of those claims you claim Apple made. What you’re effectively saying is that Apple stated that not one of their products would ever fail. I am absolutely confident that this is not true. It is common knowledge, backed up by studies, that Windows crashes much more than Apple OS, or if you like, PC’s crash a lot more than Macs. If Apples claim was simply that Macs are more reliable (which is more plausible) – then they are absolutely correct.

‘I agreed in a previous post that PCs crash more than Macs, as they should. They are required to run on an unimaginable number of hardware configurations while Macs have just a few. They also run far more 3rd party software and drivers. To think that so many different companies, authors and hardware vendors are going to get it right every time is just dumb.’

You know, explaining why something crashes doesn’t change the fact that it crashes. Does the end user care? If their PC crashes, their PC crashes. Even if it’s because Microsoft has a harder task, that doesn’t solve the problem. Arguably Apple took the intelligent approach by standardising to ensure reliability.

‘So you're a Microsoft Spokeswoman now? You can say for sure that they would most definitely decide to go after Apple? There are tons of reasons why they might decide not to. I am not going to bother saying any of them because you will simply argue some retarded logic against them that makes zero sense while claiming you know what MS would do. Instead I'll let you think carefully about a good reason why MS wouldn't go after them for such ads. Think hard now. If you're intelligent you'll figure it out. If you're not, you won't. I'm not going to help you with this one. You're on your own.’

What an idiotic statement. ANY big corporation who is a rival of another big corporation would NEVER let false advertising like that continue. They would ALWAYS object to it, and there are thousands of examples. In fact, it is their corporate RESPONSIBILITY to notify the adverting agency that the information is false. If they fail to do that, then they have no right to complain that anything Apple claims is untrue.

‘I skimmed over that huge wall of text in the end. You go on about the razor issue claiming that I am the one who came up with the 7 points against razors. I quoted the very article you quoted from. You argued with the article, not myself.’

When you quote an article, you’re using it to try and prove a point. Just because you pasted something doesn’t mean you can then say ‘oh but actually I didn’t agree with any of it’ – if you copy it whilst trying to prove your point, you endorse it. And yet again, I wasn’t arguing with it, I was DISTINGUISHING it, or pointing out that it was irrelevant.

‘Keep it up though, it's quite amusing. Razor burn and nicks are most definitely skin irritation.’

Nicks, are 100% NOT skin irritation. Razor burn is arguably a form of skin irritation, but is to be distinguished in this case for the following reason. It is specifically that caused by a blunt razor, or by improper technique, both of which (as I already stated) are not specific to Gillette razors. In fact, it can occur with all razor types. Your own quote, in this case, argued that this would be caused by improper technique. Gillette, I’m sure, gives very precise instructions in terms of usage, so that is a user error. If I smack myself over the head with a Nokia or Blackberry, can I claim that they cause head injuries? Of course not – it’s user error.

‘ You can use your twisted logic all you want in another lame attempt to argue, but in the end you always look retarded. If you ask anyone else who actually shaves, they will agree with the very article you quoted, that is actually against 5 blade razors.’

Whether or not people in general do or do not like to use 5 blade razors, is as per your typical approach, irrelevant. Even taking away the fact that this statement is TOTALLY unsubstantiated, it would not show in any way that the advertising by Gillette is wrong. EVEN if your statement was true (I do this a lot, no? ;-)) it is completely irrelevant, Gillette did not claim ‘more men will say they prefer this razor to others’ did they? They said ‘fewer strokes, less irritation’. You’ve already admitted you have NO evidence that that claim is incorrect, you just assume it is, and that’s where your problem lies.

‘The rest of that ginormous paragraph - learn to break it up. Didn't read. Always drivel and twisted argumentative "logic" anyway.’

Awww did the big bad man use big sentences on poor ickle beayn? Confused.com

LMFAO

 

[beayn]

@watcha

You said: "Well, lets be clear then. If you haven’t read my comments, and you claim you are only disputing anything you read, then you’re NOT disputing my comments now? Meaning you lose?"

Scroll back up and read the part where I said "I pick out a few things and respond to them" you even quoted it yourself.

You were proven wrong again. You just can't accept it. Not all advertising is true, I proved it using quotes from the very article you tried to use as evidence. You even implied some information came from that article you quoted, but when I showed it didn't, you couldn't provide the actual link.

All advertising is NOT true. You can keep believing it and keep buying products you think are absolutely perfect. The rest of us intelligent people who aren't that naive will make our own determinations and decisions based on real evidence, not what marketing campaigns want you to think.

You said: "Awww did the big bad man use big sentences on poor ickle beayn? Confused.com"

If you were as intelligent as you claim, you'd understand punctuation and paragraphs. It's already boring, repetitive and argumentative drivel with no logical basis, at least make it easy to read.

Razor burn and nicks are skin irritation. You got nothing you can argue against it. User error? So, "you're holding it wrong" works for you too huh? It works for most fanboys.

Oh, and I see you couldn't come up with a reason Microsoft didn't go after Apple for false advertising. It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. Think hard! It's even all over Tom's.

 

[watcha]

@beayn

‘Scroll back up and read the part where I said "I pick out a few things and respond to them" you even quoted it yourself. ‘

Maybe this explains your failings from day one. Take any sentence out of context and you end up failing to understand it.

‘You were proven wrong again. You just can't accept it. Not all advertising is true, I proved it using quotes from the very article you tried to use as evidence.’

1 – I never claimed all advertising is true. I claimed it’s true in the opinion of the advertising authority, and that if it isn’t true you can seek legal action and have the advert removed.
2 – The items you quoted from the article I found (which was an anti-Gillette article, btw) – made totally irrelevant points about how there can be other problems associated with having 4/5 blades – nothing to do with interference. Like I said in the previous post, distinguishing things as irrelevant does not mean you disagree with them.
3 – Even if the items you posted were relevant (which they weren’t) – the article provided no evidence and cannot be taken as fact. The only reason I pasted it was to give you a POSSIBLE explanation as to why swiping 5 blades is different than swiping 1 blade 5 times. That doesn’t suddenly mean that the article is gospel.

‘ You even implied some information came from that article you quoted, but when I showed it didn't, you couldn't provide the actual link.’

I gave you the resources to find it for yourself. I also explained that the whole discussion was irrelevant because you’d already admitted you have no evidence that their claim is not true.

‘All advertising is NOT true. You can keep believing it and keep buying products you think are absolutely perfect. The rest of us intelligent people who aren't that naive will make our own determinations and decisions based on real evidence, not what marketing campaigns want you to think.’

Again, I’ve never said this. I’ve said that it’s true in the opinion of the advertising authority, and that if it becomes known to them that it’s untrue, they will refuse to allow the advert to be displayed. How ironic that you say you make your own decision based on real evidence? You say the Gillette advert is lying because it states that you get less irritation, and then you admit that you have no evidence to suggest it’s incorrect? Not only that, but assuming an advert is lying just because you’re bitter about big companies and feel like the world is out to get you, is beyond pathetic.

You said: "Awww did the big bad man use big sentences on poor ickle beayn? Confused.com"

‘If you were as intelligent as you claim, you'd understand punctuation and paragraphs. It's already boring, repetitive and argumentative drivel with no logical basis, at least make it easy to read.’

LOL, How ironic that there were no problems with the sentence you quoted? It’s still so fitting by the way, LOL.

‘Razor burn and nicks are skin irritation. You got nothing you can argue against it. User error? So, "you're holding it wrong" works for you too huh? It works for most fanboys.’

Nicks are not skin irritation. Razer bum is, but the article specifically stated that this is only caused when the razor is used wrong. If I take a TV and sit on it, and it breaks, will I start to say that watching the TV causes the screen to break? Of course not. Any product, specifically shaving, depends on using the right technique. A person could shove the razor in their eye socket and it would blind them, does that mean that razors cause blindness? Of course not. You’re mistaking a user error with a faulty product. If you use any razor with a bad technique you’ll get nicks and razer bum. The point is that when you use them normally, you get LESS irritation using a 5 blade razor. You try to reference the IPhone but again, like most of your comments, that can be distinguished as irrelevant. There is no right or wrong way to hold a phone, you just hold it. There IS a right and a wrong way to shave, that’s the difference. And of course, that all assumes that one article writers opinion is fact, which it isn’t.

‘Oh, and I see you couldn't come up with a reason Microsoft didn't go after Apple for false advertising. It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. Think hard! It's even all over Tom'

Sorry, but they didn’t go after Apple for false advertising because there WASN’T ANY. There was not ONE SINGLE claim about Microsoft on any Apple advert which is untrue. If there was, Microsoft would have been ALL OVER IT. That is a clear, obvious fact. And if they didn’t – it’s their own fault, not Apples.

 

[beayn]

@watcha Here we go again. Wall of text, skimmed it. Found the usual pointless drivel. Again, you lost dude. Trying to say I admitted to things I didn't admit to is just a desperate way to try to argue after you've already lost.

All advertising is not true, I proved it with the razor article that you quoted from. You can pretend it isn't proof, but it is.

Apple did indeed lie plenty of times in their articles. One of the adverts claim that ALL PC's have to deal with "thousands of viruses"
Here's the advert: http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4n7dpmNJdw

My computer has never been infected with a virus, and none of the previous computers I've owned have been infected (dozens) and my wife's computer has never been infected. Hell even my mother's computer without a virus scanner installed has never been infected. (I periodically scan it with a portable scanner that does not need to be installed). That's not even getting into the list of friends, businesses and other clients who have never been infected.

All it takes is one single computer in the entire world to not have any viruses in its lifetime for that Apple advert to be a lie. Still, I could list dozens right here that have never had any problems. Thus, Apple's advert is a lie.

All of the Apple adverts are easily proven wrong. Hell, the iPhone 4 even just blew their "it just works" slogan out of the water.

Face it, Apple lies. So do other companies. Not every company is going to sue them. You obviously are not intelligent enough to think of a reason Microsoft may not decide to sue Apple for those commercials. Even if I did explain any one of the many reasons to you like I would to a child, you wouldn't get it and would argue with huge walls of text filled with more drivel and UNIQUE stuff that has no logical basis or evidence at all.

Just like your last bunch of replies.

Oh, you still did not provide the link I asked you for. Clearly you have no evidence of what you claim or you'd link it.

 

[watcha]

Hello Beayn

'@watcha Here we go again. Wall of text'

Ironic much?

'Found the usual pointless drivel. Again, you lost dude'

Ouch, that's cold. Lets regress to primary school. 'No, you lost, poo poo head'. (LMFAO)
'All advertising is not true, I proved it with the razor article that you quoted from. You can pretend it isn't proof, but it is.'
Again, your failure to grasp the whole content of the argument surfaces.
1 - I have not claimed that all advertising is true. I simply stated that the Apple adverts which specifically referred to Microsoft would necessarily have to be true or the advert would not have been permitted to go on the air. As a result, you're trying to prove something which, even if you did prove, would not prove me wrong. Irrelevant much?
2 - You haven't proved anything remotely like that the razer advert isn't true. Like I've already explained, I found an anti-multi-razer opinion based article, and pointed out that even within that article it proposed a possibile explanation for why (when used properly), fewer strokes leads to less irritation. I didn't pass it off as 'fact', and it remains unscientific and unproven. What it was intended to do, was to make you realise that your logic of assuming it wasn't possibly true was false. And that it did. Furthermore, what you refer to as 'proof' that the advertising was false actually constitutes an article saying 'if you're a dumbass and use it wrong, it may not be a benefit' - Well if you don't know how to shave maybe that's the problem here?
'Apple did indeed lie plenty of times in their articles. One of the adverts claim that ALL PC's have to deal with "thousands of viruses"
Here's the advert: http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4n7dpmNJdw'

Wow, unfortunately for you, I actually watched that Youtube clip. It doesn't say ANYWHERE that 'ALL PC's' are gonna have to deal with thousands of viruses. One woman says she doesn't want to deal with thousands, and the guy says that any pc SHE GETS will have to deal with viruses. And indeed, if she plans to use that PC for the internet, her PC will ABSOLUTELY have to deal with thousands of viruses. In fact the number is probably in the millions. How remarkably obviously anti-apple could you be not to recognise the fact there are millions of viruses floating around, and that the average consumer PC will need protection to 'deal' with all of them. The fact that the advert can make you so angry again brings us back to your 'I'm not one of the cool people' insecurities, what do you have little man syndrome or something? Totally pathetic. A company makes a legitimate advert clearly outlining one of the benefits of their products, and you hate on it because you're too cheap to get one? How empty must your life be?

'My computer has never been infected with a virus, and none of the previous computers I've owned have been infected (dozens) and my wife's computer has never been infected. Hell even my mother's computer without a virus scanner installed has never been infected. (I periodically scan it with a portable scanner that does not need to be installed). That's not even getting into the list of friends, businesses and other clients who have never been infected.'
You don't have to be 'infected' to have to 'deal' with viruses. 'Dealing' with viruses could mean having to constrain your internet use, not opening suspicious files, installing an anti-virus scanner. How naive of you to believe that a PC isn't infected anyway, purely based on a virus scan. Such naivety is the reason we have to have these 'little talks'. There's a reason you use a periodic scanner, and that is that there is a possibility to be infected by one of the millions of viruses floating around, unless you DEAL with them appropriately.
'All it takes is one single computer in the entire world to not have any viruses in its lifetime for that Apple advert to be a lie. Still, I could list dozens right here that have never had any problems. Thus, Apple's advert is a lie.'
1 - As I already stated, the guy specifically referred to the customer, not the whole world. He said that SHE would have to DEAL with viruses, not the whole world. She is a normal, non-geek (non-insecure) so she isn't even comparable to you.
2 - She will be using the PC for the internet (we know this by implication), and we already know that ANY computer which has an open port, an open connection to the internet is a possible target for viruses. A random PC which isn't connected to the internet is therefore excluded.
3 - Again, you make the mistake of associating 'dealing with' and 'infected'. There is no mention of being infected, purely that any viruses will have to be dealt with. That is ABSOLUTELY true for pretty much every computer that follows normal usage patterns as the girl in the clip would. Find me a PC which is used for normal casual internet use which hasn't had a potential threat of viruses which needs to be dealt with? You can't. Every example you provided is in fact someone who is aware of how WELL they are DEALING with the threat of viruses, so in fact you examples, again, prove the advert correct.
'All of the Apple adverts are easily proven wrong. Hell, the iPhone 4 even just blew their "it just works" slogan out of the water.'
Why? It works? I have loads of friends with IPhone 4's and they've had no problems. What problems have you had? OH WAIT, you're a cheapy geek who hasn't got the balls to buy Apple and has an insecurity complex about it. Try one before you say it doesn't work. I have, and there are no problems at all.
'Face it, Apple lies. So do other companies. Not every company is going to sue them. You obviously are not intelligent enough to think of a reason Microsoft may not decide to sue Apple for those commercials. Even if I did explain any one of the many reasons to you like I would to a child, you wouldn't get it and would argue with huge walls of text filled with more drivel and UNIQUE stuff that has no logical basis or evidence at all.'
In other words, you know that any attempt to come up with a rubbish reason why arch rivals wouldn't sue each other for false advertising specifically relating to each other, would be a waste of time, idiotic even for you. So you wont even bother. You haven't proved a single lie by Apple, or by the razer company. All you've done is quoted an opinion based article I gave you to open your eyes, which even agrees with me, and says you would basically have to be a moron not to benefit from multiple blades, and you've linked to an Apple advertisement which is absolutely true, obviously true, and then you've proceeded to back it up with examples from your own life which absolutely prove the Apple advert correct.
Bless.