Re: What's the actual *advantage* of not having an sd slot?

Marion,

I am trying to be nice when I say you can't say logic is wrong.

Than do us a favour and to use it.  And I don't mean with spot-check stuff
like 1 - 1 = 0 , but thruout your whole post.

There are X number of things a phone with the aux jack can do.
There are fewer than X number of things a phone without it can
do.

Nope.  As has been explained to you a gazillion of times.

-- Arlen tried logic to try to make his claims look valid.  It didn't work.
Next up: Squirtle.

Carlos,
It's not an opinion when I say there are X number of things a
phone with the aux jack can do, while there are fewer than X
number of things a phone without it can do.

Yes, it is.  As has been explained to you a gazillion of times.  Hey, thats
deja-vu all over again. :-)

Of course there are drawbacks to the aux jack, where one of them
is potential waterproofing - but - and this is what matters - nobody
can find any evidence that phones without the aux jack have any higher
IP ratings than phones with the aux jack. So it's a red herring.

Ah, the famous "nobody" again. And as always without anything to support it.
your mentioning of "red herring" seems to be a red herring itself.   Yep,
you got it : rejected.

Me, I prefer to have the jack. To me it is important.

>
This is the second time you've said something sensible in
this post.

No, he didn't.  He just offered you *his preference*, one which you happen
to agree with.

Nobody sensible would agree that if you don't need or want something, than
not having it is no loss - but - and this is big - there's a catch.
>
Remember when Arno said he didn't need portable storage because he paid an
arm and a leg for a phone that had enough internal storage to last him the
lifetime of the phone? Remember that?
>
So there *is* a penalty.

You have not even bothered what you think "a catch" is, and now you refuse
to explain what your "penalty" is.  Result : claim rejected.

Likewise, remember someone said that they don't use wired headphones so
they don't need the aux jack? Of course, that's fine - but - and this is
important - can you charge the phone and use the USB port for headphones
simultaneously?

Ah yes, coming up with edge-cases that effect a *very* small group of
people, and than try to use that as a "See, I was right all along and now
win the origional argument".

Kiddo, did I already say you are not really subtile about the tricks you're
trying to pull ?

But yes, that should be fully possible.  Y-splitters have existed for ages -
if the phone allows it ofcourse.

What if your bluetooth battery dies in your headphones?
What if you're on a long international trip on a plane where
you must use headphones the entire time?

What if your phone dies ?!   Than you can't even prove you got a plane
ticket and will be stopped and send back at the next landing !  The client
you where going to visit and work will be furious and your boss will make
you jobless !

How's that for a doomsday scenario ?

But to answer you : if your headphone is *that* important than be sure you
have a replacement with you.  Even if its one from the "dollar store". Just
make sure it works /before/ you step into the plane.

You might even ask the steward(ess) if they have one ofor you.  Yes, that
might mean you have to buy one thats rather pricy, but thats the penalty for
not thinking ahead.

The fact is unassailable that if you take two phones, where the only
difference is one lacks the headphone jack, that the phone with the
headphone jack has X amount of capabilities, while the phone without it
has
less than X amount of capabilities. That's just an unassailable fact.

And yes, another run of the merry-go-round.  :-)

It's distasteful that I have to repeat something so obvious.

As I (and others) find it rather distateful that you keep hammering that,
all the while refusing to respond to anything I (we) bring forward.

The only thing you accomplish with it that noone will want to talk with
you - as you refuse to listen to anything else than the agreement of others.
Which, by the way, you haven't been getting for quite a while.

When you resort to attacking the analogy, it means you have no
defense to the logical argument

Thats funny, you have refused to defend your origional statement, and and
when people tried to present you with analogies you refused to respond to
them either.

IOW, pot blaming the kettle much ?

It's distasteful that I have to explain something so obvious.

Yes, I agree. Its rather distastefull that you have gotten *so much*
information to why your "something" isn't quite what you think it is and
that you are still rambling on as if nothing of it matters.

Let's just give up. OK.

You are free to do so.

You don't like facts. I do.

Yep. You stil think that mind-reading equals facts.  Oh well.

We're different that way.

And I'm *very* glad we, most all of us here, are different from you.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser