From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Frank,

[Most deleted. There's just no point in trying to untangle the misinterpretations/misrespresentations.]

I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative. Logic 101.

Lol. Yes, "I/we" have to. That you can't just means that you have an undefendable position. Which is also logic 101..

Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic. "One can
not prove a negative." is a logic law. Your footstamping doesn't change
that.

As to "That you can't just means that you have an undefendable
position.": *I* do not have a 'position', *Arlen* has, so *he* has to
prove his position, because the reverse is impossible ("One CAN NOT
prove a negative." (perhaps the uppercase helps to comprehend what it *actually* means/says)).

Kiddo, you are as dishonest as Arlen is.

That you fail to grasp basic logic, doesn't make me dishonest. And cut
out the 'Kiddo' (etc.) crap. We didn't go to school together.

If you can argue *why* Arlen doesn't have to prove his position or/and
*why* 'one can not prove a negative' doesn't apply to the reverse of
Arlen's position, then *do* so, but I - and most others - do not need
your unsubstantiated confrontational discorse.

Until then, it's once more EOD.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank,

I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative.
Logic 101.

Lol. Yes, "I/we" have to. That you can't just means that you
have an undefendable position. Which is also logic 101.

Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic.

Why not ? You do not seem to understand much of anything about them.

"One can not prove a negative." is a logic law.

Yes, and ? I thought I already agreed with that.

Your footstamping doesn't change that.

If you think I did that than do quote where I did so.
Good luck with that. :-)

As to "That you can't just means that you have an undefendable
position.": *I* do not have a 'position', *Arlen* has

No, *you* have that position - as a direct result of you trying to wrangle
his statement into something else altogether.

so *he* has to prove his position, because the reverse is impossible

Kiddo, the parts before and after the comma have have got *zero* to do with each other. You think you should wield logic 101 ? You have no idea what
it is.

... or you do, but that would make things much worse - nobody likes liars.

That you fail to grasp basic logic, doesn't make me dishonest.

That you do not grasp basic logic doesn't automatically make you dishonest either.

But that you try to wrangle Arlens statement into something it never was
*does* make you dishonest though.

And cut out the 'Kiddo' (etc.) crap. We didn't go to school together.

Have you ever noticed that its also something that even teenagers say to
kids when they try to pull a fast one ? Well, that happens.

If you can argue *why* Arlen doesn't have to prove his position

Lol. He doesn't have to prove what isn't his position. As such I also
can't have argued any such thing. But, do quote where I did so (Which you won't).

but I ... do not need your unsubstantiated confrontational
discorse.

:-) Thats rich. Someone who claims Arlen *must* have ment two physical
phones, but hasn't - can't - put any substantiating forward for it.

Until then, it's once more EOD.

Run kiddo, run.

Funny, I have not once seen you acknowledge or even just refer to the possibility of Arlen having made a hypotetical case. I wonder why ...
Do you even know what the word means ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-25 10:45:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:31:13 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

There are things a phone with a card in the sd slot can do that are
impossible to do any other way - so I agree it's a critically important
basic hardware feature if you want to make the most of your phone.

If this is "critically important" depends on the user.

Arno,

I'm logically sensible so you must pardon me for both agreeing with you and disagreeing with you - purely on the basis of basic logic & astute sense.

The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.

No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT*
"critically important" for me!

I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.

Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.

[...]

Could you live with a 64GB phone that has no chance of adding storage?

Yes. I would just have to change some of my habits how I use it. But I
could to that of course. In the past I had phones which even had only 32
GB and could live with that just fine.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-25 13:43:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:28:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a
model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it.
And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.

It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.

Telling people, that they lie if they say that an sd card is not
important for them is not "logic" but just stupid.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-26 03:59:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 10:41:26 +1200, Your Name wrote :

No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.

Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.

Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.

Apple also had iPhones *with* SD card? How much more did they cost?
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Frank,

Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic.
"One can not prove a negative." is a logic law.

Revisiting your post and reading the above I realized I let you off the hook too easily.

No, its *not* "a logic law".

However, proving a negative would be both meaningless(1) and time/money intensive, in such a form that it becomes prohibitive(2).

(1) you /could/ prove it(3) *upto now*, but that could change in the ((very) near) future.

(2) most often the ammount of time and effort/money needed to go over /everything/ would be enormous(4).

(3) assuming you would be thorough and did not miss anything.

(4) due to the ammount of time needed going thru everything there is a distinctive non-zero chance that the proof of the positive could pop up between starting and finishing of it.

The *conclusion* of the people of science is that you should not attempt to
do so, for all of the above reasons.

Bottom line:
Its *not* "a /logic/ law" in any form, way or shape.

Also, the statement is mis-represented, by bady quoting it (something you
seem to abhor) :

"One can not prove a negative *in any meaningfull way*".



Arghhh... I thought of finding some support for my "in any meaningfull way" part, and came along this : https://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

It says you *can* prove a negative - in certain circumstances : Like can I prove a person is not in the room I'm in ? Yes, by pointing him out outside the room I'm in ("The Law of Contradiction itself is a negative").

Iow, your origional, badly quoted statement seems to be /at best/
incomplete.

Also this one : https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

, which says

"If 'you can't prove a negative' means you can't prove beyond reasonable
doubt that certain things don't exist, then the claim is just false" (a)

and

"If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true." (b)

The reasonable doubt ? I'm quite sure that a manufacturing-line malfunction (take your pick, there are several) could create two devices, one with, and one without a certain component.

As such the above malfunctioning possibility breaks both (a) and (b).

And as such also breaks *your own* (two physical phones being the same, but for a specific part) "premise is *impossible*" claim.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:26:12 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of
internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno.

No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT* "critically important" for me!

It's interesting that you don't seem to realize you proved my point.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.

Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.

You don't seem to realize that it was critically important to you, Arno.

Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?

Could you live with a 64GB phone that has no chance of adding storage?

Yes. I would just have to change some of my habits how I use it. But I
could to that of course. In the past I had phones which even had only 32
GB and could live with that just fine.

Well, we all had phones that lacked internal storage, and in those early
days, we actually tried to use "extended storage" (which is a bitch).

But we all grew out of the need for "extended storage" years ago.
Now we pop in a 512GB sd card and voila! We have more storage.

At a fraction of the cost of internal storage.
And with far more utility than internal storage could ever have.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:17 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a >>> model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it. >>> And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.

It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.

Telling people, that they lie if they say that an sd card is not
important for them is not "logic" but just stupid.

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

To owners of phones that lack basic functionality, it's "courageous".

You feel "courageous" lacking the basic functionality, but the truth is actually deeper since you paid through the nose to get it back from Google.

You clearly don't realize what you did and what your thought process was.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same
things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.

Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.

Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.

Apple also had iPhones *with* SD card? How much more did they cost?

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

Virginia Slims sold cigarettes by linking them to women¢s liberation... "You've come a long way, baby" was a cultural badge. Buying them became a symbol of female independence, empowerment and modern femininity.

Apple does the same, but with tech. iPhones aren't just phones; they're
status symbols of creativity, individuality, and missing hardware. Apple's
ads rarely talk specs; they sell a lifestyle, a feeling, a tribe, where the shocking lack of basic hardware functionality is a badge of honor to them.

To iPhone owners, it's "courageous" that their iPhones lack functionality.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 03:15:14 +1000, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:

Frank,

[Most deleted. There's just no point in trying to untangle the misinterpretations/misrespresentations.]

I/we don't have to, because one can not prove a negative. Logic 101.

Lol. Yes, "I/we" have to. That you can't just means that you have an
undefendable position. Which is also logic 101..

Sigh! Please don't try to teach me any 'lessons' on logic. "One can
not prove a negative." is a logic law. Your footstamping doesn't change
that.

I can trivially prove that there is no full sized elephant in my car

As to "That you can't just means that you have an undefendable
position.": *I* do not have a 'position', *Arlen* has, so *he* has to
prove his position, because the reverse is impossible ("One CAN NOT
prove a negative." (perhaps the uppercase helps to comprehend what it *actually* means/says)).

Kiddo, you are as dishonest as Arlen is.

That you fail to grasp basic logic, doesn't make me dishonest. And cut
out the 'Kiddo' (etc.) crap. We didn't go to school together.

If you can argue *why* Arlen doesn't have to prove his position or/and *why* 'one can not prove a negative' doesn't apply to the reverse of
Arlen's position, then *do* so, but I - and most others - do not need
your unsubstantiated confrontational discorse.

Until then, it's once more EOD.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:55 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

No. Your logic is false. No matter how many times you write the same >>>>> things again and again. WE don't accept it. Majority wins.

Having an SD card slot costs money (albeit a tiny amount), so phones
with one will cost more than phones without one.

Ask Apple to refund you the money you paid for the lack of sd card.

Apple also had iPhones *with* SD card? How much more did they cost?

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

This is irrelevant.

You said Apple should refund the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
But how can there be a "lack" if Apple never offered the same device
*with* sd card?

A Rolex Submariner is also much more expensive than a Casio WV-59.
Should Rolex also refund the money for not having accurate time because
it lacks a time signal reciever and even doesn't have basic functions
like an alarm, stop watch or timer like the Casio WV-59?
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:27:17 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

And no, you can not prove that our phones are way more expensive than a >>>> model with just 64 KB, simply because the manufacturer doesn't make it. >>>> And if he does, there are many more features in the phone, so that
knowing the price difference between 64 and 256 GB is not possible.

It's not possible to refute logic no matter how much you think you can.

Telling people, that they lie if they say that an sd card is not
important for them is not "logic" but just stupid.

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

To owners of phones that lack basic functionality, it's "courageous".

Not for me. I just use the devices as I like.

You clearly don't realize what you did and what your thought process was.

I had servers long before I had a smartphone. My first website went
online around 1997 and I had the first server with more than just a
webspace around 2001.

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-07-30 09:21:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:26:12 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

The obvious logic is that if you paid for a phone with more than 64GB of >>> internal storage, then it was indeed "critically important" to you, Arno. >>

No, because I already have the memory and thus the sd slot is *NOT*
"critically important" for me!

It's interesting that you don't seem to realize you proved my point.
You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

I realize you don't understand that rather logical assessment; but it's
pure logic that sd card storage costs far less than internal storage.

Yes. But it is still not "critically important" for me.

You don't seem to realize that it was critically important to you, Arno.

No, it wasn't.

Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?

Because I can afford it. I have enough money.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:36:52 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

Otherwise why did you pay something like ten times the cost to buy back
what would have only cost you about 20 bucks for the extra sd storage?

Because I can afford it. I have enough money.

This is a perfectly valid and logical perspective.

It's the same as to why I live in a high tax state because I can afford it.

So we understand each other where your decision is logical and sensible.
As is mine.

Specifically, you buy a high-end phone at price x with you amount of
storage while I have a low-end phone at a lower x and y but I match your y
with sd card storage (losing speed & reliability in the process but gaining portability).

Two people. Two different decisions. That's fine.
Especially when the decision is logical & sensible, I'm fine with it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:35:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno.

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?

We are both discussing two related but different sets of equations.

You paid x for a phone with y amount of storage.
From your perspective, you didn't buy anything back.
From your perspective, the storage came with the phone.

I understand your perspective (if that is an accurate portrayal of it).

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage.
And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:32:08 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

Remember Virginia Slims cigarettes?
Remember the marketing for them?

This is irrelevant.

You said Apple should refund the money you paid for the lack of sd card.
But how can there be a "lack" if Apple never offered the same device
*with* sd card?

A Rolex Submariner is also much more expensive than a Casio WV-59.
Should Rolex also refund the money for not having accurate time because
it lacks a time signal reciever and even doesn't have basic functions
like an alarm, stop watch or timer like the Casio WV-59?

Fair enough. I accept your argument as logical and apropos.

The Apple "refund" was a figure of speech using hyperbole rhetorically.
As such, the action of a "refund" was not meant to be taken literally.

The figure of speech was used in order to provoke thought by my
highlighting of the flaw, not to demand action by Apple for a refund.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Marion, 2025-08-01 04:12:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:35:05 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

You paid dearly to buy back that sd functionality that didn't exist, Arno. >>

What exactly did *I* "buy back"?

We are both discussing two related but different sets of equations.

You paid x for a phone with y amount of storage.
From your perspective, you didn't buy anything back.
From your perspective, the storage came with the phone.

I understand your perspective (if that is an accurate portrayal of it).

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

But then I would have a phone which would lack features, my current
phone has - like compatibility with a Quadlock case or an excellent camera.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.
--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 18:41:14 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :

My perspective is you could have paid less than x with less than y storage. >> And then adding sd storage to equal y storage for less than you paid.

But then I would have a phone which would lack features, my current
phone has - like compatibility with a Quadlock case or an excellent camera.

Yup. I agree with anyone who makes a sensible & logical statement.
As Frank tried to also say, the phones aren't 1:1 comparisons.

I think you understand my perspective, where I'm also aware that you didn't >> even have the choice of doing it via my perspective for that particular
phone (which I accept as a fact of Google Pixel phones, prima facie).

In the end analysis, we only need to understand each other.
There's not much more each of us can do that we haven't already done.

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.

Again, I never disagree with a logically sensible viewpoint from anyone. Storage is important - but it's not the only important feature to consider.

Some people like red phones, for example, and that rules their choice.
Others like one ecosystem over the other.
Still others might care about repair cost, or whatever.

We don't disagree.
We understand each other has a valid viewpoint. And that's OK.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.mobile.android

Arno,

Yes - first of all to accept, that storage is not the only feature which
is important in a smartphone.

You're trying to go the way of sanity, considering pros and cons of the different qualities of the different phones. Arlen has shown several times
to be either unwilling or unable to do so.

As a famous movie once said "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2