Help me decide! N95 or N95 8GB

bartmanekul wrote:Err, lots do actually. In a vote on another N95 users site most people DO want a lens cover. Oh, and the lens isnt glass, its perspex.

I daresay most dont have Autistic Spectrum disorder.

In fact, it was 108 for a lens cover, and 10 against. Either way, its personal preferance. Not a medical condition if it doesnt match to your opinion.

Pheonix SZ wrote:Reason I don't hold with others holding an alternative opinion is that they haven't TRIED it with the glass cover.
Your fears are TOTALLY groundless - it's really just being a bit OCD (which is why I alluded to the Autistic Spectrum).

No they are not, why do all digital cameras come with lens cover rather than a recessed lens?

And what glass cover? Its perspex, unless your on about some addon. Even if glass (there seems to be many conflicting reports), it still scratches.

http://www.n95users.com/forum/general-95/6394-new-poll-lens-protection.html

See the above for a sensible opinion about it and pictures of it being scratched.

Somehow I dont think 111 voters are suffering from OCD or have Autistic Spectrum disorder, or do you disagree on that too?

Either way its down to opinion, like most things. But in truth you just piss me off with your attitude, and since my brother is autistic, you struck a nerve. I know you will argue this till the cows come home, because you simply cannot accept that your wrong. But fact is, there are people out there that do take care of their phones, and still get scratches on the lens. Thus, not making it totally groundless.

Anyway, enough on that - you wont agree with me, and I wont agree with you. Lets leave it at that and let the thread carry on. I will make a simple request for you not to make such distasteful remarks in future though. Saying you disagree with an opinion is enough, no need to bring medical conditions into it, as all it does is annoy people, not affirm your right.

bartmanekul wrote:No they are not, why do all digital cameras come with lens cover rather than a recessed lens?

And what glass cover? Its perspex, unless your on about some addon. Even if glass (there seems to be many conflicting reports), it still scratches.

http://www.n95users.com/forum/general-95/6394-new-poll-lens-protection.html

See the above for a sensible opinion about it and pictures of it being scratched.

Somehow I dont think 111 voters are suffering from OCD or have Autistic Spectrum disorder, or do you disagree on that too?

Either way its down to opinion, like most things. But in truth you just piss me off with your attitude, and since my brother is autistic, you struck a nerve. I know you will argue this till the cows come home, because you simply cannot accept that your wrong. But fact is, there are people out there that do take care of their phones, and still get scratches on the lens. Thus, not making it totally groundless.

Anyway, enough on that - you wont agree with me, and I wont agree with you. Lets leave it at that and let the thread carry on. I will make a simple request for you not to make such distasteful remarks in future though. Saying you disagree with an opinion is enough, no need to bring medical conditions into it, as all it does is annoy people, not affirm your right.

Get back to me in six months, show me a meaningful number of such posts and I might just concede that you're not wholly paranoid about the matter.

You remind me of yade, whose well-intentioned effort to create a 95-1/95-8 hybrid failed because he was unable to envision the outcome.

Im not going to argue, the link I provided previously gives peoples opinions on it, as well as someones scratched lens *with a photo*. And other people saying they have the same. And the blatent fact that if a recessed lens was protection enough, all digital cameras wouldnt have lens covers.

And typically you declare that none of those in that thread (did you look at it?) even has a problem, yet you have no idea of their circumstances.

bartmanekul wrote:Im not going to argue, the link I provided previously gives peoples opinions on it, as well as someones scratched lens *with a photo*. And other people saying they have the same. And the blatent fact that if a recessed lens was protection enough, all digital cameras wouldnt have lens covers.

And typically you declare that none of those in that thread (did you look at it?) even has a problem, yet you have no idea of their circumstances.

You DON'T get circular scratches unless you're trying pretty hard with a sharp implement.

Even if you left the phone in a builder's tool box for three months, it wouldn't come out with scratches like that.

Sorry, but the idiot's BUSTED. 😎

The circular scratch and the depth of the long scratch from the top down are CLEAR indication that the user has quite DELIBERATELY scratched it himself, in a childish bid to 'prove' his misguided POV.

Im not suprised tbh. Already clocked you by the insults, nastyness and utter self conviction that you would disprove something so real. In truth I dont know the guy personally, so I cannot say for sure he didnt do that. But along the same lines, theres no way in hell you can say he did do it.

I assume you missed all the other people on there saying they had scratches then.

Anyway, it ends now. You'll continue to argue, Ive no doubt. However, I will rest by saying that its peoples opinion, and clearly your in the minority. However this doesnt prove you wrong, but I always feel people should respect other's views even if they disagree with them, and not simply take the piss because you *think* its wrong.

bartmanekul wrote:Im not suprised tbh. Already clocked you by the utter self conviction that you would disprove something so real.

Nothing wrong with conviction - or is there ?

In truth I dont know the guy personally, so I cannot say for sure he didnt do that. But along the same lines, theres no way in hell you can say he did do it.

I think the content of my post proves otherwise.

I assume you missed all the other people on there saying they had scratches then.

'Other people' meaning those who disagree with Nokia's rightful decision to remove that appalling shutter.

Anyway, it ends now. You'll continue to argue, Ive no doubt.

I'll continue to refute your misguided contention, should you choose to expound it further.

However, I will rest by saying that its peoples opinion, and clearly your in the minority.

So was Copernicus, at one point.

However this doesnt prove you wrong, but I always feel people should respect other's views even if they disagree with them, and not simply take the piss because you *think* its wrong.

Not at all. What I do disagree with is the way you do it: constant insults, making out that 111 people you dont even know are inexplicably wrong, and going so far as to call someone you dont know an idiot and claiming you know for certain hes deliberatly scratched some of his own expensive equipment to prove a point.

And saying things like anyone who says they have scratches on the lens are simply annoyed at nokia removing the shutter.

If you look, Im posting in many threads with people having different opinions. None of them turn out like this.

Any reasonable person would see where Im coming from. Ive even said you could be right, but maintain that you cannot possibly know for sure. Whenever someone gives evidence, you claim its fake without even knowing the details.

Enough said I think. Ive put in my thoughts and proof, and you disagree. I still say you should act more mature and not insult every other post. Opinions can differ without them.

bartmanekul wrote:Not at all. What I do disagree with is the way you do it: constant insults, making out that 111 people you dont even know are inexplicably wrong, and going so far as to call someone you dont know an idiot and claiming you know for certain hes deliberatly scratched some of his own expensive equipment to prove a point.

You ignore the evidence of the photograph itself - for you still haven't addressed my point regarding quite HOW the circular scratch was caused.
Does it look to you, like the kind of scratch that might innocently have been sustained by for example, removal of the phone from a zippered pocket ?
(And who in their right mind, would use a zippered pocket for a phone they were paranoid about scratching the lens cover of ?)
The long scratch mentioned also HARDLY looks like the sort of glancing thing that might be sustained ACCIDENTALLY.

And saying things like anyone who says they have scratches on the lens are simply annoyed at nokia removing the shutter.

What's so absurd about that ?
Human nature is what it is.

If you look, Im posting in many threads with people having different opinions. None of them turn out like this.

Wow !
I'm so awed. 🙄

Any reasonable person would see where Im coming from.

Then clearly, by inference, I'm an unreasonable person - incapable of reason or insight.

Ive even said you could be right,

Doesn't mean I'm gunna say YOU could be.
Sorry. 😃

but maintain that you cannot possibly know for sure. Whenever someone gives evidence, you claim its fake without even knowing the details.

"Whenever" ?
ONE instance - of a falsified piece of evidence ?
How is that 'whenever' ?

Enough said I think. Ive put in my thoughts and proof,

A rather liberal use of the word, wouldn't you say ?

and you disagree.

Ughh !
Appalling, isn't it ?
That after all your efforts, I should STILL be so unenlightened !

I still say you should act more mature and not insult every other post. Opinions can differ without them.

"Every other post" - see, there you go again.
Not that you're given to exaggeration. 🙄
I fail to understand your use of the word 'insult'.

I really wanted to stay well out of this one but Pheonix, you are being quite belligerent here.
Reading onwards from post 30 you make your point in quite a subjective manner and throw in comments about OCD and Autism which are just offensive. I am not taking sides at all, indeed I agree that my preference to a lense cover is likely to be merely a comfort blanket effect, but the way you make your points is what spurred me to write this reply.

3Shirts wrote:I really wanted to stay well out of this one but Pheonix, you are being quite belligerent here.

Subjective, your honour.
But granted, I have mounted what could be described as a spirited defence of my position.

Reading onwards from post 30 you make your point in quite a subjective manner and throw in comments about OCD and Autism which are just offensive.

I don't see how.
Autistic Spectrum disorders are vastly more common than imagined - and indeed, 'neurotypicals' are not exempt from displaying Autoid behaviours.
It is merely an observation, rather than the slur inferred.

I am not taking sides at all, indeed I agree that my preference to a lense cover is likely to be merely a comfort blanket effect, but the way you make your points is what spurred me to write this reply.

That's all I wish to say on the matter

hey 3shirts, atleast it keeps us occupied with threads to read.

3Shirts wrote:That's all I wish to say on the matter

Is that it ? 😉

Belligerent indeed, sir.

Just to add a little context to Phoenix's asinine accusations that I've "childishly" and intentionally damaged the paltry excuse for lens protection on my beloved N95-3 and share my thoughts on his opinion, I quote a post of mine from N95users.com which was apparently directed at Phoenix SZ, which I didn't realize until just now that it was indeed his loudmouthed efforts that had marginally flustered and greatly amused me tonight.

I cannot confirm at this time whether the N95-2 and 3 variants' lens protection is glass or perspex, but I certainly suspect the latter. At any rate, the point is moot. The big problem is the fact that it does scratch- either the actual lens or the anti-glare coating is easily being scratched, and it's not just my device.

The pseudo-witty insult hurled the way at (according to the current results of the poll) over 80% of N95 users is a bit of poor taste and judgement if you ask me, then again, this guy does seem to have a certain lack of class to him. I'll admit I'm a little more than curious, where am I being accused of intentionally damaging my prized possession? What would I have to gain here?

I don't mind the fact that I've been called and idiot by this chap, as he has shown an obvious propensity to go against the general consensus already in other areas- but I'm wondering what the story is... sounds like someone just has a problem with me.

As to the comment that the "glass" lens protection requires no interaction, I'm not so sure. First off, you'll want to deactivate the keyguard in most instances- this of course requires the operation of a much larger slider than the lens protection of the N95-1, or a two button keypress. If that's not enough interaction for you, don't forget to wipe the lens cover of smudges and dust. When you're done with that, go ahead and hold down the capture button until the system recognizes you would like to take an image and haven't just bumped the key while you were on a call. When you're done with this, tell me again how much interaction it takes to slide open a lens cover and be ready to take a picture on the classic N95 with proper lens protection. This of course is also a quicker operation than the aforementioned multi step task involved with taking a picture on your N95-2 or 3. I have a feeling that the gentleman in question isn't much of a genius behind the lens either, or just doesn't mind smudgy photos. I can appreciate someone having their own opinion, but the general consensus doesn't need to be ridiculed by this guy's brilliance.

Anyway- there's my opinion again and further clarification of it.

In the end- everything I've read from you in this forum, Phoenix SZ, tells me that you are a bully, and an angry little person. Your actions and words are of small thoughts and your inept attempts at wit are dismal failures at best. Logic seems to fail you at every turn here- to which I reference a recent, comical discussion in which you chose to rename the N95 variants something that make sense in your head and demand everyone falls in line with.

I reference the voice of the in the previously linked thread at N95users.com as well as RogerPodacter from Howard Forums who has posted a similar photo of his scratched lens cover as well as countless others who disagree with the removal of suitable lens protection in my needless attempt to explain to you that indeed the lack of such rudimentary lens protection is seen as a mistake by a majority of N95users.

I don't know what the situation is with you, but I've personally had enough.

To directly address your accusations that I've created the scratches myself- I say "HA" to you, sir. What need would I have for this? Obviously you know nothing of me. Again, a hearty laugh and a good day to you.

Enjoy your self-righteous indignation and distaste for other's opinion not suitable to you.

<sigh...>

pseudofinn wrote:Belligerent indeed, sir.

Just to add a little context to Phoenix's asinine accusations that I've "childishly" and intentionally damaged the paltry excuse for lens protection on my beloved N95-3 and share my thoughts on his opinion, I quote a post of mine from N95users.com which was apparently directed at Phoenix SZ, which I didn't realize until just now that it was indeed his loudmouthed efforts that had marginally flustered and greatly amused me tonight.

Suggest you read what you write before posting - your frenzied, humourless splutterings lack of a little sense.

In the end- everything I've read from you in this forum, Phoenix SZ, tells me that you are a bully, and an angry little person.

And everything I've read from your vitriolic bile tells me so far, that you're a rather bitter, little man.

Your actions and words are of small thoughts and your inept attempts at wit are dismal failures at best.

"Inept attempts at wit" I think at least serve to lighten the tenor.

Logic seems to fail you at every turn here - to which I reference a recent, comical discussion in which you chose to rename the N95 variants something that make sense in your head and demand everyone falls in line with.

You're surely just trolling with this one, aren't you ?

I reference the voice of the in the previously linked thread at N95users.com as well as RogerPodacter from Howard Forums who has posted a similar photo of his scratched lens cover as well as countless others who disagree with the removal of suitable lens protection in my needless attempt to explain to you that indeed the lack of such rudimentary lens protection is seen as a mistake by a majority of N95users.

The shutter is (as admitted by an shutter-supporter), purely a comfort blanket - but in functional terms, completely, blinking useless and in ergonomic terms, a complete PITA.

I don't know what the situation is with you, but I've personally had enough.

No sh*t !

To directly address your accusations that I've created the scratches myself- I say "HA" to you, sir. What need would I have for this? Obviously you know nothing of me.

To be honest, the incandescence of your reply could quite easily be interpreted as the outraged splutterings of someone who's been rumbled.

Again, a hearty laugh

Hearty ?
You ?

and a good day to you.

Enjoy your self-righteous indignation

Well you certainly appear to have enjoyed your own - but you've brought nothing useful or objective to the debate ... just sourness.

and distaste for other's opinion not suitable to you.

I only take issue where warranted.

TBH, you haven't really said anything that might convince me that my opinions on the scratches were wrong.

Nevertheless, I'd be intrigued to hear how you would explain them.

My comments were not an attempt at humor, so I'm glad that you have not found them as such... referencing your recent attempt to berate someone for using the proper nomenclature of the N95 variants was not trolling, I assure you. I'm just pointing out the fact that you have shown yourself to be an arrogant jerk more than once.

🙄

In over a decade of roaming the Internet and forums, I've never once added someone to an "ignore list". Not even once. My next actions will lend credence to the old saying, "There's always a first for everything."

I don't know what the situation is with you, but I've personally had enough.

No sh*t !

So don't start sh*t then. I mean- we are having this discussion because you are an absolute ass. Honestly... wtf?

you've brought nothing useful or objective to the debate ... just sourness.

What have you brought other than personal insults, a complete lack of respect for your fellow community members and utter contempt for their opinions? You attacked me and made ridiculous accusations that were completely unfounded. I am fully in my right to defend myself against such arrogant defamation. Not that it sounds like you have much of a respected voice here...

Obviously you're not going to get it, and that's a little sad for you.

pseudofinn wrote:My comments were not an attempt at humor,

Clearly.

so I'm glad that you have not found them as such...

That would have been difficult.

referencing your recent attempt to berate someone for using the proper nomenclature of the N95 variants was not trolling, I assure you.

I disagree.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you have shown yourself to be an arrogant jerk more than once.

Better than a sour, humourless one.

In over a decade of roaming the Internet and forums, I've never once added someone to an "ignore list".
Not even once. My next actions will lend credence to the old saying, "There's always a first for everything."

You make that sound like a bad thing.

So don't start sh*t then. I mean- we are having this discussion because you are an absolute ass. Honestly... wtf?

What have you brought other than personal insults, a complete lack of respect for your fellow community members and utter contempt for their opinions?

Yes, but people READ me.
Hell, some of them even harbour a grudging respect.
I don't see that with you.

You attacked me

No, it was YOU who made a very direct and very vitriolic attack on me.
In response to what ?
The suggestion that you engineered evidence.

and made ridiculous accusations that were completely unfounded.

The jury's still out on that. But why not just refute the allegations with an explanation in preference to engaging in a frenzied personal attack ?

I am fully in my right to defend myself against such arrogant defamation.

You are entitled to refute allegations. But until disproven, they can't be said to be defamatory - or arrogant.

Not that it sounds like you have much of a respected voice here...

Well TBPH, I'm not as needy as to be craving of respect.
I'm more a seeker of stimulation.

Obviously you're not going to get it,

And you don't think your outburst will have shaped anyone's opinions about you ?

and that's a little sad for you.

You may have felt indignant.
Hell, you may even have had some justification for feeling indignant.
But your reaction will have gained you no sympathy or respect.
And in all of that, you show yourself to be a very petty, mean-spirited individual.

Its obvious enough to everyone that your in the wrong Pheonix. You dont see anyone backing you up, and while you maintain the self delusion of people giving you gruging respect, your actually losing it.

I think the topic should be locked now, your being very arrogant, and pseudofinn was extremely justified in what he said given you called him an idiot and claimed something you have no proof of whatsoever.

pseudofinn is respected a far deal greater than you are, I can assure you, even if simply by the help hes given others.

Pheonix SZ wrote:Thankyou for your concern.
But you haven't done yourself many favours.

You may have felt indignant.
Hell, you may even have had some justification for feeling indignant.
But your reaction will have gained you no sympathy or respect.
And in all of that, you show yourself to be a very petty, mean-spirited individual.

Seems like I'm forgetting the old caution to never argue with fools (or in this case, nutballs).

bartmanekul wrote:Its obvious enough to everyone that your in the wrong Pheonix. You dont see anyone backing you up, and while you maintain the self delusion of people giving you gruging respect, your actually losing it.

I think the topic should be locked now, your being very arrogant, and pseudofinn was extremely justified in what he said given you called him an idiot and claimed something you have no proof of whatsoever.

pseudofinn is respected a far deal greater than you are, I can assure you, even if simply by the help hes given others.

I might even have a bully-like streak - but at least I'm not an entirely humourless ****.

Sadly (for yourself), I must now consign you to the great ignore-bin in the sky, bartmanekul.
I was beginning to think you were worthy of hearing - but your last post convinces me that I was right to think that you're not worthy of reading, in the first place.
An angry little boy.
You are indeed, your brother's brother.

I have to say this PseudoFinn - how and why did you let your lens cover get into that state ?

If one were being fanciful, one might imagine that it's because your phones are little to you, because you get them free (or subsidised) from Nokia or something.

It's just dumb.
Too dumb to believe that it's accidental.
Hence my suggestion that there may be other reasons for it getting into such a state.

Can you see where I'm coming from ?

Would I be wrong in describing you as a 'Nokia activist'.
Don't you have a blog and stuff, aimed at influencing Nokia opinion/policy ?

Pheonix SZ wrote: I might even have a bully-like streak - but at least I'm not an entirely humourless ****.

Not acceptable tbh, if you see this or not I dont care, its simply to say that I dispise bullies (just out of interest, your name isnt Glenn Richards is it?), so any further insults from you to others will be reported.

I see no need for bullies on a forum, it ruins threads and just causes aggro. You could have voiced your opinion many other ways, and it would have simply been accepted.

:secruity: ok, this thread has had its day, Im closing it.... the last 2 pages are soooo far off subject now its pointless! You guys! :secruity: