Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

so using the official GSM and CDMA sites are unreliable?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?!

i have given countless ammount of proof, all you do is go on abotu an article that may or may not exist. please post your proof

---

I already gave you my proof and you gave me nothing to prove what you said except non updated links and sites *worthless* and a site that changes faster then you come up with worthless sites that have not been updated in 3 weeks or more (wikipedia) So tell you want. You come up with a site that was updates in the last three or four days and disputes Nokia and USA today, and then I will give you the Nokia sites and the USA today sites that say you are full of it.

Remember, YOU disputed my earlier post and was challenged to prove your statement and you have YET to do so. IN a debate when you are challenged then it is up to YOU to prove different and so far every site you have brought up has been about as valid as a fart in a high wind. In sort, not at all.

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

so using the official GSM and CDMA sites are unreliable?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?!

i have given countless amount of proof, all you do is go on abotu an article that may or may not exist. please post your proof

---

CDMA sites? PUH-LEAZE The site you SAY is a CDMA site is nothing more then a sub division of the GSM makers and you would have known that if you had bothered to check who owned it. And anyone with any sense of how to use a computer can do this with ease. So it boils down to the fact that EVERY SINGLE SITE, except for the *changes every second* Wikipedia site; is in actuallity nothing more then a GSM site or an off shoot and again, not one of the GSM sites you provided has been updated in 3 weeks or more.

As such not one of your sites can be used as valid proof of anything.
And remember the rules of a debate is snce you challeneged me, you now have to PROVE what you say with DOCUMENTED AND VALIDATED sources, not sources that can change in a second or are not being kept up by their companies or IT departments. Sorry, you have not provided ONE iota of proof to document what you claimed.

Originally posted by shaffaaf:

---

thus far the ammount of proof you have given comes to a total ammount of 0.

thats all have to say. you spew your BS and i'll keep giving proof.

---

YOu have given no proof no matter what you say. All you have done is post sites that have not been updated with recent info and a site that changes faster then you change drawers.


Sorry guy, you have posted nothing to disprove what I have said no matter what you claim or what non updated sites or sub sites you use.

Come back when you know how to do a search properly or check the ownership of a site and then just MAYBE you might have something other then the crappy misinformation sites you are using.

Originally posted by liassic:

---

Hey guys,
This GSM / CDMA debate is just so pointless.
At the end of the day its a GSM phone so we'll be able to get our hands on it and they won't.
End of story.

---

---------------
I agree totally. That is why I cannot understand why shaffaaf continues to quote these outlandish tales. He has no proof of his statements yet he continues on siting the same unproven-non updated-changes faster then he changes his drawers sites. You would think after the second time of being smacked down, he would learn.

The phone is a nice phone and very decently controlled. My buddy has T-Mobile which uses GSM and he has this phone and is very pleased with it. I have played with it and am more then a little impressed with the ease of use of the controls as well as the apps that come with it. And even IF it was a CDMA phone, I just could not see spending the money Nokia was asking for it as well as being forced to spend over $100. a month on a cell bill because this would be classified as a "smart phone" and thus makes you pay higher rates for less minutes (Verizon charges you $110. a month for 500 minutes shared for their smart phones AND charges you for the phone besides!) Not really worth it if all you want to do is make a call and possibly send a text now and again.

Originally posted by Discmania:

---

I also like the fact that this phone supports internet (SIP) calling as integrated standard like the E71 which for me is an absolute must. Can save the cost of this phone in calls in about a year!

---

It does? Hmmmm, must have missed that somehow. That just might make this worthwhile as you add this to a magic jack and you are pretty much set as the biggest cost would be the phone. your magic jack would cost you all of $20. a year for unlimited texting and phone calls as all the US is a local call and Russia/China is only a $.02 a minute.

Originally posted by Discmania:

---

I use several different SIP providers. Here's one that gives free landline calls and cheap mobile calls around the globe. I'm in the UK and call quality is pretty good on a 3g network:-
www.poivy.com

---

Thank you for this info. I am going to have to seriously think about this and crunch some numbers to see if this would be worthwhile to get.