It's fine if you can afford it; that's great. Have fun with it; it's an awesome phone. Just don't try to justify the iPhone as an "emergency phone". You said it yourself: you want to have a phone that you want to enjoy, not just use in case of an emergency. If it really *were* just for an emergency, then any extra money you put into the phone for capabilities besides calling is pointless... because the point of having an "emergency phone" is - again - to be used just during emergencies. This applies regardless of whether or not you're a college student.
So review: if someone wants to buy a phone for emergency purposes, but wants also to have cool features that he can enjoy, like iPod capabilities with a massive screen, then you want - perhaps almost need - an iPhone. If someone just wants an emergency phone to be used during an emergency because you want to call someone only when your plane is hijacked, or a bus blows up, or there's a riot, then all you really need is a pre-paid phone. I hope my English is comprehendable...
If I want to have a special event, a dress-up dinner, then I'll pay more. But if i know I have leftovers at home, and my blood sugar is low (being a diabetic and all), I might stop at a fast food joint just to grab a soda and fries.
If I think that I might be in a situation where my life or my property might really be in danger, I'll get the extra insurance. But if the only reason I'm buying insurance is because it's legally required and I think I'll be perfectly fine, I'll pay for the cheapest insurance possible.
That's the point you're confusing. I never said that we bought then JUST for emergencies. We didn't have them before 9/11. That was what made us decide to do it.
If we couldn't afford to buy a good plan, and better phones, we would have gotten something cheap.
Emergency usage was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, but we figured that if we were going to do it anyway, why not get something that would give us more pleasure?
You are very single minded about this.
You're saying that if someone needs a car, because of where they live, they should just buy a cheap one, because they are buying it because they need it, and not because they want it?
So, something can't serve two purposes at the same time?
If you are having a diabetic attack, but were about to go to dinner anyway, you would choose to go to MacDonalds instead, just because you were having the attack, and a good meal would be wrong? What if they were on the same block? How would you choose?
I have replacement value insurance on my home, That's not the cheapest, and I hope I never need it, but it pays out far more if I do.
Getting the cheapest insurance (as opposed to getting a good price on a good policy) isn't the best policy either therefore.
People get what they can afford. Don't tell me that I'm not telling you the truth about why I got these phones, because you would be wrong.
What is important to you, is not important to others, who see the situation differently.
The same applies to me, of course, and I was expressing MY reasons, not yours.
Here's your original reply to cincytee (emphasis mine), about how they don't see a point in owning a cell phone at all:
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Your reasoning is poor. This is like insurance. You pay for it, but hope to never need it.
That was your thought process in deciding to get a nice phone? Paying for it but hoping to never need it? That's not possible. You said you decided to get a nicer phone with features that you would like. That would signify that you intended to use the phone for other purposes besides calling. I'm not confusing any point at all. What cincytee is complaining about is a certain attitude, worrying about whatever new feature some shiny new phone has, instead of just getting the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If we couldn't afford to buy a good plan, and better phones, we would have gotten something cheap.
That was never an issue. Straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You're saying that if someone needs a car, because of where they live, they should just buy a cheap one, because they are buying it because they need it, and not because they want it?
If you live in the middle of Central London 5 miles away from your flat, all you need is a commuter car, maybe a Ford Ka. If you want a Maserati, by all means, buy one. Even if you couldn't afford it, you know, that's none of my business. But the Ka will get you across town just as well (minus the gawkers). If you don't intend on competing in a race, the sub-compact will do just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you are having a diabetic attack, but were about to go to dinner anyway, you would choose to go to MacDonalds instead, just because you were having the attack, and a good meal would be wrong? What if they were on the same block? How would you choose?
If I needed sugar (and was absent-minded enough to not have any sweets with me) NOW, I would go with MacDonalds because, odds are, I'll get the food quicker. If I'm having hypoglycemia, having linen on the tables is farthest from my mind. Now, I might go to the nice eatery after McDonald's. But my first concern is getting the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I have replacement value insurance on my home, That's not the cheapest, and I hope I never need it, but it pays out far more if I do.
...because there are a bunch of possible disadvantageous outcomes. On the other hand, if one intends on borrowing electronic equipment from the department at my college, one is forced to buy some insurance. Because the credit card that I pay the rental fees with has insurance coverage for this sort of thing, I buy the cheapest insurance possible. My needs are already covered. I just need that much insurance to get the job done. I suppose if I were really paranoid I can get full coverage so that I wouldn't need to report any incidents to my credit card company. As it is though, it's perfectly sufficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What is important to you, is not important to others, who see the situation differently.
That's been my point the entire time. Glad you agree.
Here's your original reply to cincytee (emphasis mine), about how they don't see a point in owning a cell phone at all:
to that reply, yes, one would hope to never need it for the original reason it was bought. ut most items have more than one use.
Quote:
That was your thought process in deciding to get a nice phone? Paying for it but hoping to never need it? That's not possible. You said you decided to get a nicer phone with features that you would like. That would signify that you intended to use the phone for other purposes besides calling. I'm not confusing any point at all. What cincytee is complaining about is a certain attitude, worrying about whatever new feature some shiny new phone has, instead of just getting the job done.
Again, you are very single minded. You don't read what I wrote, only what you want to see.
That's not what I said at all.Either you don't understand what I said, or you are diliberately mis reading it.
Quote:
That was never an issue. Straw man.
Yes, it is an issue. It is ALWAYS an issue. To pretend otherwise is very thinking. It may not be an issue for you, but it is for many others.
Quote:
If you live in the middle of Central London 5 miles away from your flat, all you need is a commuter car, maybe a Ford Ka. If you want a Maserati, by all means, buy one. Even if you couldn't afford it, you know, that's none of my business. But the Ka will get you across town just as well (minus the gawkers). If you don't intend on competing in a race, the sub-compact will do just fine.
Again, as always, you glide past the broader concepts to narrow it down to what you want to say. Most people obviouslt do not want to buy a Ka, or it would be the only car one sees on the street.
Quote:
If I needed sugar (and was absent-minded enough to not have any sweets with me) NOW, I would go with MacDonalds because, odds are, I'll get the food quicker. If I'm having hypoglycemia, having linen on the tables is farthest from my mind. Now, I might go to the nice eatery after McDonald's. But my first concern is getting the job done.
That may or may not be true about MacDonalds, but it's beside the point, you're sidestepping the issue again.
Quote:
...because there are a bunch of possible disadvantageous outcomes. On the other hand, if one intends on borrowing electronic equipment from the department at my college, one is forced to buy some insurance. Because the credit card that I pay the rental fees with has insurance coverage for this sort of thing, I buy the cheapest insurance possible. My needs are already covered. I just need that much insurance to get the job done. I suppose if I were really paranoid I can get full coverage so that I wouldn't need to report any incidents to my credit card company. As it is though, it's perfectly sufficient.
For those purposes, where an iten isn't yours, and you don't give a crap what happens to it, and don't intend to buy a replacement for yourself, you're correct.
Quote:
That's been my point the entire time. Glad you agree.
No, it hasn't been. I'm talking in the personal, what matters to me, and others I know. You are giving us a dictum. This is the right way to do it. Period.
Comments
It's fine if you can afford it; that's great. Have fun with it; it's an awesome phone. Just don't try to justify the iPhone as an "emergency phone". You said it yourself: you want to have a phone that you want to enjoy, not just use in case of an emergency. If it really *were* just for an emergency, then any extra money you put into the phone for capabilities besides calling is pointless... because the point of having an "emergency phone" is - again - to be used just during emergencies. This applies regardless of whether or not you're a college student.
So review: if someone wants to buy a phone for emergency purposes, but wants also to have cool features that he can enjoy, like iPod capabilities with a massive screen, then you want - perhaps almost need - an iPhone. If someone just wants an emergency phone to be used during an emergency because you want to call someone only when your plane is hijacked, or a bus blows up, or there's a riot, then all you really need is a pre-paid phone. I hope my English is comprehendable...
If I want to have a special event, a dress-up dinner, then I'll pay more. But if i know I have leftovers at home, and my blood sugar is low (being a diabetic and all), I might stop at a fast food joint just to grab a soda and fries.
If I think that I might be in a situation where my life or my property might really be in danger, I'll get the extra insurance. But if the only reason I'm buying insurance is because it's legally required and I think I'll be perfectly fine, I'll pay for the cheapest insurance possible.
That's the point you're confusing. I never said that we bought then JUST for emergencies. We didn't have them before 9/11. That was what made us decide to do it.
If we couldn't afford to buy a good plan, and better phones, we would have gotten something cheap.
Emergency usage was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak, but we figured that if we were going to do it anyway, why not get something that would give us more pleasure?
You are very single minded about this.
You're saying that if someone needs a car, because of where they live, they should just buy a cheap one, because they are buying it because they need it, and not because they want it?
So, something can't serve two purposes at the same time?
If you are having a diabetic attack, but were about to go to dinner anyway, you would choose to go to MacDonalds instead, just because you were having the attack, and a good meal would be wrong? What if they were on the same block? How would you choose?
I have replacement value insurance on my home, That's not the cheapest, and I hope I never need it, but it pays out far more if I do.
Getting the cheapest insurance (as opposed to getting a good price on a good policy) isn't the best policy either therefore.
People get what they can afford. Don't tell me that I'm not telling you the truth about why I got these phones, because you would be wrong.
What is important to you, is not important to others, who see the situation differently.
The same applies to me, of course, and I was expressing MY reasons, not yours.
Your reasoning is poor. This is like insurance. You pay for it, but hope to never need it.
That was your thought process in deciding to get a nice phone? Paying for it but hoping to never need it? That's not possible. You said you decided to get a nicer phone with features that you would like. That would signify that you intended to use the phone for other purposes besides calling. I'm not confusing any point at all. What cincytee is complaining about is a certain attitude, worrying about whatever new feature some shiny new phone has, instead of just getting the job done.
If we couldn't afford to buy a good plan, and better phones, we would have gotten something cheap.
That was never an issue. Straw man.
You're saying that if someone needs a car, because of where they live, they should just buy a cheap one, because they are buying it because they need it, and not because they want it?
If you live in the middle of Central London 5 miles away from your flat, all you need is a commuter car, maybe a Ford Ka. If you want a Maserati, by all means, buy one. Even if you couldn't afford it, you know, that's none of my business. But the Ka will get you across town just as well (minus the gawkers). If you don't intend on competing in a race, the sub-compact will do just fine.
If you are having a diabetic attack, but were about to go to dinner anyway, you would choose to go to MacDonalds instead, just because you were having the attack, and a good meal would be wrong? What if they were on the same block? How would you choose?
If I needed sugar (and was absent-minded enough to not have any sweets with me) NOW, I would go with MacDonalds because, odds are, I'll get the food quicker. If I'm having hypoglycemia, having linen on the tables is farthest from my mind. Now, I might go to the nice eatery after McDonald's. But my first concern is getting the job done.
I have replacement value insurance on my home, That's not the cheapest, and I hope I never need it, but it pays out far more if I do.
...because there are a bunch of possible disadvantageous outcomes. On the other hand, if one intends on borrowing electronic equipment from the department at my college, one is forced to buy some insurance. Because the credit card that I pay the rental fees with has insurance coverage for this sort of thing, I buy the cheapest insurance possible. My needs are already covered. I just need that much insurance to get the job done. I suppose if I were really paranoid I can get full coverage so that I wouldn't need to report any incidents to my credit card company. As it is though, it's perfectly sufficient.
What is important to you, is not important to others, who see the situation differently.
That's been my point the entire time. Glad you agree.
Here's your original reply to cincytee (emphasis mine), about how they don't see a point in owning a cell phone at all:
to that reply, yes, one would hope to never need it for the original reason it was bought. ut most items have more than one use.
That was your thought process in deciding to get a nice phone? Paying for it but hoping to never need it? That's not possible. You said you decided to get a nicer phone with features that you would like. That would signify that you intended to use the phone for other purposes besides calling. I'm not confusing any point at all. What cincytee is complaining about is a certain attitude, worrying about whatever new feature some shiny new phone has, instead of just getting the job done.
Again, you are very single minded. You don't read what I wrote, only what you want to see.
That's not what I said at all.Either you don't understand what I said, or you are diliberately mis reading it.
That was never an issue. Straw man.
Yes, it is an issue. It is ALWAYS an issue. To pretend otherwise is very thinking. It may not be an issue for you, but it is for many others.
If you live in the middle of Central London 5 miles away from your flat, all you need is a commuter car, maybe a Ford Ka. If you want a Maserati, by all means, buy one. Even if you couldn't afford it, you know, that's none of my business. But the Ka will get you across town just as well (minus the gawkers). If you don't intend on competing in a race, the sub-compact will do just fine.
Again, as always, you glide past the broader concepts to narrow it down to what you want to say. Most people obviouslt do not want to buy a Ka, or it would be the only car one sees on the street.
If I needed sugar (and was absent-minded enough to not have any sweets with me) NOW, I would go with MacDonalds because, odds are, I'll get the food quicker. If I'm having hypoglycemia, having linen on the tables is farthest from my mind. Now, I might go to the nice eatery after McDonald's. But my first concern is getting the job done.
That may or may not be true about MacDonalds, but it's beside the point, you're sidestepping the issue again.
...because there are a bunch of possible disadvantageous outcomes. On the other hand, if one intends on borrowing electronic equipment from the department at my college, one is forced to buy some insurance. Because the credit card that I pay the rental fees with has insurance coverage for this sort of thing, I buy the cheapest insurance possible. My needs are already covered. I just need that much insurance to get the job done. I suppose if I were really paranoid I can get full coverage so that I wouldn't need to report any incidents to my credit card company. As it is though, it's perfectly sufficient.
For those purposes, where an iten isn't yours, and you don't give a crap what happens to it, and don't intend to buy a replacement for yourself, you're correct.
That's been my point the entire time. Glad you agree.
No, it hasn't been. I'm talking in the personal, what matters to me, and others I know. You are giving us a dictum. This is the right way to do it. Period.