FCC outs Philips Breeze headset -- Swarovski never looked so greasy
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 27th 2008 8:04AM
posted May 27th 2008 8:04AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
I just don't understand this thing...
Say, Engadget, would you wear it in public?
the post made no sense to me.
Me neither.
As I said - I don't understand this thing. Make a picture of yourself and paste the pic of the Swarovski over your ear. How will it look?
It seems to me it would look... weird. And I don't understand weird stuff.
Hope this helps :)
Doesnt the one on the right look like a magic 8 ball?
ugly!!
The post makes no sense because it’s a grammatical mess.
"That's Philips unannounced Bluetooth Breeze headset with Swarovski crystals presented with a rich, man-coating of test-lab sauce."
That’s sentence makes absolutely no sense and makes me want to send over my 11th grade English teacher to give them her lecture on the use of commas. Simply put it was never to put commas to use, especially when a person didn’t know how to use them.
I’d thought I could expect better from engadget. In fact this Thomas Ricker’s other posts are equally unappealing just for there sentence structure and now bring to light the reasoning why I wasn’t enjoying reading those topics even though the topics themselves had some content of interest.
Me thinks you troll to much... ;)
"Simply put it was never to put commas to use, especially when a person didn’t know how to use them."
Huh?
Do you speaka anyEnglish?
I know, I know... I'll kick my sarcasm meter.
It'd probably make more sense if you imagined Thomas Ricker standing next to you pointing an imaginary finger at that barnacle-infested-blob-of-oil, and then says, "That's Phillips'...."
In fact[,] -- Thomas Ricker’s other posts are equally unappealing just for [their] sentence structure and now bring to light the [reason] why I [haven’t] [enjoyed] reading those topics even though the [subject matter] [itself] had some content of interest.
Actually, your sentence is nearly impossible to correct, a run on (at best) & just as confusing as anything Thomas has put out there.
See- anyone can be a grammatical critic. It's easy. And annoying.
Grammar Nazi.
Have you never been married? ... I'm on my third wife (so to speak) and yes ... they really are that different.
what is it?
it... reminds... me... of... the... lotus... breast... images...
EWWWW
Thanks a lot engadget. Now I'm broken again
Strong enough for a man... pH-balanced for a woman...?
I've never understood the recent marketing trend of saying that technology is for a man, or for a woman (or in the case of Sony's Bravia line, 'for men and women').
Many current bluetooth earpieces are slightly phallus shaped. They are also often too big for my delicate ear. A headset designed for women is not a bad thing from this woman's perspective.
Finally! I'm so tired of listening to my gf complain about having to wear men's bluetooth ear pieces! I mean, if I had a gf I would be.
Were I female I would not think this was less disgusting.
It's because guys have penises. There's no way this headset is for us!
I pretty sure I saw this in a Doctor Who episode....
This is of only marginal interest; this post could be rewritten as:
"look how clever I am I found some information on the fcc site on an upcoming philipps product release"
..... sound and fury signifying nothing
which is probably why the post is completely incomprehensible.