That is where I see a difference: the moment in which a person is doing something. There is a reason why it is prohibited to mention a member's absence or presence in the House. CPAC, for example, does not give a general view of the House of Commons, which would allow people to note members' presences and absences. The people who debate are those who rise and speak. We can tell if they are there or not. If a person is debating an issue, then he or she is present. The goal is to prevent members from saying who is present and who is not.
In any case, that is how I distinguish the two situations. Nothing prevents a member, in the course of his or her work, from mentioning the presence of another member. There is a difference between contacting a member's office and staff and reporting who is present or not. In my view, the reason why a member would fool around with his BlackBerry is because he isn't much interested in the issue under debate. And members can use their BlackBerrys, laptops, Twitter or other networks to report on what is going on. That member should be paid as an official reporter. That's the problem. It shows a lack of respect toward the House and his colleagues.