Cingular cell phone service - CHARTER of alt.cellular.cingular

Author

CHARTER of alt.cellular.cingular

John Navas

2006-03-08, 5:48 pm

CHARTER:

This newsgroup is for discussion of topics directly related to Cingular
Wireless service, including voice, data (GPRS as well as GSM), and fax.
Non-commercial For Sale and Want To Buy notices for compatible products,
tagged in the subject line with "FS" and "WTB" respectively (without the
quote symbols), are permitted. All articles must be in plain text only,
in the English language, and human-readable.

Inappropriate (banned) articles:
* Off-topic (not directly related to Cingular Wireless service)
* Binaries (except for appended text-encoded digital signatures)
* Spam (including excessive cross-posting)
* Make-money-fast or other chain or fraudulent schemes
* Work-at-home or other scams
* Commercial advertisements, "infomercials," or announcements
* Auction notices (e.g., eBay)
* Forged articles (anonymous articles are allowed)
* Personal insults or repetitive flaming (attacks)
* Employment (help and/or position wanted) notices

MODERATOR INFO:

The group is unmoderated.

NoBody

2006-03-08, 11:48 pm

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
>
> MODERATOR INFO:
>
> The group is unmoderated.

I'd say the this Group has a "Self Annointed", and UNWANTED moderator...

Andy S

2006-03-08, 11:48 pm

>> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
>"NoBody" <nobody_special@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9780AB81C804
2nobodyaolcom@216.196.97.131...
>
> I'd say the this Group has a "Self Annointed", and UNWANTED moderator...
>
I agree. UNMODERATED groups DO NOT normally have charters.
Navas thinks this is HIS group. It, however, belongs to everyone.
'Sides, if it were moderated, the stuff the goes against the "charter"
would be removed by the " "Self Annointed", and UNWANTED moderator..."

--
Andrew D. Sisson
LG VX8100
VZW<BAM<FRONTIER CELLULAR<ROCHESTER TEL. MOBILE
SID 154 EV-DO PRL 50463
SINCE APRIL 1993

Marty

2006-03-09, 5:48 pm

Somewhere around Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:12:07 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Andy S"
< adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com>:

>I agree. UNMODERATED groups DO NOT normally have charters.
>Navas thinks this is HIS group. It, however, belongs to everyone.
>'Sides, if it were moderated, the stuff the goes against the "charter"
>would be removed by the " "Self Annointed", and UNWANTED moderator..."

I really wish you guys would get a life and stop commenting on everything JN
posts. You might also want to learn a little about newsgroup basics before
posting - it used to be normal to learn the etiquette first, but that seems
to have been lost. Also, you might want to learn how to enable your reader's
filter, to filter out the posts of those that don't agree with you.

If this were a moderated group, posts like yours would be disallowed as
off-topic. In my view, your posts are the same attempt to be a
self-appointed moderator as what you are bitching about.

And charters have nothing to do with moderated groups; the charter is part
of establishing a new group, moderated or not. It contains the definition
of what the group is for, and what types of posts are allowed.

--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Tinman

2006-03-09, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:46:54 -0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
wrote:

> Somewhere around Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:12:07 GMT, while reading
> alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Andy S"
>
> I really wish you guys would get a life and stop commenting on everything JN
> posts.

I really wish you would get a life and stop commenting about people
commenting about JN. You are not accomplishing anything, so all you are
adding is more noise. And the noise is initiated by JN himself (give me
a break, this is an alt group with a self-explanatory title--any twit
can create an alt group).

BTW: On 3/1/06 in the "A few questions......" thread, you posted a very
polite, yet very accurate, message to JN--explaining why, perhaps, he
gets so much negative attention. Not only didn't he thank you, he came
back like a hurt little child with, "It's quite rude to take someone to
task that way in public." Cry me a XXXXing river...

--
Mike

John Navas

2006-03-09, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < fo2112hpk1tbkelb5mia
p5vl9e5d209o5q@4ax.com> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:17:59
-0700, Tinman <mlynch@removeme.citlink.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:46:54 -0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
>wrote:

>
>I really wish you would get a life and stop commenting about people
>commenting about JN. You are not accomplishing anything, so all you are
>adding is more noise. And the noise is initiated by JN himself (give me
>a break, this is an alt group with a self-explanatory title--any twit
>can create an alt group).

You're created -- let me guess -- zero? ;)

Hypocrisy, thy name is Usenet.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Tinman

2006-03-09, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:43:44 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < fo2112hpk1tbkelb5mia
p5vl9e5d209o5q@4ax.com> on Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:17:59
> -0700, Tinman <mlynch@removeme.citlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> You're created -- let me guess -- zero? ;)
>
> Hypocrisy, thy name is
> Usenet.
^^^^^^^^

You misspelled John Navas.

How convenient that you snipped the part where you acted like a wounded
little child. Might I assume you are OK now?

--
Mike

Marty

2006-03-09, 11:48 pm

Somewhere around Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:17:59 -0700, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Tinman
<mlynch@removeme.citlink.net>:

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:46:54 -0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
>I really wish you would get a life and stop commenting about people
>commenting about JN. You are not accomplishing anything, so all you are
>adding is more noise. And the noise is initiated by JN himself (give me
>a break, this is an alt group with a self-explanatory title--any twit
>can create an alt group).
I really wish you would get a lif and stop commenting about people
commenting about people commenting about JN... :) This can and does go on
and on - although this will be my last comment.

The thing about noise that you guys don't seem to get is that it is easy for
someone to killfile a person that makes either irrelevant or otherwise
unwanted posts; it's almost impossible when others feel the need to
retaliate to every post with more noise, like what's happening here. Why do
you and others feel the need to answer everything he says? If you don't
like him, then just ignore him.
>
>BTW: On 3/1/06 in the "A few questions......" thread, you posted a very
>polite, yet very accurate, message to JN--explaining why, perhaps, he
>gets so much negative attention. Not only didn't he thank you, he came
>back like a hurt little child with, "It's quite rude to take someone to
>task that way in public." Cry me a XXXXing river...

Yes, and what did I do - cry like most of the babies here, or drop it like
an adult? Do you think it bothered me? I gave him my opinion in case he
found it to be useful. Once I did that, there was no reason to say anything
else. No matter how many times you throw a dead fish in the water, it won't
swim.

Try it - you might find life a bit easier if you just lighten up a little.
--
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
-William G. McAdoo

Tinman

2006-03-10, 5:48 pm

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:36:26 -0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid>
wrote:

> Somewhere around Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:17:59 -0700, while reading
> alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Tinman
> <mlynch@removeme.citlink.net>:
>
<snippage occurred>[color=darkred]
>
> The thing about noise that you guys don't seem to get is that it is easy for
> someone to killfile a person that makes either irrelevant or otherwise
> unwanted posts;

First, I'm not one of the "guys." I rarely ran into JN in the past, as
I'm with Sprint (cross-posted threads). It's only recently that I have
started reading this NG directly (albeit not consistently).

Second, if it weren't for the aforementioned "guys" I wouldn't have
realized some of the erroneous information that JN posted in this group
was, in fact, erroneous (it was). Left unchecked, I would have never
known

Third, I don't feel the need to take care of the country's cellular
problems. But if there are people more knowledgeable than JN, who are
willing to take the time to correct him, I'm all for it.

> it's almost impossible when others feel the need to
> retaliate to every post with more noise, like what's happening here. Why do
> you and others feel the need to answer everything he says?

I don't "feel the need." Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
One might ask why JN "feels the need" to post these stupid and pointless
"CHARTER" messages in an unmoderated alt group. Messages he knows from
experience merely generate negative feedback.

And do note I first replied to you in this thread, not to JN. I find it
a bit hypocritical to complain about someone complaining. If you didn't
"feel the need" to post, this sub-thread wouldn't have even occurred.
Think about that for a moment.

>
> Yes, and what did I do - cry like most of the babies here, or drop it like
> an adult?

So you wanna play the entrapment game. OK. Do you still beat your wife,
or did you stop it like an adult? <g>

> Do you think it bothered me?

I sure the hell hope not. But I did chuckle at JN's absurd reply.
(Actually, in some ways, you have to pity the guy--he's out there.)

> I gave him my opinion in case he
> found it to be useful. Once I did that, there was no reason to say anything
> else. No matter how many times you throw a dead fish in the water, it won't
> swim.
>

At least the stench is off the beach. Of course JN ain't dead. In fact,
I'd say with just a *minor* adjustment to his posting "style" he
wouldn't antagonize as many people that he apparently does. But since
you pretty much laid that advice out for him on a platter, and he
rejected it, it seems the chances of him changing are slim. But there's
always that chance!

> Try it - you might find life a bit easier if you just lighten up a little.

I find life pretty easy as it is. And I happen to enjoy the occasional
heated debate. Granted, "debating" is not a concept JN understands. But
that's his problem, not mine.

In any event, I might not be interested in Cingular much longer. The
local Cingular store (recently opened) gushes with enthusiasm about
Cingular's coverage around here (a staff JN would be proud of).

Even though I'm relatively happy with Sprint, they have no plans--at
this time--to extend EV-DO coverage to my area (nor to most of the
country, for that matter). I was hoping things would be different with
Cingular (the coverage map shows my area as at least having EDGE).

But when I walked into an independently owned Radio Shack yesterday, who
were in the process of adding a rather large Cingular display/showcase,
and asked about coverage here I was told, "pretty much non-existent" (I
kid you not). Now I was also told--and of course this is third-hand
information--that a last-minute lawsuit (filed by a local carrier) is
preventing Cingular from adding their equipment to the towers they
intended to. We shall see.

--
Mike

Marty

2006-03-10, 11:48 pm

Somewhere around Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:11:06 -0700, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Tinman
<mlynch@removeme.citlink.net>:

>First, I'm not one of the "guys." I rarely ran into JN in the past, as
>I'm with Sprint (cross-posted threads). It's only recently that I have
>started reading this NG directly (albeit not consistently).
>
Then I apologize for including you, although you did join in this particular
instance. I can't possibly remember the name of every person that attacks
him; there's way too many. :) But my point is simply that every time he
posts something, lots of people jump in with various character attacks,
whether deserved or not, that are getting old and stale, and are often
continuations of previous grievances. For a while I tried killfiling
everyone involved, but that didn't work because I'm too nosy and I'd always
see parts of the arguments and wonder what someone said to deserve the
comments. That's one reason I don't like killfiles.

Was the Cingular charter message really crossposted to the Sprint forum?
By the way, I usually don't pay much attention to the messages about
charters, so I assume they are legit (ie, written when the group is
established). I checked on this one, and it appears that it isn't. So it
is a bit wierd that someone would create a charter and act like it's a big
deal without envolving the rest of the group, but that seems to be the case
here - not that I really care. But I still maintain that having a charter
has nothing really to do with being moderated or not. Plenty of legitimate
unmoderated groups seem to have charters.

>Second, if it weren't for the aforementioned "guys" I wouldn't have
>realized some of the erroneous information that JN posted in this group
>was, in fact, erroneous (it was). Left unchecked, I would have never
>known
Mostly, it seems to be personal opinions or interpretations. I think any
"facts" you read in newsgroups should be verified, anyway. Opinions can't
be verified, so you either take it with a grain of salt, or only listen to
those you know somewhat.

>And do note I first replied to you in this thread, not to JN. I find it
>a bit hypocritical to complain about someone complaining. If you didn't
>"feel the need" to post, this sub-thread wouldn't have even occurred.
>Think about that for a moment.
OK, I thought about it; I made a post about something that keeps happening
over and over, in every post that Navas posts to, which is a lot. I hoped
maybe someone would realize that they are hurting others, but obviously not
the one they are actually attacking. I was wrong, so I apologize. It will
never end.

>
>So you wanna play the entrapment game. OK. Do you still beat your wife,
>or did you stop it like an adult? <g>

Actually, I didn't mean to do that, and I wasn't saying you cry like a baby,
just that a lot of people do.

>
>At least the stench is off the beach. Of course JN ain't dead. In fact,
>I'd say with just a *minor* adjustment to his posting "style" he
>wouldn't antagonize as many people that he apparently does. But since
>you pretty much laid that advice out for him on a platter, and he
>rejected it, it seems the chances of him changing are slim. But there's
>always that chance!

I agree, which is why I tried to give him constructive feedback. Obviously,
he isn't interested, so I dropped it. Most of his replies, whether right or
wrong, are pretty worthless due to the lack of any attempt to show
understanding of the other person's comment, or the replies only partially
address the question.
>
>
>I find life pretty easy as it is. And I happen to enjoy the occasional
>heated debate. Granted, "debating" is not a concept JN understands. But
>that's his problem, not mine.

Yes, occasional would be OK.

>
>In any event, I might not be interested in Cingular much longer. The
>local Cingular store (recently opened) gushes with enthusiasm about
>Cingular's coverage around here (a staff JN would be proud of).
>
>Even though I'm relatively happy with Sprint, they have no plans--at
>this time--to extend EV-DO coverage to my area (nor to most of the
>country, for that matter). I was hoping things would be different with
>Cingular (the coverage map shows my area as at least having EDGE).
>
>But when I walked into an independently owned Radio Shack yesterday, who
>were in the process of adding a rather large Cingular display/showcase,
>and asked about coverage here I was told, "pretty much non-existent" (I
>kid you not). Now I was also told--and of course this is third-hand
>information--that a last-minute lawsuit (filed by a local carrier) is
>preventing Cingular from adding their equipment to the towers they
>intended to. We shall see.

I'd be careful about making decisions based on one example. It could be
that the person who answered you about coverage just resents being forced to
switch from Verizon to Cingular, or something. Or maybe has interference in
his store, or tried a lousy phone.

In spite of their various faults, I've been pretty happy with my Cingular
service where I live (California bay area). Never have dropped a call,
customer service is polite and helpful, though sometimes a little
incompetent, it seems. My bill is consistent, and they were quick to give
me a good incentive to stay when I was tempted to leave to get better
phones.

OK, I've said much more than I should, and I'm ready to get out of hole I'm
digging while I can.

--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Andy S

2006-03-10, 11:48 pm

>>>> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>
>"Marty" <this.address@is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:m31112thi5mdc3l
1ru8i83h2cv72fn8mla@
4ax.com...
> I really wish you guys would get a life and stop commenting on everything
> JN
> posts. You might also want to learn a little about newsgroup basics
> before
> posting - it used to be normal to learn the etiquette first, but that
> seems
> to have been lost. Also, you might want to learn how to enable your
> reader's
> filter, to filter out the posts of those that don't agree with you.
>
If we stopped commentiong on all that JN posted, there'd be NO replies to
ANYTHING.
I think I know my way around newgroups, so educate me on what etiquette I
need to learn.
I know how to enable my "kill-file" no nead to learn how to do it :-)

> If this were a moderated group, posts like yours would be disallowed as
> off-topic. In my view, your posts are the same attempt to be a
> self-appointed moderator as what you are bitching about.
>
I posted a reply to someone who posted a reply that relates to the
newswsgroup, hence, it IS a
valid post.

> And charters have nothing to do with moderated groups; the charter is part
> of establishing a new group, moderated or not. It contains the definition
> of what the group is for, and what types of posts are allowed.
>
I have very rarly seen charters in un-moderated newsgroups.

>
> --
> Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
> "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
> well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
>
--
Andrew D. Sisson
LG VX8100
VZW<BAM<FRONTIER CELLULAR<ROCHESTER TEL. MOBILE
SID 154 EV-DO PRL 50463
SINCE APRIL 1993

Marty Fried

2006-03-11, 11:48 pm

Back on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:46:17 GMT, while hiding out in
alt.cellular.cingular,"Andy S" < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com>
surprised everyone by saying:

>If we stopped commentiong on all that JN posted, there'd be NO replies to
>ANYTHING.
>I think I know my way around newgroups, so educate me on what etiquette I
>need to learn.
>I know how to enable my "kill-file" no nead to learn how to do it :-)
>
What I mean is to stop replying to him directly every time. The
problem is, most of the arguments are really about personal opinions,
and while it's nice to share your opinion, it's not worthwile to keep
arguing over it, even if you're sure you're right, as most people are.

It can be pretty hard to separate fact from opinion; even if the
current "experts" all agree on something, that doesn't necessarily
make it so, as I'm sure you're aware. If someone tries to push their
opinion, the best thing for everyone is to ignore him. If Navas
answers a question incorrectly, there's no need to attack him
directly, you can answer the question correctly, and assume the wrong
answer was an honest mistake (I know, that's a hard assumption many
times, but it doesn't really hurt to do it). Sometimes it really is a
mistake, something we all make on occasion. I noticed John recently
corrected himself, and apologized for the mistake. So, anything is
possible. I even made a mistake myself a while back. Well, not
really, but I thought it would be a nice lie to throw in. :-)

>I posted a reply to someone who posted a reply that relates to the
>newswsgroup, hence, it IS a valid post.

My news server must have missed the reply, then. It looks like you
replied directly to the post, which wasn't even anthing worth arguing
about - nobody cares about charters anyway, in most cases.
>
>I have very rarly seen charters in un-moderated newsgroups.
I think that all legitimate groups are supposed to have charters as
part of the process of establishing them. Perhaps you mean you
haven't seen them much in the alt.* hierarchy, which is less
traditional in most cases (especially alt.binaries.pictures...).

Anyway, I should have known better than to even say anything, but I
get tired of the constant bashing that goes on just like you get tired
of the constant Navas posts. I used to also, but I guess I've gotten
used to it.--
Marty public.forums at gmail.com

John Navas

2006-03-16, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < q8s312pbmgkjsneitnid
o2vbir3td1dca8@4ax.com> on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:13:12
-0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Was the Cingular charter message really crossposted to the Sprint forum?

No. (You can easily check that.)

>By the way, I usually don't pay much attention to the messages about
>charters, so I assume they are legit (ie, written when the group is
>established). I checked on this one, and it appears that it isn't.

It is. I created this newsgroup according to established procedure, which
starts with a charter. (If you like, I'd be happy to refer you to the
relevant documentation.) Those ranting about the charter and alleged
moderation (which is just plain silly) are only displaying their ignorance of
the procedures and of the history of this newsgroup. I'd be willing to bet
that none of them has ever created a newsgroup.

>... But I still maintain that having a charter
>has nothing really to do with being moderated or not. Plenty of legitimate
>unmoderated groups seem to have charters.

Correct. Essentially all legitimate newsgroups have charters.

>I agree, which is why I tried to give him constructive feedback. Obviously,
>he isn't interested, so I dropped it. Most of his replies, whether right or
>wrong, are pretty worthless due to the lack of any attempt to show
>understanding of the other person's comment, or the replies only partially
>address the question.

Whatever your intention, it was rude, not constructive. The appropriate thing
for you to do was to send me private email. See relevant newsgroup
guidelines. ( You have read them, right? ;)

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-16, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <ZknQf.7645$Zs1.3874@twister.nyroc.rr.com> on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:46:17
GMT, "Andy S" < adsisson@NOSPAMroche
ster.rr.com> wrote:

>I have very rarly seen charters in un-moderated newsgroups.

Then you haven't looked very hard. Charters are how newsgroups get started,
moderated or unmoderated.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-16, 5:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < o3m612t320le1itmv7hi
2u9ikbvoeoc0sl@4ax.com> on Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:26:09
-0800, Marty Fried <SeeBelow@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>... nobody cares about charters anyway, in most cases.

Actually, many people do care about charters. The problem is that it only
takes a few that don't to create havoc.

>I think that all legitimate groups are supposed to have charters as
>part of the process of establishing them.

Correct.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-16, 5:48 pm

In article
<RN8Sf.569345$qk4.173826@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
> Actually, many people do care about charters.

Navas, give it up. Your dream world really doesn't exist. It's time
you acknowledge that, and move on with your life.

Marty

2006-03-16, 5:48 pm

Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:44:53 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>
>Whatever your intention, it was rude, not constructive. The appropriate thing
>for you to do was to send me private email. See relevant newsgroup
>guidelines. . . .

> . . . ( You have read them, right? ;)
Not in the last 15 years or so; things have changed a lot since then - have
the guidelines kept up? Used to be people always gave their real email
address, etc. These days, most people don't. You might, although it's not
obvious, plus you have the emphatic "REPLY ON USENET PLEASE" at the top of
your posts, which could be interpreted as "do not send me email"... or not.

If it were one single instance, I wouldn't have posted to the group, but I
personally felt that it was a common enough occurence, and perhaps would
have more credibility if you saw that others agreed (crazy me, thinking you
might actually listen to someone else).

Anyway, I don't care enough to waste time sending email for this, anyway. I
pretty much knew it was a wasted effort. Personally, I think it's too bad
you have this failing, as I think you do have a lot of knowledge that could
be put to better use. Say laVee. :)
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Marty

2006-03-16, 5:48 pm

Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:44:53 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < q8s312pbmgkjsneitnid
o2vbir3td1dca8@4ax.com> on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:13:12
>-0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>It is. I created this newsgroup according to established procedure, which
>starts with a charter. (If you like, I'd be happy to refer you to the
>relevant documentation.) Those ranting about the charter and alleged
>moderation (which is just plain silly) are only displaying their ignorance of
>the procedures and of the history of this newsgroup. I'd be willing to bet
>that none of them has ever created a newsgroup.
>
If that's the case, I apologize. I Googled for info on this newsgroup, but
couldn't find anything except occasional copies of the charter under your
name, so it looked like maybe the charter came after the group was formed.

I don't know a lot about creating groups, and I wasn't sure if alt.* groups
needed a formal creation - it seems that they can just appear spontaneously,
and if carried by ISPs, then they continue to exist because they exist.

--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

John Navas

2006-03-16, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < es9j12dn8l0os3uvr8l7
o6a9ilup6t890k@4ax.com> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:09:53
-0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:44:53 GMT, while reading
>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:
>
>
[color=darkred]
>Not in the last 15 years or so; things have changed a lot since then - have
>the guidelines kept up?

Those regularly posted to Usenet are still relevant today.

>Used to be people always gave their real email
>address, etc. These days, most people don't.

Some don't; most still do.

>You might, although it's not
>obvious,

My real email address is clearly in every post I make. You simply didn't
bother to try it.

>plus you have the emphatic "REPLY ON USENET PLEASE" at the top of
>your posts, which could be interpreted as "do not send me email"... or not.

It "could be interpreted" as pretty much anything, but what it actually says
is "reply" (i.e., in the context of the post). But of course you weren't
really paying attention to that in any event.

>If it were one single instance, I wouldn't have posted to the group, but I
>personally felt that it was a common enough occurence,

That's not a valid justification, as newsgroups guidelines make clear.

>and perhaps would
>have more credibility if you saw that others agreed

Some agree (including multiple addresses from the same person). Most don't.
I get far more positives than negatives.

>(crazy me, thinking you
>might actually listen to someone else).

More rudeness. Why am I not surprised.

In fact I do listen to pretty much everyone, including you, and do my best to
give each post the weight it deserves.

>Anyway, I don't care enough to waste time sending email for this, anyway. I
>pretty much knew it was a wasted effort.

Nice attitude, suggesting that your real motive was to fan the flames, rather
than do something constructive.

>Personally, I think it's too bad
>you have this failing, as I think you do have a lot of knowledge that could
>be put to better use. Say laVee. :)

Surely you know that your post wasn't a good way to accomplish your claimed
objective -- no?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-16, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < kgaj12hql5dvoptrse6p
2ji4ivj68p4dk6@4ax.com> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:13:32
-0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:44:53 GMT, while reading
>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:
>
>If that's the case, I apologize. I Googled for info on this newsgroup, but
>couldn't find anything except occasional copies of the charter under your
>name, so it looked like maybe the charter came after the group was formed.

Google isn't a good way to find newsgroup charters. Use a charter search
engine or control archive.

>I don't know a lot about creating groups, and I wasn't sure if alt.* groups
>needed a formal creation - it seems that they can just appear spontaneously,
>and if carried by ISPs, then they continue to exist because they exist.

The best way to persuade major news providers to add a new alt.* newsgroup is
to follow established procedure, including a charter.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Marty

2006-03-17, 5:48 pm

Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:22:28 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:

>
>Some don't; most still do.
>
Like they say - 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Especially
yours.

>
>
>It "could be interpreted" as pretty much anything, but what it actually says
>is "reply" (i.e., in the context of the post). But of course you weren't
>really paying attention to that in any event.
>
What's that supposed to mean? Obviously, I saw it and paid attention, since
I commented on it. It's just another example of your style of posting that
seems like you intentionally want to piss people off. It's one of the
reasons that every time you post, there are so many silly arguments. I have
to assume you enjoy the attention.

>
>More rudeness. Why am I not surprised.
>
>In fact I do listen to pretty much everyone, including you, and do my best to
>give each post the weight it deserves.
>
>
>Nice attitude, suggesting that your real motive was to fan the flames, rather
>than do something constructive.
>
Well, that is one area in which you undisputedly are an expert. So, I'll
defer to your version of reality for that.

>
>Surely you know that your post wasn't a good way to accomplish your claimed
>objective -- no?

Yes, you are most definitely correct again. I was about 90% sure before I
posted, but I am 100% sure now. So, go ahead and have your last word, I'm
done with this *dis*cussion.
--
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man, or someone who knows it all, in
an argument.

John Navas

2006-03-17, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < op0m12h0vd6j9idehc1m
t7a6hausdgnmto@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:53:03
-0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Somewhere around Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:22:28 GMT, while reading
>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com>:
>
>Like they say - 89% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Especially
>yours.

Guess again. I've actually sampled Usenet postings (with a non-trivial Perl
script). And you?

>What's that supposed to mean?

reply v.

1. to make answer in words or writing; answer; respond:
to reply to a question.

>Obviously, I saw it and paid attention, since
>I commented on it.

After the fact.

>It's just another example of your style of posting that
>seems like you intentionally want to piss people off. [SNIP remaining ad hominem]

You might want to consider your own style, and how easily you get pissed off.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-17, 11:48 pm

In article <vODSf.2723$bn3.932@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < op0m12h0vd6j9idehc1m
t7a6hausdgnmto@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:53:03
> -0800, Marty <this.address@is.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Couldn't let it go without trying to get the last word in, could, you,
Navas?

But then, who around here is surprised by that.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-18, 11:48 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Couldn't let it go without trying to get the last word in, could, you,
> Navas?
>
> But then, who around here is surprised by that.

Careful...Lord Vaders might accuse you of having a hard on for Navas.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-19, 5:48 pm

In article <Oo3Tf.2685$tN3.1087@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Careful...Lord Vaders might accuse you of having a hard on for Navas.

Death Row inmates couldn't get a hard on for Navas.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-19, 5:48 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>
> Death Row inmates couldn't get a hard on for Navas.

Lord Vader wrote:

> Maybe so, but it's what seems to be your personal hard-on for navas
> that draws the most attention.

Lord Vader

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

DecaturTxCowboy Wrote:[color=darkred
]
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Navas.
>
>
> Lord Vader wrote:
>

Yeeee Ha! Flame on cowboy, flame on.

--
Lord Vader
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t208257.html

LinkBot