Cingular cell phone service - Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Author

Re: Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to Verizon

Malcolm Hoar

2006-04-09, 11:48 pm

In article <MPG. 1ea336978341b1c98aa3
3@corp.supernews.com>, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

>
>Curious what you're thinking when you make such a blanket statement.

It's silly sound bite that doesn't stand up to any serious
scrutiny.

>Just my .02, I think that the rise of the low-service giant
>chain stores have taken away local community uniqueness and
>neighborliness, among other things. Those are the kinds of
>things that will never show up in the numbers on a Walmart
>"local contribution sign" posted in their stores.

Agreed. But communities support those stores.

>It's gotten to where if you were Rip van Winkle and woke
>up anywhere in America on a given day, you'd be hard-pressed
>to figure out where the hell you were, because it's all
>starting to look spookingly the same.

Agreed. But that's what consumers appear to want.

>I don't think that's at issue here. I was referring to how
>businesses contribute to the community by sponsoring fund
>raising drives for good causes, offer free services like
>hazardous waste recycling or free delivery for seniors, or
>who participate in local school programs, etc etc etc.

I'll wager that the large stores make far larger cash and
other contributions than the Mom and Pop shops.

>Generally speaking the big-box retailers will only do such
>things if a community imposes specific requirements on them.
>In the case of San Francisco, Home Depot for example made
>a bunch of promises in this area, and then when it looked
>like they were going to win approval, backed down on half
>of them or triangulated their way out of them.

Yes, a lot of shennanigans take place between those
corporations and the cities. I witnessed very closely
some of the games that went on between Home Depot and
the City of Mountain View in recent years.

In my view, the cities are equally if not more guilty
of greed and poor integrity than the retail corporations.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:23:40 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
>I've not even suggested that.

You cetainly have. Every time anyone suggests that government
intervene or regulate in the interests of fairness, morality or for
any other reason, you huff and puff about it as "unwarranted and
counterproductive interference in the working of a free market."

You have done it several times just in this thread alone.

Based on that history, it's clear that you would have manned
the barricades when child labor laws were introduced as being just
another unwarranted intrusion on the then-cozy workings of business.

Any evidence you might provide to the contrary will be
evaluated.

John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

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

In < 48po32peudcm3so5t2g8
joa02750v4ms8d@4ax.com> on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:32:09
-0700, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:23:40 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> You cetainly have. ...

Nope.

Have a nice day.

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

John Navas

2006-04-12, 11:48 pm

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

In <MPG. 1ea70758b54d3b669897
7d@News.Individual.Net> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006
13:48:00 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:23:40 GMT, in article <gfU_f.10587$YT1.10077@bgtnsc04-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...
>
[color=darkred]
>
>Oh, now *there*'s a city-state I'd love to emulate. Just
>don't spit on the street or you might find yourself in jail.
>No thanks!

Good rebuttal. Not. I take that as an uncharitable concession.

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

kashe@sonic.net

2006-04-13, 11:48 pm

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:46:10 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
< See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

>Why you feel
>that you have a reason to assume that these people (who you apparently
>look down upon) cannot possibly "get a job anywhere else" is anyone's
>guess. (my guess: simply because it fits your pre-existing position)

Because he's simply the elitist he spends so much time
accusing you of being.

He basically considers anyone without his inside (or
fabricated) information to be a loser, and therefore undeserving of
sympathy or compassion.

John Navas

2006-04-19, 5:48 pm

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

In <MPG. 1ea84a5d23a2d0af9897
83@News.Individual.Net> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
12:46:10 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:38:15 GMT, in article <blV_f.2614$1q4.40@bgtnsc05-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...
>
>
>Of course I expected this from you. There are plenty of facts,
>including detailed studies of economic impact by academic groups
>who specialize in this sort of thing. You predictably call into
>question the validity of these facts, and that's just fine with
>me. ...

I actually call into question flawed "studies" that are long opinions and
short on actual facts, especially those by non-experts. Regardless, I was
speaking more to your clearly evident bias and anecdotal reporting.

>
>I happen to agree with his arguments much more than I do the
>arguments from ATT/Verizon. ...

Clearly evidence bias, and just an anecdote. Why not lets actual overall
facts speak for themselves?

>
>Talk about situational ethics. You will XXXXX and moan about
>someone not being "fair" to the corporate view, yet when they
>are given clear favors (another way that society pays for these
>organizations that doesn't show up in, ie Walmarts "community
>contribution posters" in stores), you say "tough". You do crack
>me up.

Hardly. I think government should stay the heck out, but it's an unfortunate
fact that governments compete with each other for businesses, and are often
forced to be comparable to incentives offered elsewhere.

>
>Unfortunately, as with all of economics and its orthodoxy, such
>things are not easily "provable", particularly to partisans who
>already have their mind made-up.

Indeed -- you're looking the mirror. I prefer to let actual facts speak for
themselves instead of being blinded by my own prejudices.

>
>You are engaging in precisely what you accuse me or the study authors
>of - assuming facts not in evidence.

On the contrary -- what I wrote is patently true.

>In case you didn't notice, the
>study limits its Wal-Mart comparisons to other "large scale retail
>businesses", in other words, Wal-Mart competitors. Why you feel
>that you have a reason to assume that these people (who you apparently
>look down upon) cannot possibly "get a job anywhere else" is anyone's
>guess. (my guess: simply because it fits your pre-existing position)

Real reason: Because they don't.

>
>Who was doing that, Mr. Spinmeister? Certainly not me.

Not true.

>
>That proves nothing.

Of course it does.

>If you want to do a real study, and study the
>job applications that get received by every other comparably sized
>retail employer that opens its doors in the same location, then
>perhaps there will be more to learn here. Otherwise don't waste
>our time.

Actually unnecessary. If WalMart was less attractive than actually available
alternatives, then it would have to make itself more attractive to obtain
enough labor. That it doesn't have trouble attracting enough labor, and in
fact just the opposite, makes it clear that it is more attractive than the
available alternatives. So you're really complaining about the lack of better
alternatives, or about the failure of workers to qualify for better
alternatives, neither of which have anything to do with WalMart.

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

Philip J. Koenig

2006-04-20, 2:48 am

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:42:47 GMT, in article <Xow1g.47712$1q4.27043@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...

> In <MPG. 1ea84a5d23a2d0af9897
83@News.Individual.Net> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
> 12:46:10 -0700, Philip J. Koenig < See_email_@ddress_be
low.This_one_is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> I actually call into question flawed "studies" that are long opinions and
> short on actual facts, especially those by non-experts.

No surprise there, one of your favorite tactics is to constantly
ask for "cites", and then when you are given them, dismiss them
by trying to claim that the authors are biased amateurs. (despite
all sorts of evidence to the contrary)

> Regardless, I was
> speaking more to your clearly evident bias and anecdotal reporting.

PKB.

>
> Hardly. I think government should stay the heck out, but it's an unfortunate
> fact that governments compete with each other for businesses, and are often
> forced to be comparable to incentives offered elsewhere.

The point isn't whether you agree with the practice, the
point is that it is common and widespread and has a
substantial impact on claimed "economic advantages" of
locating such a business in a given community.

It's _particularly_ significant that you apparently knowingly
exclude such factors from the economic impact you claim that
such businesses have on the community, when in fact those
communities are "paying for the privilege" of putting them
there - effectively meaning the community has to see a much
higher economic "payoff" from such businesses before they
begin to see a net gain from their presence.

>
> Real reason: Because they don't.

Hehehe... good one: "I'm right because.... I'm right!!" ROFL!

>
> Of course it does.

JN attempted contentless blowoff #933 detected.

>
> Actually unnecessary. If WalMart was less attractive than actually available
> alternatives, then it would have to make itself more attractive to obtain
> enough labor.

Walmart, as the largest employer in the world, is automatically
attractive because when they open a store they immediately have
a large number of open positions, and represent a very substantial
portion of the local market for such types of positions. (the
fact that they are often way below-market in their wage scale is
the real issue)

> That it doesn't have trouble attracting enough labor, and in
> fact just the opposite, makes it clear that it is more attractive than the
> available alternatives.

Any employment agency knows approximately how many jobs are on
the market in a given area at a given time. This is a finite,
easily-known number. If a gigantic business like Walmart moves
into any area, particularly one where the job market is already
depressed, it becomes an "instant attraction" because they are
offering a large number of jobs in that area that didn't exist
before. But if those jobs aren't paying a living wage, it has
the effect of potentially lowering the average wage for those
types of positions, potentially magnifying the woes of those
at the low end of the employment spectrum by dominating the
market with low-paying jobs and making the better-paying jobs
less visible.

> So you're really complaining about the lack of better
> alternatives, or about the failure of workers to qualify for better
> alternatives, neither of which have anything to do with WalMart.

Wrong again.

--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein *
* *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @ ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of looking at things. *

LinkBot