|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > June 2006 > Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile
|
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| Sven Golly < sven_medelsvensson@g
mail.com> wrote:
> My local contact requested a.c.t-m again and it looks like we have ignition
> on RoadRunner!!!
>
> Wooohoooo!!!
>
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <29WdnZxVuPAJXvDZRVn-sw@giganews.com> on Fri, 19 May 2006 08:09:40 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Sven Golly < sven_medelsvensson@g
mail.com> wrote:
Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
| |
| Bob Smith 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:y9mbg.127879$eR6.74247@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <29WdnZxVuPAJXvDZRVn-sw@giganews.com> on Fri, 19 May 2006
> 08:09:40 -0500,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
It has the same amount of relevance as posting all those Cingular
infomercials you post in all those cross posted threads.
Bob
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.t-mobile John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
> Thanks.
>
For one, it was an accident ... if you notice, I added no text to the body of
the message. And second, you are a grumpy bastard, aren't you.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| George 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <29WdnZxVuPAJXvDZRVn-sw@giganews.com> on Fri, 19 May 2006 08:09:40 -0500,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
> Thanks.
>
Before you complain about other people learn how to use your newreader
when replying because you posted the above to these groups:
alt.cellular.t-mobile alt.cellular.cingular alt.cellular.verizon
alt.cellular.sprintpcs
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 7tqdne70GsYgnvPZnZ2d
nUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com> on Fri, 19 May 2006
12:43:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.t-mobile John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>For one, it was an accident ... if you notice, I added no text to the body of
>the message. And second, you are a grumpy bastard, aren't you.
If you take the time and effort to get to know me, you'll find that I'm
actually a pretty nice guy, and polite to boot. How about responding in kind,
and showing some restraint, instead of being so often unpleasant?
I note that AT&T Worldnet has now added alt.cellular.t-mobile --
congratulations.
OTOH:
* The bulk of T-Mobile traffic is still being carried by
alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream, as I had predicted --
alt.cellular.t-mobile is mostly just some cross-posts from other newsgroups.
* alt.cellular.t-mobile is still not carried by Google, which is important, so
you might want to try contacting Google directly.
In the future, I suggest the following newsgroups for threads like this:
alt.cellular
alt.cellular.gsm
alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream
and separately* to
alt.cellular.t-mobile
* Many news servers are configured to delete posts to groups they don't carry,
so it's best to post to a new group separately, instead of cross-posting,
until it becomes well-established. [cross-posting to alt.cellular.t-mobile
deleted for that reason]
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| In article <y9mbg.127879$eR6.74247@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
Like most of what you post, John?
| |
| Tinman 2006-05-19, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
<snipped it all>
Please stop posting this here -- it has no relevance to this newsgroup.
Thanks.
--
Mike
| |
| Andy S 2006-05-19, 11:48 pm |
| >> Sven Golly < sven_medelsvensson@g
mail.com> wrote:
>
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29WdnZxVuPAJXvD
ZRVn-sw@giganews.com...
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
>
If it is on RR, then why do I NOT have it?
--
Andrew D. Sisson
LG VX8100 VZW AC II SINCE APRIL 1993
SAMSUNG X497 CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> OTOH:
>
> * The bulk of T-Mobile traffic is still being carried by
> alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream, as I had predicted --
> alt.cellular.t-mobile is mostly just some cross-posts from other newsgroups.
>
Bulk ... I think the number of posts to both are nearly equal already ... and
they are not nearly all cross-posts.
As far as your predictions go, you must be edging to claim "victory" as it is
just now becoming a globally proppagated group ... so it is only to be
expected that it will take a little time yet for people to become aware of it
.... and as another person mentioned, it still isn't showing on Google (for
those that prefer to post or search in that manner).
> * alt.cellular.t-mobile is still not carried by Google, which is important, so
> you might want to try contacting Google directly.
>
I don't use it that way, so I am not going to be pushing it. That is up to
those that prefer it ... it will happen one way or the other.
> In the future, I suggest the following newsgroups for threads like this:
> alt.cellular
> alt.cellular.gsm
> alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream
> and separately* to
> alt.cellular.t-mobile
>
I didn't start it ... ;)
> * Many news servers are configured to delete posts to groups they don't carry,
> so it's best to post to a new group separately, instead of cross-posting,
> until it becomes well-established. [cross-posting to alt.cellular.t-mobile
> deleted for that reason]
>
That is an erroneous configuration and I have never seen it implemented
anywhere. I have seen policies where posts are deleted for *excessive*
cross-posting or posting across heirachies, but not for groups that don't
exist (that would be pretty crazy if you ask me).
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Bulk ... I think the number of posts to both are nearly equal already ... and
> they are not nearly all cross-posts.
This is true. And this is without Google Groups yet. Once Google Groups
picks it up, the numbers will change dramatically.
> As far as your predictions go, you must be edging to claim "victory" as it is
> just now becoming a globally proppagated group .
It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
alt.cellular.t-mobile. Clearly alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream is
ridiculous, there has not been a carrier named Voicestream for several
years, and the group name was unwieldy even when it did exist.
I think that Navas may be worrying about what happens to
alt.cellular.cingular when AT&T changes the name to AT&T Wireless. This
will result in the now-dormant alt.cellular.attws coming back as an
active group, with alt.cellular.cingular gradually becoming dormant. But
to resort to lying about the numbers of posts in order to support his
position is very weird.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that Navas may be worrying about what happens to
> alt.cellular.cingular when AT&T changes the name to AT&T Wireless. This
> will result in the now-dormant alt.cellular.attws coming back as an
> active group, with alt.cellular.cingular gradually becoming dormant. But
> to resort to lying about the numbers of posts in order to support his
> position is very weird.
No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will no
longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of the
charter might have to cease ...
Actually, is there a significant charter for alt.cellular.attws?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will no
> longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of the
> charter might have to cease ...
It's the only theory that makes any sense at all. Why would anyone be
upset about a new Usenet group for a carrier that they don't use, that's
now the fourth largest in the U.S., and where most of its users have no
idea what Voicestream was. Voicestream never even had service on the
west coast, and their Usenet group is hidden down two levels in the
alt.cellular hierarchy. Even Alltel has a Usenet group for g-ds sake.
Clearly Navas doesn't want a precedent set where Usenet cellular groups
change when the carrier name changes. I expect that he'll soon propose a
new Usenet group, alt.cellular.attwireless, to replace
alt.cellular.cingular, to try to avoid a migration over to
alt.cellular.attws.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 4471f821$0$96946$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 22 May 2006 10:43:11
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>
>It's the only theory that makes any sense at all. Why would anyone be
>upset about a new Usenet group for a carrier that they don't use, that's
>now the fourth largest in the U.S., and where most of its users have no
>idea what Voicestream was. Voicestream never even had service on the
>west coast, and their Usenet group is hidden down two levels in the
>alt.cellular hierarchy. Even Alltel has a Usenet group for g-ds sake.
>
>Clearly Navas doesn't want a precedent set where Usenet cellular groups
>change when the carrier name changes. I expect that he'll soon propose a
>new Usenet group, alt.cellular.attwireless, to replace
>alt.cellular.cingular, to try to avoid a migration over to
>alt.cellular.attws.
Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-22, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile
>
With all due respect, we had this discussion before, and the general
interpretation of your comments is that you fealt it was confusing and
redundant and that you did not support it.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 9uqdnZf19aWxhu_ZnZ2d
neKdnZydnZ2d@giganew
s.com> on Mon, 22 May 2006
15:12:28 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>With all due respect, we had this discussion before, and the general
>interpretation of your comments is that you fealt it was confusing and
>redundant and that you did not support it.
With all due respect, there's no such "general interpretation" -- those are
just the feelings of those few with axes to grind.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <r4CdnUa9-pNnX- zZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@g
iganews.com> on Mon, 22 May 2006
08:56:10 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Bulk ... I think the number of posts to both are nearly equal already ... and
>they are not nearly all cross-posts.
>
>As far as your predictions go, you must be edging to claim "victory" as it is
>just now becoming a globally proppagated group ...
I'm simply reporting facts. I'm not engaged in any contest.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 4471ea56$0$96978$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 22 May 2006 09:44:20
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>
>This is true.
Actually not.
>And this is without Google Groups yet. Once Google Groups
>picks it up, the numbers will change dramatically.
Time will tell.
>
>It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
>alt.cellular.t-mobile. Clearly alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream is
>ridiculous, there has not been a carrier named Voicestream for several
>years, and the group name was unwieldy even when it did exist.
>
>I think that Navas may be worrying about what happens to
>alt.cellular.cingular when AT&T changes the name to AT&T Wireless. This
>will result in the now-dormant alt.cellular.attws coming back as an
>active group, with alt.cellular.cingular gradually becoming dormant. But
>to resort to lying about the numbers of posts in order to support his
>position is very weird.
Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile, or
any other newsgroup, past, present, or future.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < l9ydncCav8R2aezZnZ2d
nUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganew
s.com> on Mon, 22 May 2006
12:29:15 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will no
>longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of the
>charter might have to cease ...
I will continue to post the charter for this newsgroup as long as that seems
to be useful.
>Actually, is there a significant charter for alt.cellular.attws?
Why not look it up for yourself?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> With all due respect, we had this discussion before, and the general
> interpretation of your comments is that you fealt it was confusing and
> redundant and that you did not support it.
Hmm, he claims he has no position, yet he argued voraciously against
alt.cellular.t-mobile! alt.cellular.t-mobile was to end the confusion
over the newsgroup with the name of a non-existent carrier.
There may be another possible explanation as to why he was against it.
Since he constantly shills for Cingular, he may not like the fact that
T-Mobile has been doing much better than Cingular in all the independent
surveys, AND he may not like the fact that T-Mobile is really the only
carrier with multi-national operations that include the U.S. (you can't
really count Vodafone with Verizon).
I don't think we'll ever know the real reasons for his behavior.
Certainly we shouldn't count on ever getting the truth from Navas!
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| In article < 4471ea56$0$96978$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
> alt.cellular.t-mobile.
And that's the crux of it all right there.
John has been unnaturally upset, vocally so, about this. That alone
should tell you how nuts he is.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 44723aaa$0$96952$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 22 May 2006 15:27:04
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>Hmm, he claims he has no position, yet he argued voraciously against
>alt.cellular.t-mobile! alt.cellular.t-mobile was to end the confusion
>over the newsgroup with the name of a non-existent carrier.
Wrong again. I simply listed that as one of the arguments against a new
newsgroup.
>There may be another possible explanation as to why he was against it.
>Since he constantly shills for Cingular, he may not like the fact that
>T-Mobile has been doing much better than Cingular in all the independent
>surveys, AND he may not like the fact that T-Mobile is really the only
>carrier with multi-national operations that include the U.S. (you can't
>really count Vodafone with Verizon).
Wrong again. I simply post facts. I don't "shill" for anyone.
>I don't think we'll ever know the real reasons for his behavior.
>Certainly we shouldn't count on ever getting the truth from Navas!
You just don't like that I show your many fabrications for what they are.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <elmop-550285. 20065922052006@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>
Lines: 12
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:06:59 EDT
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:06:59 -0400
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:66691 alt.cellular.verizon:206021 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:277288 alt.cellular.attws:55392
In article <M0scg.88153$Fs1.2494@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Wrong again. I simply listed that as one of the arguments against a new
> newsgroup.
You "listed" it over and over again, for some psychotic reason. It was
like your pretty new pet--you couldn't let go of it.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <elmop-550285. 20065922052006@nntp1
.usenetserver.com> on Mon, 22 May 2006
20:06:59 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <M0scg.88153$Fs1.2494@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>You "listed" it over and over again, for some psychotic reason. It was
>like your pretty new pet--you couldn't let go of it.
Wrong again. Have a nice day.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 4471ea56$0$96978$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> And that's the crux of it all right there.
>
> John has been unnaturally upset, vocally so, about this. That alone
> should tell you how nuts he is.
He's not nuts. Usually there's something behind it when he comes out so
strongly against something that makes perfect sense to everyone else.
When he attacks surveys from JD Power, Consumer Reports, ACSI, etc.,
it's pretty easy to figure out why he's so upset--he constantly shills
for Cingular, and Cingular consistently does very poorly in those
surveys so it's almost his job to attack those surveys with any
rationalization that he can come up with, no matter how patently ridiculous.
In this instance, it has to be related to his opposition to new Usenet
groups being formed when a company changes identities. While it makes
sense to everyone else to form a new group that corresponds to the
actual name of the company, to him it means that the group he formed is
in danger of disappearing in a few years.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <M0scg.88153$Fs1.2494@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <gWtcg.31958$4L1.782@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.173.38.130
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1148349196 ST000 166.173.38.130 (Mon, 22 May 2006 21:53:16 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 21:53:16 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: Q[RGW^OE\RTYRVPXN& #91;O@_WH@YR_B@EXLLB
WLOOAFJYWZUYICD^RAQB
KZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON& #91;ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNT
CIRPIJH& #91;@RQKBXLRZ@CD^HKA
NYVW@RLGEZEJN@\_WZJB
NZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q& #91;GPC_A@CARQVXDSDA
^M]@DRVUM@RBM
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 01:53:16 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:66696 alt.cellular.verizon:206026 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:277292 alt.cellular.attws:55395
John Navas wrote:
> Wrong again. I simply post facts. I don't "shill" for anyone.
Unfortunately, some are fundamentally wrong as they are not found on
Google and not within your realm of professional experience.
Have a nice day.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> John has been unnaturally upset
because he isn't the moderator.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> I'm not engaged in any contest.
Too bad, it might add some excitement to your dim Shirley McLaine universe.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| In article <Hsscg.146542$eR6.24512@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Wrong again. Have a nice day.
You are?
Nice of you to admit it.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-22, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 44725d32$0$96934$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 22 May 2006 17:54:24
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>He's not nuts. Usually there's something behind it when he comes out so
>strongly against something that makes perfect sense to everyone else.
>
>When he attacks surveys from JD Power, Consumer Reports, ACSI, etc.,
>it's pretty easy to figure out why he's so upset--he constantly shills
>for Cingular, and Cingular consistently does very poorly in those
>surveys so it's almost his job to attack those surveys with any
>rationalization that he can come up with, no matter how patently ridiculous.
>
>In this instance, it has to be related to his opposition to new Usenet
>groups being formed when a company changes identities. While it makes
>sense to everyone else to form a new group that corresponds to the
>actual name of the company, to him it means that the group he formed is
>in danger of disappearing in a few years.
Wrong on all counts. Why am I not surprised.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| bernard farquart 2006-05-23, 2:48 am |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4471f821$0$9694
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>
> It's the only theory that makes any sense at all. Why would anyone be
> upset about a new Usenet group for a carrier that they don't use, that's
> now the fourth largest in the U.S., and where most of its users have no
> idea what Voicestream was. Voicestream never even had service on the west
> coast,
They did, actually. They were in the Seattle
market, at least.
Bernard
| |
|
| bernard farquart wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4471f821$0$9694
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> They did, actually. They were in the Seattle
> market, at least.
Sorry, I didn't know that. In California, we never had Voicestream. We
got T-Mobile when Cingular and T-Mobile had an agreement where they each
provided coverage where the other lacked it. New York City was the major
area that Cingular gained.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| Organization: Veldy's Brewery
Message-ID: < neCdnWMVgrDBmO7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 07:51:40 -0500
Lines: 17
X-Trace: sv3- oODz7pXURUbuRUteTgTo
14g9qzi8o4lr5oGk7JEX
zuzKCht7EVxjxP7/ PGbZcpzmuSNEaD5wI7FI
VjL!pn92QCLNLpyeTaId
aMs0X1fYuYW6bkpoXBnU
UrZR6rwkXv9kfDW1hKei
xtV2
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:66719 alt.cellular.verizon:206056 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:277321 alt.cellular.attws:55405
In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Wrong again. I simply listed that as one of the arguments against a new
> newsgroup.
>
You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup, which has a fairly broad
support (you were just about the only critic).
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Why not look it up for yourself?
>
I don't particular care if there is. What I was actually wondering is if
there is one, would you start posting it every couple of days.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In article < neCdnWMVgrDBmO7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup, which has a fairly broad
> support (you were just about the only critic).
He was--and is--the ONLY critic.
Not only once, but several times. He couldn't shut up about what a bad
idea he thought it was.
For reasons he's left unsaid, but which we all know anyway.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < neCdnWMVgrDBmO7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:51:40 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup,
I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
well.
>which has a fairly broad
>support (you were just about the only critic).
Constructive criticism isn't the same thing as taking a position against
something.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
> well.
>
Hmm ... I don't "recall" any constructive advice. I did get some
"constructive" advice from some friends in either octanews.general or
mn.general, I forget which group I asked the question in.
>
> Constructive criticism isn't the same thing as taking a position against
> something.
>
It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
significantly different.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <TJmdnXrMJJiBh- 7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@g
iganews.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006
09:20:12 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Hmm ... I don't "recall" any constructive advice. ...
Even though I reminded you? Then probably because of the chip on your
shoulder. Again, what I actually said, way back in the beginning
<http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo>, was:
3. Why not just keep trying to get it started yourself? The best way to
do that is to get one or more major news carriers on your side.
>
>It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>significantly different.
It was clearly constructive.
Have a nice day, and have the last word -- further "discussion" is clearly
pointless.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < neCdnWIVgrBgmO7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:54:21 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>I don't particular care if there is. What I was actually wondering is if
>there is one, would you start posting it every couple of days.
Of course not.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <TJmdnXrMJJiBh- 7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@g
iganews.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006
> 09:20:12 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Even though I reminded you? Then probably because of the chip on your
> shoulder. Again, what I actually said, way back in the beginning
> <http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo>, was:
>
> 3. Why not just keep trying to get it started yourself? The best way to
> do that is to get one or more major news carriers on your side.
>
Indeed ... after the group had been successfully created and just needed to
proppagate. Remember this posting by you? http://tinyurl.com/jttgp
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In article <%0Fcg.90185$Fs1.26451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> It was clearly constructive.
man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
the balls to deny that you wrote it???
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <elmop-8B955D. 12582523052006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006
12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <%0Fcg.90185$Fs1.26451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>the balls to deny that you wrote it???
Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
much easier for you. ;)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-23, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <elmop-8B955D. 12582523052006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com> on Tue, 23 May 2006
> 12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
> much easier for you. ;)
>
As did I. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/jttgp
Your comments were towards my first attempt to send a control message that
resulted in a cancel by a fascist admin somewhere in Holland, but support
prevailed with a directed approach. Indeed, by the time you wrote that, the
group was already created on ISC and was beginning to move. I will even give
you credit that the third item was mildly constructive, but the remainder of
what you have written, including and especially what I posted was clearly not
constructive. In particular:
"There will be confusion with the existing group, as I've explained
previously."
and
"Cingular existed as a separate cellular carrier without an existing
newsgroup."
and
"T-Mobile USA is already served by a newsgroup."
T-Mobile is not Voicestream. It is history that Voicestream became T-Mobile,
but T-Mobile is NOT Voicestream ... and such a group is not sufficient for
what T-Mobile is today.
In fact, this has gotten way out of hand and is in fact, now, t-mobile
specific. Followups redirected.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <%0Fcg.90185$Fs1.26451@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
> the balls to deny that you wrote it???
Did you ever see the movie “A Guide for a Married Man”?
In the flick Walter Matthau asks Robert Morse what to do if his wife
nails him with another woman.
Morse's response:
“Deny, deny, deny.”
“But what if…?”
"Deny."
“But suppose she walks right in and finds…?”
"Deny."
“Right there. In her bed. Right in front of her…?”
"Deny.
Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-05-23, 11:48 pm |
| In article <yhHcg.90561$Fs1.11126@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
> much easier for you. ;)
Ummmm.....where is that URL?
I noticed you *conveniently* forgot to include it in your above
posting...
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-05-24, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <yhHcg.90561$Fs1.11126@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ummmm.....where is that URL?
>
> I noticed you *conveniently* forgot to include it in your above
> posting...
>
In all fairness to John, it isn't hard to find.
http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:25:29 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in < FMydnWSZiqoU2O7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>As did I. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/jttgp
>
>Your comments were towards my first attempt to send a control message that
>resulted in a cancel by a fascist admin somewhere in Holland, but support
Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.
>prevailed with a directed approach. Indeed, by the time you wrote that, the
>group was already created on ISC and was beginning to move. I will even give
>you credit that the third item was mildly constructive, but the remainder of
>what you have written, including and especially what I posted was clearly not
>constructive. In particular:
I disagree. I think you have a rather narrow 'if you're not with me
you're against me' attitude.
>"There will be confusion with the existing group, as I've explained
>previously."
True.
>"Cingular existed as a separate cellular carrier without an existing
>newsgroup."
True.
>"T-Mobile USA is already served by a newsgroup."
True.
>T-Mobile is not Voicestream. It is history that Voicestream became T-Mobile,
>but T-Mobile is NOT Voicestream ... and such a group is not sufficient for
>what T-Mobile is today.
In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the many others that use it that
way.
>In fact, this has gotten way out of hand and is in fact, now, t-mobile
>specific. Followups redirected.
True from the beginning -- it's now a bit late to get religion --
original newsgroups restored.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:11:42 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-64C97B. 17114223052006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:
>In article <yhHcg.90561$Fs1.11126@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ummmm.....where is that URL?
>
>I noticed you *conveniently* forgot to include it in your above
>posting...
It's readily available in my post earlier in the thread. Please do keep
up.
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:03:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44736a7c$0$96944$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>Did you ever see the movie “A Guide for a Married Man”?
>
>In the flick Walter Matthau asks Robert Morse what to do if his wife
>nails him with another woman.
>
>Morse's response:
>
>“Deny, deny, deny.”
>
>“But what if…?”
>
>"Deny."
>
>“But suppose she walks right in and finds…?”
>
>"Deny."
>
>“Right there. In her bed. Right in front of her…?”
>
>"Deny.
>
>Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
>the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
>who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
>just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"
Highly relevant to alt.cellular.*
Not.
| |
|
| In article < lecd82tb2efrv536oivs
66u38e0p422l4c@4ax.com>
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:03:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44736a7c$0$96944$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Highly relevant to alt.cellular.*
> Not.
And just how did your post fit in, hypocrite.
| |
|
| Leads wrote:
<snip>
>
> And just how did your post fit in, hypocrite.
My post was actually quite relevant, as it was an explanation of how
Navas responds when presented with incontrovertible evidence that
refutes anything he posts. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is,
nor that the source is impeccable. He simply refutes it with one of his
infamous one-line, content-free, responses.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:25:29 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in < FMydnWSZiqoU2O7Z4p2d
nA@giganews.com>:
>
>
> Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.
Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up? As far as
fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
who cancel everything.
>
>
> I disagree. I think you have a rather narrow 'if you're not with me
> you're against me' attitude.
No, you are the only person I felt required direct refutation.
>
>
> True.
Who is confused? You?
>
>
> True.
You are commenting on your own comment.
>
>
> True.
Again ... commenting on your own commment. And it is false. A voicestream
newsgroup is not a representation of T-Mobile USA.
>
>
> In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the many others that use it that
> way.
Who? To my knowledge, the only people that use as a discussion forum for
T-Mobile are those that are aware of the history with Voicestream AND who do
so because it is the "best fit" in the absence of a more proper
alt.cellular.t-mobile group that fits the current heirarchy better.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> My post was actually quite relevant, as it was an explanation of how
> Navas responds when presented with incontrovertible evidence that
> refutes anything he posts. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is,
> nor that the source is impeccable. He simply refutes it with one of his
> infamous one-line, content-free, responses.
I have tried to avoid bashing JN for the most part. But you are correct. He
takes a smug, one word response approach and then leaves it to somebody else
to refute his unsupported text.
"some quote"
JN: False
"another quote"
JN: True
John even quotes his own comments and then follows up with "True" ... as if he
is adding substance to a discussion.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
< vs2dnRQOLJNAahvZnZ2d
nUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up?
Very busy.
>As far as
>fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
>who cancel everything.
That doesn't excuse it.
>[SNIP]
On the rest we'll just have to agree to disagree.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> < vs2dnRQOLJNAahvZnZ2d
nUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> Very busy.
No no no. You have been posting all over the place, you just found this post
and decided it wasn't dead. Let's be honest here.
>
>
> That doesn't excuse it.
>
What the description of the admin as fascist? There is nothing that needs
excusing.
>
> On the rest we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
Yes ... indeed, you are wrong.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:48:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4486f55b$0$96988$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Leads wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>My post was actually quite relevant, as it was an explanation of how
>Navas responds when presented with incontrovertible evidence that
>refutes anything he posts. ...
That has no relevance here; violates Usenet guidelines; and violates the
Charter. 3 for 3 -- you're not losing your touch! :)
Your "incontrovertible evidence" is fabrication, like your claims about
Radio Shack, Verizon, and Cingular that are completely contrary to the
factual record.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:03:40 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
< OtOdnbmTrsJxmxrZnZ2d
nUVZ_qOdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>No no no. You have been posting all over the place, you just found this post
>and decided it wasn't dead. Let's be honest here.
I'm being honest. I see you've still got that chip on your shoulder.
>
>What the description of the admin as fascist? There is nothing that needs
>excusing.
As I wrote: Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.
>
>Yes ... indeed, you are wrong.
You are free to think whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-06-07, 5:48 pm |
| In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> I'm being honest. I see you've still got that chip on your shoulder.
>
True. Or False.
>
> As I wrote: Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.
>
False. Or True.
>
> You are free to think whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
>
True and false ... respectively.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Scott 2006-06-09, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:vu1e82l6k2rjfrl
ghn568gekq8588lhbch@
4ax.com...
>
> Your "incontrovertible evidence" is fabrication, like your claims about
> Radio Shack, Verizon, and Cingular that are completely contrary to the
> factual record.
>
You mean the claims that have been backed up ad nauseum with factrs and
cites? You are a twit, and a poorply educated one at that.
|
|
|
|
|