|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > June 2006 > Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches
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 |
Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches
|
|
|
| Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to
Verizon
April 1, 2006, 9:22 AM source: APN
John Nayas, who has gained a reputation on Usenet newsgroups as the most
dishonest poster of the 21st century, announced today that he's turning
over a new leaf, and from now on will post only verifiable facts. Nayas
stated, "It was fun being the devils advocate, but I think that people
got tired of of me posting incorrect information day, after day...it
just got really old."
Nayas, who's become famous for his content-free responses when he's
unable to counter referenced facts, said that he apologizes for his
habit of posting one-liners consisting of "Rubbish," "Nonsense," "Good
Scramble," "Not True," etc., when backed into a corner. "It was
childish," he admitted, "I've grown up and will now gracefully admit my
mistakes."
When asked why he's been defending Cingular for so many years, almost
always with false statements, he simply shrugged and stated, "I felt bad
for them, I always root for the underdog. Cingular entered the wireless
game very late in my area, they got stuck with 1900 Mhz, and they
finally had to buy AT&T Wireless in order to solve their coverage
problems. They constantly get hammered in all the independent surveys of
cellular coverage and quality. Someone had to make up stories to counter
the facts, and I took on that responsibility."
Nayas confirmed that he is changing his wireless carrier from Cingular
to Verizon, because he's had no Cingular coverage at his home for the
past 6 years, "I put on a good show, and fooled a lot of people, but I'm
tired of having to drive three miles in order to make a call." He
continued, "people always get my voice mail, and think that my phone is
off, but in reality I'm home, and I have to retrieve my Cingular voice
mail from my land-line. Verizon has great coverage at my house, and I'll
finally be able to use my phone on my sailboat."
Nayas also admitted that in reality he's a Democrat, and that believes
in open competition. He secretly deplored the 2005 FCC decision to
eliminate competition in the DSL market, and he is lobbying the FCC to
rescind their August 2005 decision. Nayas stated: "I used to always link
to studies from the Hoover Institution, until someone informed me about
their political bias, and their connections to big business. Wow! I was
surprised, as I've had nothing but good service from their cleaning
appliances."
Nayas also promised to fix his Cingular FAQ on Wikipedia, which contains
hundreds of incorrect statements.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Nayas Admits Errors, Promises to Be Honest Going Forward, Switches to
> Verizon
> April 1, 2006, 9:22 AM source: APN
>
> John Nayas, who has gained a reputation on Usenet newsgroups as the most
> dishonest poster of the 21st century, announced today that he's turning
> over a new leaf, and from now on will post only verifiable facts. Nayas
> stated, "It was fun being the devils advocate, but I think that people
> got tired of of me posting incorrect information day, after day...it
> just got really old."
>
> Nayas, who's become famous for his content-free responses when he's
> unable to counter referenced facts, said that he apologizes for his
> habit of posting one-liners consisting of "Rubbish," "Nonsense," "Good
> Scramble," "Not True," etc., when backed into a corner. "It was
> childish," he admitted, "I've grown up and will now gracefully admit my
> mistakes."
>
> When asked why he's been defending Cingular for so many years, almost
> always with false statements, he simply shrugged and stated, "I felt bad
> for them, I always root for the underdog. Cingular entered the wireless
> game very late in my area, they got stuck with 1900 Mhz, and they
> finally had to buy AT&T Wireless in order to solve their coverage
> problems. They constantly get hammered in all the independent surveys of
> cellular coverage and quality. Someone had to make up stories to counter
> the facts, and I took on that responsibility."
>
> Nayas confirmed that he is changing his wireless carrier from Cingular
> to Verizon, because he's had no Cingular coverage at his home for the
> past 6 years, "I put on a good show, and fooled a lot of people, but I'm
> tired of having to drive three miles in order to make a call." He
> continued, "people always get my voice mail, and think that my phone is
> off, but in reality I'm home, and I have to retrieve my Cingular voice
> mail from my land-line. Verizon has great coverage at my house, and I'll
> finally be able to use my phone on my sailboat."
>
> Nayas also admitted that in reality he's a Democrat, and that believes
> in open competition. He secretly deplored the 2005 FCC decision to
> eliminate competition in the DSL market, and he is lobbying the FCC to
> rescind their August 2005 decision. Nayas stated: "I used to always link
> to studies from the Hoover Institution, until someone informed me about
> their political bias, and their connections to big business. Wow! I was
> surprised, as I've had nothing but good service from their cleaning
> appliances."
>
> Nayas also promised to fix his Cingular FAQ on Wikipedia, which contains
> hundreds of incorrect statements.
>
you guy's are Funny
the best
better than XM comedy
thanks
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-01, 11:48 pm |
| Strongbox wrote:
> If you're going to make up stuff, at least get the guy's name right. It's
> NAVAS.
Check you Sunday newspaper supplement for discount coupons for the Clue
Store.
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:45:30 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> ====================
====================
==
> RadioShack Shares Hit Low on Downgrade
> APR. 3 10:26 A.M. ET
> Shares of RadioShack Corp. hit a 52-week low on Monday after an analyst
> said the electronics retailer's transition to selling Cingular products
> appeared to be "more difficult" than expected, and downgraded the
> stock...
> "http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8GOJ1BG0.htm? campaign_id=apn_home
_down&chan=db"
> ====================
====================
==
>
> You are at least useful for entertainment value, John. Really, you
> should go into comedy or something...
Radio Shack is closing 480 stores, their stock has been downgraded
because of the loss of Verizon wireless sales, and has hit a 52 week
low. No way to spin this into something positive, but I expect that
he'll try.
| |
|
| Jeff Liebermann wrote:
<snip>
> My crystal ball tells me that not only are there problems selling
> Verizon
? I think you meant Cingular.
> but Nextel-Sprint may shortly follow. Please treat this as
> one of my anecdotal rumors.
I worked with a lady that lived in the Seven Springs area of Cupertino.
She told met that she'd had Sprint for like many years, and it never
worked at her house. Sprint coverage is marginal in many parts of the
Bay Area because they are all 1900 Mhz which requires more towers to
cover a given area, and penetrates less well into buildings. My old boss
got out of his Sprint contract with no termination fee because he had no
coverage at his house.
The article about Radio Shack's problems selling Cingular did mention
that the problem varied by region.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-03, 11:48 pm |
| Scott wrote:
> Or could it be that he wrote this for the amusement of those of us who
> recognize you for the buffoon you truly are?
DING DING DING DING...We have a winner!
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-04, 11:48 pm |
| Rico wrote:
> John, Have you heard whether or not cingular will be renamed to AT&T after
> the Atlanta take over?
Since the industry magazines were talking about the advantages the brand
recognition factor of AT&T over Cingular, its a pretty good bet the name
and orange jumping jack guy will go.
Have you noticed on the AT&T website, the harsh look of the their
"Deathstar" (Star Wars) logo was replaced by a more friendly jumping
jack ball logo?
| |
| Javier 2006-04-05, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <_8EYf.8431$4L1.942@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> on Wed, 05 Apr 2006
> 00:26:34 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>
>
> Shows how dumb 20-something marketing "experts" can be, trading the value of
> strong and well-established branding for a trendy new look that will look
> dated in no time.
How do you know it was a 20-something marketeer who decided on the logo
change? Do you have any evidence to support that claim or is it just
"gut feel"?
-jav
| |
|
| In article < e109j5$2qp4$1@statio
nair.kjsl.com>, Javier <javier@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>How do you know it was a 20-something marketeer who decided on the logo
>change? Do you have any evidence to support that claim or is it just
>"gut feel"?
Not much experienece with the advertising world, when you're thirty (if you
aren't senior management or out on your own) you're through.
>
>-jav
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Not even close. Try again and use facts this time. Can you say
> Brightpoint?
Remember that much of Radio Shacks business was in contract renewal, not
in new sales. And even when it was in new sales, the customer had
already decided which carrier to go with, and was simply looking for the
best deal, or the most convenient location at which to buy.
The sales that Verizon lost are the ones where the Radio Shack sales
person is able to convince the customer to change carriers away from
Verizon, over to Sprint or Cingular, or the rare new wireless customer.
No doubt that Verizon would have more net additions with Radio Shack
than without it. But the cost of these additions was not worth acceding
to Radio Shacks demands.
Furthermore, as Radio Shack continues to close stores, their value as
channel decreases. They're closing 480 stores this year, a little less
than 10% of their company-owned stores.
| |
| Javier 2006-04-06, 5:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> Remember that much of Radio Shacks business was in contract renewal, not
> in new sales. And even when it was in new sales, the customer had
> already decided which carrier to go with, and was simply looking for the
> best deal, or the most convenient location at which to buy.
>
> The sales that Verizon lost are the ones where the Radio Shack sales
> person is able to convince the customer to change carriers away from
> Verizon, over to Sprint or Cingular, or the rare new wireless customer.
>
> No doubt that Verizon would have more net additions with Radio Shack
> than without it. But the cost of these additions was not worth acceding
> to Radio Shacks demands.
>
> Furthermore, as Radio Shack continues to close stores, their value as
> channel decreases. They're closing 480 stores this year, a little less
> than 10% of their company-owned stores.
Just a random anecdotal data point.
It seemed that when I visited the Radio Shack store nearest to my house,
I was the only one buying non-cellular phone products. The rest were
milling about the cell phone displays, asking questions about cell
phones, buying cellphones and calling plans, buying cellphone
accessories, etc.
What do people buy at The Shack these days? I used to go for parts,
tools, browse their sometimes interesting books on electronics projects,
etc.
-jav
| |
|
| Javier wrote:
> What do people buy at The Shack these days?
> etc.
Well that's the whole problem with Radio Shack these days. As fads
either end, or become mainstream (in which case every other store sells
the same products), Radio Shack loses out.
If you're buying new wireless service these days, the best place to buy
it is at Costco, for a lower price, and better warranty than the
carrier's own stores or from Radio Shack. And Costco dedicates about 75
square feet to do high volume sales from three different carriers. Radio
Shack has high cost leases and the expense of stocking a huge number of
low price SKUs that few people buy.
Radio Shack is adding wireless-only kiosks in some places, but it's too
little too late.
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> Secondly, they have (as is usually the case at Costco) an extremely
> limited collection of devices and accessories.
Yes, this is true. The handset selection is limited.
> Thirdly, the salespeople are on commission and pushy.
Hmm, which Costco was this. I've been to Mountain View and Sunnyvale,
and didn't experience this.
> Lastly, other than the Costco loss/damage warranty, the prices
> on phones aren't that great, in many cases higher than the
> carrier's company stores.
The price on the V276 I bought there was $25 less than the Verizon
store. -$25, versus $0 at the store (for a renewal under new every two).
Plus it includes a car charger, case, and headset, all low quality, but
similar to the Verizon after-market accessories.
> Oh, and there is no way to call anyone there on the phone, you
> have to make a trip down there if you want to talk to anyone.
Not true. Call the main store number, and they'll give you the phone
number for the wireless kiosk. I did this.
| |
|
| Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> My personal anecdote... Radio Shack is the *worst* place to buy
> a cellphone. As best as I can tell, Radio Shack refer every
> phone problem back to the cellphone manufacturer (even when the
> Moto phone is packaged with a Radio Shack branded manual and
> warranty statement).
In terms of obtaining service, Radio Shack is the worst. If you take a
Radio Shack purchased phone to one of the carrier's stores that has
level 2 service (where they can fix minor things like antenna
replacement, etc.), they won't touch it. You might find a Radio Shack
that has parts for the most popular phones, but it's unlikely.
The carriers give Radio Shack a sweet deal on pricing, because of their
volume, but they don't want their own stores to be servicing Radio
Shack's phones.
| |
| Malcolm Hoar 2006-04-06, 11:48 pm |
| In article < 44359911$0$70828$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>In terms of obtaining service, Radio Shack is the worst. If you take a
>Radio Shack purchased phone to one of the carrier's stores that has
>level 2 service (where they can fix minor things like antenna
>replacement, etc.), they won't touch it. You might find a Radio Shack
>that has parts for the most popular phones, but it's unlikely.
>
>The carriers give Radio Shack a sweet deal on pricing, because of their
>volume, but they don't want their own stores to be servicing Radio
>Shack's phones.
My experience is different. I've had no problems find non-Radio
Shack stores that will service Radio Shack sold phones.
I was just never able to get Radio Shack to service a Radio Shack
sold phone. And that sucks. Sending a phone back for factory repair
which may take 6 weeks also sucks. Therefore, don't buy a phone
from a store that doesn't offer a loaner in such situations.
Many do, but needless to say, Radio Shack is not one of those.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| In article < e13ati$qb3$1@station
air.kjsl.com>, Javier <javier@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>SMS wrote:
>
>Just a random anecdotal data point.
>
>It seemed that when I visited the Radio Shack store nearest to my house,
>I was the only one buying non-cellular phone products. The rest were
>milling about the cell phone displays, asking questions about cell
>phones, buying cellphones and calling plans, buying cellphone
>accessories, etc.
>
>What do people buy at The Shack these days?
Batterys, or at least the last time I was there that was what the bulk of
the 'crowd' in the store was there for. Again no claim of this being an
accurate survey of the typical client at the shack. I still use them for
the occasional part etc especially on weekends when some of the bigger
parts houses are closed (locally). I personally am hoping the store near me
isn't one of the 480 that are mentioned in this thread.
> I used to go for parts,
>tools, browse their sometimes interesting books on electronics projects,
>etc.
>
>-jav
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
| |
|
| In article < 4435389b$0$70812$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Javier wrote:
>
>
>Well that's the whole problem with Radio Shack these days. As fads
>either end, or become mainstream (in which case every other store sells
>the same products), Radio Shack loses out.
>
>If you're buying new wireless service these days, the best place to buy
>it is at Costco, for a lower price, and better warranty than the
>carrier's own stores or from Radio Shack. And Costco dedicates about 75
>square feet to do high volume sales from three different carriers. Radio
>Shack has high cost leases and the expense of stocking a huge number of
>low price SKUs that few people buy.
>
>Radio Shack is adding wireless-only kiosks in some places, but it's too
>little too late.
Did you know Costco is not all over the country (US)?
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
| |
|
| Rico wrote:
<snip>
> I personally am hoping the store near me
> isn't one of the 480 that are mentioned in this thread.
Not sure where you are, but in the Bay Area they are closing six out of
122 stores, in Hayward, Alameda, Newark, San Jose, Richmond and Marin. I
think what helped keep the total down is that so many of their Bay Area
stores have closed already. Near my house, we've lost four out of six
stores in the past ten years or so. Unless Radio Shack finds a way to
get Verizon back, the 480 stores is just the beginning.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:y4yZf.69772$bn3.4775@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> And yet no proof of your stupid and silly claim- how silly.
Talk to a Radio Shack manager or franchise owner sometime about the loss
of Verizon, you'll touch a nerve. As all of the reports have stated,
wireless sales have taken a big hit at Radio Shack since the loss of
Verizon.
I think one of the biggest problems for retailers that don't sell
Verizon, is the tremendous influence that surveys such as those from
Consumer Reports and JD Power have on consumers. Year after year,
Consumer Reports lists Verizon as the top carrier in almost every
metropolitan area. The surveys' impact is not limited to CR subscribers,
as it is widely quoted by the media around the country. Since most
wireless subscribers are already less than thrilled with their service,
when their contract is up, they tend to do more research when selecting
a carrier the second time.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:0AFZf.70893$bn3.59021@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Wrong again- you have represented Cingular as the second coming for Radio
<snip>
>
> EVERYBODY EXCEPT YOU that has posted direct personal information in this
> thread has said that Radio Shack employees are far from pleased with the
> performance of Cingular in the stores. A sane and rational person in that
<snip>
> So there ya go, Johnny Boy. Knowing you, you'll not only call it juvenile
> but scream "slander" at the same time. Feel free to do either- everything I
> posted is well documented and supported by your own posts over the last five
> years. You see, Google is my friend.
Nice long post Scott, but by now surely you must realize that, in the
words of Eric Hauser, "You can't have a debate with someone who is
willing to make up the facts."
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-08, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> The master should of course know. ;)
OK, you got the last word in. Now go play with your PS2 and learn something.
| |
|
| In article < 44369e3f$0$70826$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Rico wrote:
>
>
>Sadly, I realize this. Still, they're in most metro areas.
Don't get east of the left coast much do you...
> I have also
>been to Costco in Taiwan (GSM) and Korea (CDMA). The Korea Costco's have
>the best food and drink samples, including Korean beef and kimchi, as
>well as beer (hof) and Korean rice wine (SoJu). The food sample servers
>are also very different than in the U.S..
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
| |
|
| Rico wrote:
> In article < 44369e3f$0$70826$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't get east of the left coast much do you...
Sure I do. I went to Costcos in Brooklyn and near college Park MD, in
February, and I've been to them in Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Fort
Lauderdale as well.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-09, 5:48 am |
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> Both [Walmart & Home Depot]of which have a "large selection".
>
> And both of which:
>
> - Tend to have poor / unavailable customer service
Walmart really doesn't have any products that need knowledgeable sales
staff, but the paint and electronics departments seems to be the most
educated comparatively speaking to the rest of the store). Home Depot
and Lowes has each department specially trained. Ever see the pins on
the HD vests?
> - Have a tendency to drive local retailers out of business
> without replacing their unique value
No doubt. I can't see the local lumber store surviving. But then, the
store only has a very few items that the local Lowes didn't have,
Oh...forgot to check Tractor Supply. Besides, I'm past the leather and
metal fantasy stage.
> - Have had significant or substantial labor problems or a
> history of exploiting employees
No argument there as far as Walmart goes.
> - Have a tendency to only contribute to local communities
> when forced to, and there is a high "sleaze factor". (HomeDepot
> tried to pawn off some pretty big lies to get a store into
> SF, for example)
That may very well be in some cases, but from what I've seen when the
new kid on the block meets public opposition, they make concessions to
meet the communities concerns - like adding more trees, sound barrier
walls, improve street access to reduce traffic congestion - the you
could say the "sleaze factor" work for the community instead of against it.
> I like the retail profit to
> go to a local organization that invests in the local community,
In my local Walmart, there's a sign that says how much they contribute
to local organizations that could very well exceed what other merchants
put back in.
> and in return I generally get superior service as well.
Which is easy to do when the local merchant has for or five floor staff
to handle the four or five customers in the store. That's an incredible
amount of staffing overhead per sales volume/floor space.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-09, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> Inefficiency that's reflected in the price.
Please don't wander in areas you aren't familiar with.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-09, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> My own take is that they are no worse in general than most other businesses.
> Many local businesses make no contribution at all to their local communities.
At least you qualified that as an opinion. I qualified it as my
experience with chamber of commerce offices.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-09, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Not even remotely accurate,
Sounds like he's done his research.
> so I'm not going to bother responding, much less
> be so childish as to respond in kind.
Of course not.
You may now have the last word, I'll give it too you.
| |
|
| Rico wrote:
> I think it may even be regional. I consistantly get better computer
> oriented service from CompUSA then BB and CC (no Frys in South East).
There is a Fry's in Georgia, which is pretty south east.
| |
|
| Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In article <e8b_f.1922$YT1.74@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Customer service in my local (Fremont) Home Depot is dreadful.
>
> Home Depot also earned a highly dishonourable mention with
> the San Jose Merc ActionLine column. Their record with the
> BBB is less than stellar too. I think you may be rather
> lucky with your specific local store.
>
> Fortunately, Fremont now has a Lowes which is far better,
> for most items I need.
Lowes is coming to Sunnyvale soon.
The Home Depot near me is a mixed bag. They often will have one
knowledgeable person in each department, but you have to happen to be
shopping when that person is there.
I especially like the employee who tell you where to buy stuff cheaper
than Home Depot!
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> - Tend to have poor / unavailable customer service
> - Have a tendency to drive local retailers out of business
> without replacing their unique value
In my area, Home Depot apparently drove a local lumber store out of
business, but in reality it was the lumber store's own fault, as they
had a poor selection of wood, which was not appreciably better than the
poor quality lumber sold by Home Depot. Home Depot apparently had had
little impact on a store like Southern Lumber which sells much higher
quality lumber, at higher prices, with very knowledgeable employees.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-10, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Microsoft succeeded mostly by skill, industry, and foresight.
HAHAHHAHAHAHA...yer joking, right?
That was a rhetorical question...no need to reply.
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>
>
> Both of which, in general, sell essentially the same products
> you can get elsewhere, for a significant price premium. Must
> be the cost of all that excessive marketing and branding.
I read that the top selling item at Sharper Image is the Ionic Breeze,
which has been shown to have no effect on air purification. Of course
that may be why their sales are in the tank.
| |
|
| Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> 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.
The promise of more sales tax revenue is a powerful lure to cities, and
Home Depot is probably second only to a car dealership in terms of sales
tax generation, since all of Home Depot's products are taxable.
Sometimes it can get ridiculous. In my city, the local mall is
undergoing renovation. The owners claimed that increases in the cost of
steel and concrete require that they be permitted to build condominiums
in one of the mall's parking lots, in order to generate cash for the
mall renovation. The city agreed to rezone the parking lot to
high-density residential, though it's probably going to a referendum
where the rezoning will be overturned. Why did the city agree to rezone
a parking lot to high-density residential? Because the mall owners claim
that the renovated mall will bring in another $3 million dollars in
revenue per year, even though they have no new stores that have said
that they will lease space.
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> If you are spending the time to read through some of the
> novels I recently posted in this thread (wouldn't blame
> you if you weren't) you would see that nowadays Wal-Mart
> actually views some forms of *welfare* as *labor
> competition*...! Talk about one to top them all..
I like the complaints from Wall Street analysts that Costco is being too
generous in terms of wages and benefits, they cite Wal-Mart as an
example to be followed.
It takes a CEO with some morals to not engage in a race to the bottom in
terms of how to treat your employees.
I think you'll see more states passing laws regarding large corporations
being required to pay a certain percentage of their payroll in health
care coverage, or put money into a fund for state health programs. As it
stands now, Wal-Mart is a net loss in terms of financial benefits, since
the sales tax revenue doesn't cover the cost of welfare for their employees.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-11, 5:48 pm |
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> If you are spending the time to read through some of the
> novels I recently posted in this thread (wouldn't blame
> you if you weren't) you would see that nowadays Wal-Mart
> actually views some forms of *welfare* as *labor
> competition*...! Talk about one to top them all..
Work 8 hours standing on your feet doing the same thing over and over
again at the check line versus staying at home watching Oprah and still
make the same kind of money.
Sounds like a no brainer for some people.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-12, 11:48 pm |
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
>
>
> 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. YES! I take that as an informed and factually accurate reply.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-14, 5:48 pm |
| Tinman wrote:
> the NASCAR crowd--at much higher speeds.
NASCAR - Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> I have not personally been to Singapore, I have spoken to
> people who were born there and who have visited there, and
> I know the difference between their legal system and history
> and the one in the USA.
I've been there. Almost too clean, and not much to do there. People
drive to Malaysia for recreation. I think the most amusing part of the
visit was when they check your gas gauge as you are crossing the bridge
from Singapore to Malaysia. You must have at least 3/4 of a tank,
because they don't want people driving to Malaysia to fuel up at lower
cost. Of course now many people simply put in a switch which they can
flip to show almost a full tank.
Read "Lands of Charm and Cruelty : Travels in Southeast Asia" by Stan
Sesser, there is good information on Singapore there. Certainly better
than what Navas gets from USA Today.
Also listen to:
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1112963"
and read:
"A Nation of Contradictions," in New Yorker, January 13, 1992, pp. 37-68,"
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-14, 11:48 pm |
| Tinman wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:18:59 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com>
>
> Hey, coming from someone who bills himself as "DecaturTxCowboy" the
> irony was priceless. <g>
The real irony is, I have never seen a NASCAR race on TV, much less in
person.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-04-16, 2:48 am |
| Tinman wrote:
> Irony or hypocrisy?
Since I'm not a T-Mobile customer, I guess that answer is irony.
| |
| Lee Florack 2006-04-22, 5:48 pm |
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:53:19 GMT, in article <Ppg%f.1356$az4.360@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas writes...
>
>
>
> If working doesn't pay better than welfare, than the employer
> has more than a bit of soul-searching to do about why they
> aren't paying a real living-wage. (Mr. Spinmeister)
>
>
>
Wages aren't ever determined by what the employee thinks they need.
It's based on the mutual agreement of what the employee and
employer agree the position is worth. If either party disagrees,
neither is forced to accept the conditions.
Unless you are willing discard the free market, pay is based on
perceived skills and performance -- not what the someone thinks they
need.
| |
|
| Rico wrote:
> In article <ZPp6g.25633$Fs1.17592@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> In your opinion.
The Heritage Foundation is respected by the far right, but not by anyone
else.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> That would be hard to do- most of the experts ignore their research.
They aren't a research institution or even a think-tank, they simply
formulate political policies to further the far right-wing agenda.
Read "http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/hf.php" for a review of
their activities.
| |
|
| kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> No wonder JN's in love with them. -- if someone can't keep up,
> let 'em die on the road.
You can't really equate all conservatives with the views of the Heritage
Foundation. Most conservatives believe in fiscal conservatism, something
that the Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have not been in favor
of ever since Ronald Reagan's disastrous Reaganomics.
The Heritage Foundation is a mouthpiece for big business. They don't
represent conservatives any more than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition
represents liberals.
| |
|
| Philip J. Koenig wrote:
> Let's see who on the "far left" is quoting their research
> approvingly. Cites?
Hell, we'll settle for someone from the center, just not from the far right.
So-called "foundations" that are far-right or far-left, have no respect
from anyone other than their small hard-core group of special-interests.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-05-08, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Irrelevant. What really matters is the bigger (overall) picture, not the ills
> of a couple of dinosaur automakers, and the successes of Microsoft, Google,
> Yahoo, etc., more than outweigh the troubles at US automakers.
John,
You are off-topic in ALL of the newsgroups that you have impolitely
cross-posted this discussion to.
Just a "friendly" reminder, as you are so quick to remind us in such cases.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Steve Kranz 2006-05-08, 11:48 pm |
| linuxnut wrote:
> In ba.internet John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh John, Grow up.
Are you girls done? Y'know, all you guys who just can't let someone
else have the last word on a stupid XXX, immature, off-topic thread
should realize that what you're doing is turning off people like me who
*might* be interested in what you have to say on other topics that just
might be useful or relevant.
Pretty damn soon if this is all you girls can do, I'm just gonna bag it.
--
Steve Kranz
Homebrewer extraordinaire, banjo player mediocaire
Visit the Midnight Homebrewers' League on the web at:
http://users.adelphia.net/~smkranz
| |
|
| kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
> Acually it's argument from long experience in dealing with
> biased extreme right-wing sources. As Mom always said, "Show me your
> friends and I'll tell you what you are."
I always enjoy the ads where they say "we know of no product that is
better than ours." I used to think that no one would fall for that sort
of advertising, but now I realize that there is at least one person that
would.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:8DK7g.39224$Fs1.15818@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Actually, the lack of cites either for or against proves the point that this
> is a fringe foundation not taken seriously by most notable researchers.
>
> You have yet to provide any of your own, Johnny.
No one bothers to challenge papers like that. It's like wasting your
time challenging the revisionists of various historical events.
| |
|
| kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> One of the most useful books I've ever read (some 35 years
> back) was called I Can Sell You Anything. The author had been in the
> advertising field and prettty much let it all hang out. It was my
> first contact with the phrase "weasel words". It laid out all sorts of
> things like non-claims, etc.
<snip>
Another good book on this subject is "The Language of Argument," which
was used as a textbook in an undergraduate course I took. It's still
being used, see: "http://tinyurl.com/ra8ol". Usenet is rife with
examples of weak argument techniques, and Navas is the master of them.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2006-05-10, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> Do as I say, not as I do? ;)
That seems to be your motto these days.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-06-14, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> So you say, but there doesn't seem to be anything to support you.
HUH??? You seem to think that approach works for you...
|
|
|
|
|