Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...

In article
<linuxlovesosx-BA7A9E.21421217112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:

> You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
> Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
> does.

I do not think your "so" follows.

> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.

I think if you check you will find that Google's market cap is currently
larger than Apple's.

Googling, Apple appears to have about 15 billion in cash currently.
Google had about 11 billion back in March; I don't have a current
figure. But either company could borrow more if needed.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
>> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.

Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.

Oxford wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>>
>>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
>> top.
>
> talk about clueless Kevin, you win the award for the above comment.
>
> what you pulled up was just a mirror of usenet in a phpBB format.
>
> the post didn't originate with me, you were just too clueless to
> understand that.

Sure it did. Anytime you write something without attribution you are
using your words which means you are the author and understand the topic
and agree that it is correct.

There are numerous ways you could have prevented your yourself from
looking like a fanboi troll such as simply:

Including the URL and putting the content in quotes.

Stating "I found this but I don't understand it so could it be true?"

etc



>
> the mildly smarter DTC found the correct info, just as I had said.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>
> the joke is on you Kevin!

Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>>> And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
>> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
>> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
>> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.
>
> they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
> message board, not usenet. learn to read.

But how would anyone know that about what you posted because you read
the fanboi marketing speak bait and wrote it as the author because you
believed it?

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
>>> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
>>> sold) to cover the entire country.
>> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>> Posted by "ace_92029"
>> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>>
>> [quote]
>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
>> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
>> sold) to cover the entire country.
>>
>>> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
>>> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
>>> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
>>> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
>>> experience. And here's the best part.
>>> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
>>> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
>>> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
>> Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
>> [quote]
>> The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
>> vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
>> transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
>> that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
>>
>> Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?
>
> why are you so obsessed with me?

I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
troll and annoy people who know more than you. You could solve your
problem by going away or posting in a normal non-fanboi fashion.

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> why are you so obsessed with me?
>> Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.

So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.

I seriously doubt anyone here wants to hear your "exciting news".

>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.

No, you're the carrier asshole. And we don't need to ***** at the
original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
without attrributing it to anyone else.

If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
ATT carries Apple phones.

If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
other carrier's groups.

But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.

If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
them.

David wrote:
> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
> 154469.22035017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
>> was just the carrier pigeon.
>
> No, you're the carrier asshole. And we don't need to ***** at the
> original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
> without attrributing it to anyone else.
>
> If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
> even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
> incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
> ATT carries Apple phones.
>
> If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
> could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
> other carrier's groups.
>
> But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
> news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
> your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
> points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
> understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
> your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
>
> If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
> penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
> Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
> them.

Totally accurate and well said.

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> > information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
>
> Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
> you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.

i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
didn't. deal with it.

David <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:

why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
that simple.

for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
why, but *****ing about it won't make the iPhone go away.

i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.

if you don't like it, leave.

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> > exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>
> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.

not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.

i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
you get mad instead of rising up to my level.

-

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> > Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> >
>
> Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
>
> Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?

Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.

Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
that.

Google is just the flavor of the month search site, they all fall at
some point and the list of giants, then nothing is long. AltaVista,
Lycos, Excite, Yahoo and within a few years Google will be replaced, and
join the "old players" club as well.

Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.

So Ness, learn about the world, don't spout stuff you don't understand.

Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:

> > Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> > experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> > possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
> No, Apple cannot outbid google.

Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.

> And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!

Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
a phone a few weeks ago.

If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
ever dream of...

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> > why are you so obsessed with me?
>
> Why are YOU so "obsessed" with trolling groups with fanboy crap?

i haven't trolled a post in my life. fanboy? that's not my style.

> Why are YOU post complete crap where it doesn't belong.

i'm just posting info about the iphone to groups/people that are, "or
will be" interested in the biggest cell revolution of our time.

nothing wrong with that.

> Why do YOU try so hard to be a complete ass?

how do you mean? i'm just educating... so it sounds like you have issues
against people being fully informed... how sad.

> Answer those - and you will have answered your question.

okay, they have been answered.

do you have any other questions i can help you with?

-

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-26E008.10232718112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
> have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
> didn't. deal with it.

Idiot.... you have ZERO credibility! Less than zero actually...

Get a clue - NO ONE "loves" what you write - do you see anyone supporting
you?
(Other than your quite obvious and obnoxious sock puppets)

"lazy" isn't the word - fanatic fanboy fantasy is more like it.