SMS

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>
> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old "AT&T
> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old ATTWS
> in it's advertising.)
>
> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."

What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.


On April 20, 2006 I wrote:

"Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?

It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
Navas originally proposed."



What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!

 

News

SMS wrote:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old
>> "AT&T
>> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old
>> ATTWS
>> in it's advertising.)
>>
>> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
>> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
>> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."
>
>
> What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
> Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
> group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
> originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>
>
> On April 20, 2006 I wrote:
>
> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>
> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
> Navas originally proposed."
>
>
>
> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!


Not limited to wireless. Check his obnoxious behavior and attempts to
divert ibm.ibmpc.thinkpad to his "chosen" comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad.

George Kerby

On 2/5/08 8:56 AM, in article
g-adnUhhSPSn5DXanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net, "News" <News@Group.name>
wrote:

>
>
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>>>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>>>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old
>>> "AT&T
>>> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old
>>> ATTWS
>>> in it's advertising.)
>>>
>>> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
>>> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
>>> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."
>>
>>
>> What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>> Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>> group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>> originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>>
>>
>> On April 20, 2006 I wrote:
>>
>> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>>
>> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
>> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
>> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
>> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
>> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
>> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
>> Navas originally proposed."
>>
>>
>>
>> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
>> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
>> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
>> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
>
>
> Not limited to wireless. Check his obnoxious behavior and attempts to
> divert ibm.ibmpc.thinkpad to his "chosen" comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad.

You need to sample his 'expertise' over on the digital photography groups.

What a HOOT!

John Navas

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a877b1$0$84203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.

Not true. No proof. As usual.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS

George Kerby wrote:

> You need to sample his 'expertise' over on the digital photography groups.
>
> What a HOOT!

Yeah, before I figured out how to do global kill files in Thunderbird, I
had the unfortunate experience of seeing some examples of the other
areas of mis-information that he's expanded into.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>
> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
> Navas originally proposed."
>
>
>
> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
>

At one time in the ancient past when everybody used a regular modem over POTS
to connect to the Internet, Mr. Navas had a minor contribution and considered
himself relevant. Later in life, broadband has eclipsed his relavancy to
history. No big deal. However, along comes his little control message and
charter to create alt.cellular.cingular. Wow! He feels relevant again [by
the way, I sent control messages to create alt.cellular.t-mobile as it made
sense in context and he resisted with a mighty heave]. Well, Cingular has
betrayed him and bought up AT&T and assumed its name. Now, his beloved
newsgroup, that validated is relevancy is now going defunct. He can't
recreate his lost relevancy because alt.cellular.attws already exists! And it
was not created by him and, in fact, does not appear to have a charter at all!
In an attempt to seem relevant in spite of his odds, he posts the
alt.cellular.cingular newsgroup charter in the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup as
if it applied; but he knows better, it is really just to justify his ego and
maintain his illusion of relelvancy.

Now, his contributions to Wikipedia and answer questions and honest debate,
these can be good things, but his idiosyncrasy with the charter is plain
annoying, at least to me. If he wants a charter, then it should be proposed
and negotiated here and put up for a vote and ammended via another control
message (just another NEWGROUP?) as is the traditional method of adopting a
charter post creation on USENET. Of course, a charter is pretty much
irrelavent for an alt group anyway. He should just cease and desist and get
over himself ... he just isn't that relevant [and either am I or anybody else
in this group].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

Thomas T. Veldhouse

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47a877b1$0$84203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>>Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>>group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>>originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>
> Not true. No proof. As usual.
>

Is that a bot responding? Your answer is not really in context to what he
said. Proof of what?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

SMS

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> Now, his contributions to Wikipedia and answer questions and honest debate,
> these can be good things, but his idiosyncrasy with the charter is plain
> annoying, at least to me. If he wants a charter, then it should be proposed
> and negotiated here and put up for a vote and ammended via another control
> message (just another NEWGROUP?) as is the traditional method of adopting a
> charter post creation on USENET. Of course, a charter is pretty much
> irrelavent for an alt group anyway. He should just cease and desist and get
> over himself ... he just isn't that relevant [and either am I or anybody else
> in this group].

The solution is for him to propose a new newsgroup with the charter that
he wants. There is no way to recharter an existing newsgroup.

It could be "alt.cellular.att" Unfortunately for him (and us), I think
he realizes that "alt.cellular.attws" has become the de-facto group for
discussions of wirless from AT&T, and the chance for alt.cellular.att
has passed. So he's just going to keep posting an inapplicable charter
(as others have as well), and people will keep asking him to stop.

The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
doesn't apply. How pathetic.

John Navas

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:13:20 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a8d0c9$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>doesn't apply. How pathetic.

What I actually proposed was civility to all, but it seems I'm just
wasting my time. That you're unwilling to go that route speaks volumes
about your conduct here.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

Thomas T. Veldhouse

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
> doesn't apply. How pathetic.

Wow ... he did that?

Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
one out and put it on my office board ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger

Todd Allcock

At 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800 SMS wrote:

> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be
> anticipated is that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a
> claim to alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular
> charter applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his
> obnoxiousness!

To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"

Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.

John Navas

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:38:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <foamta$97p$1@aioe.org>:

>At 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be
>> anticipated is that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a
>> claim to alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular
>> charter applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his
>> obnoxiousness!
>
>To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
>crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
>desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
>AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"
>
>Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
>just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
>would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.

To be clear to you (aw, do I HAVE to?), the charter of
alt.cellular.cingular is posted simply for informational purposes,
cross-posted to alt.cellular.attws because it's the same carrier.

I don't care what newsgroup people use. You can use alt.cellular.bash
for all I care.

My only concern is for complete and accurate information, particularly
for average folks dropping by either newsgroup for the first time and
confronted with all the noise.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>> doesn't apply. How pathetic.
>
> Wow ... he did that?
>
> Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
> one out and put it on my office board ;-)
>

"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/cfceca8e9ddf4589"

Note that to Navas, whenever someone takes him to task for off-topic
posting, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, posting without citations
or references (he almost never provides a cite or reference for
anything), he views it as someone insulting him or bashing him.

So I don't think we're going to see the fake charter he posts disappear
anytime soon.

SMS

Todd Allcock wrote:

> To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
> crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
> desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
> AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"
>
> Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
> just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
> would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.

Yes, I suggested the same thing, since "alt.cellular.att" is in keeping
with the structure of the names of the cellular groups. He can post his
charter all he wants then, and no one will complain about it (maybe
that's why he doesn't do it--he can't play the victim then!).

Obviously he realizes that alt.cellular.att would be unlikely to become
widely used, since alt.cellular.attws is sufficient, even if logically
it belonged to the old AT&T Wireless. It's a long process to get users
to move groups even when the group name becomes totally irrelevant. It
took nearly a year for the alt.cellular.t-mobile to become widely used
and for the voicestream group to fade away.

John Navas

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:57:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a8e94f$0$84233$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>>> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>>> doesn't apply. How pathetic.
>>
>> Wow ... he did that?
>>
>> Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
>> one out and put it on my office board ;-)
>
>"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/cfceca8e9ddf4589"
>
>Note that to Navas, whenever someone takes him to task for off-topic
>posting, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, posting without citations
>or references (he almost never provides a cite or reference for
>anything), he views it as someone insulting him or bashing him.

No, just insults, of which you are the master; e.g.,
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/948a0701044c4ad2>
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/d9de6aef23301429>
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/b6277b27616f25ca>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=navas+(lying+OR+lies+OR+lied)+author%3ASM S>

>So I don't think we're going to see the fake charter he posts disappear
>anytime soon.

1. Real, not fake.
2. You don't seem to really want it to go away. You'd rather troll.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>