Thanks John

You are appreciated by some of us!

---

› See More: Thanks John

In article <[email protected]>,
Cathy Butch <[email protected]> wrote:

> You are appreciated by some of us!

PT Barnum would have loved you Cathy.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:28:40
-0500, Cathy Butch <[email protected]> wrote:

>You are appreciated by some of us!

Thank you.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Jan
2005 01:06:33 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Cathy Butch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You are appreciated by some of us!
>
>PT Barnum would have loved you Cathy.

Would that be you?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Jan
> 2005 01:06:33 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Cathy Butch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> You are appreciated by some of us!
> >
> >PT Barnum would have loved you Cathy.
>
> Would that be you?
>
> --

You would think so, but I hear the sideshow has enough freaks already.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:33:46 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 04 Jan
>> 2005 01:06:33 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Cathy Butch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You are appreciated by some of us!
>> >
>> >PT Barnum would have loved you Cathy.
>>
>> Would that be you?

>You would think so, but I hear the sideshow has enough freaks already.

LOL

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

===============================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup alt.cellular.cingular
* Reply to: All; "Cathy Butch" <[email protected]>
* Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:56:29 -0500
* Subj: Thanks John
=====================================================

CB>You are appreciated by some of us!

I concur. Actually, John is appreciated by *most* of us. It's just
that there are a few very vocal (and usually well known) trolls and
their buddies (many are the same person, but using several different
nyms) that try to monopolize the threads that John participates in to
further their agenda. John tries to call their bluff, correct their
errors and give them back what they give him. While I disagree that
that's the best way to handle them, I trust John's judgment and
understand his motives. He's been around USENET longer than most of us
and tends to know what he's talking about. The majority of people that
use this group tend to find what they're looking for (usually from
John, or John's web sites), thank whoever supplied the info and then
silently sit back and watch the rest. If we all joined in the abusive
threads, there wouldn't be time to do anything else and the posts
would soon be unmanageable. JMHO.
--
Jack

Jack D. Russell, Sr. wrote:

> ===============================================
> * Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
> * Newsgroup alt.cellular.cingular
> * Reply to: All; "Cathy Butch" <[email protected]>
> * Date:Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:56:29 -0500
> * Subj: Thanks John
> =====================================================
>
> CB>You are appreciated by some of us!
>
> I concur. Actually, John is appreciated by most of us. It's just
> that there are a few very vocal (and usually well known) trolls and
> their buddies (many are the same person, but using several different
> nyms) that try to monopolize the threads that John participates in to
> further their agenda. John tries to call their bluff, correct their
> errors and give them back what they give him. While I disagree that
> that's the best way to handle them, I trust John's judgment and
> understand his motives. He's been around USENET longer than most of
> us and tends to know what he's talking about. The majority of people
> that use this group tend to find what they're looking for (usually
> from John, or John's web sites), thank whoever supplied the info and
> then silently sit back and watch the rest. If we all joined in the
> abusive threads, there wouldn't be time to do anything else and the
> posts would soon be unmanageable. JMHO.

I totally agree with you Jack. I have received much information from
John's posts and website over the years. He is truly a valuable asset
to this newsgroup. As for his detractors, the same can't be said of
them. Enough said!

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote:

> CB>You are appreciated by some of us!
>
> I concur. Actually, John is appreciated by *most* of us. It's just
> that there are a few very vocal (and usually well known) trolls

read that: anyone who disagrees with YOU is a troll by definition.
Right, Jack?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > CB>You are appreciated by some of us!
> >
> > I concur. Actually, John is appreciated by *most* of us. It's just
> > that there are a few very vocal (and usually well known) trolls
>
> read that: anyone who disagrees with YOU is a troll by definition.
> Right, Jack?


Sometimes John's right...Sometimes John's wrong. But how would anyone ever
know if he's not called on it.

--
SS

In article <[email protected]>,
"Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sometimes John's right...Sometimes John's wrong. But how would anyone ever
> know if he's not called on it.

You know when John is wrong when you see the egomaniac insulting someone
who disagreed with him.