Which character on TechTv was John Navis?

Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?

Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his nurdy sidekick?

Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?

---

› See More: Which character on TechTv was John Navis?

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
00:23:13 GMT, "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote:

>Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?
>
>Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his nurdy sidekick?
>
>Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?

<http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm>

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
> 00:23:13 GMT, "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?
>>
>>Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his
>>nurdy sidekick?
>>
>>Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?
>
> <http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm>
>
> --

John Navas is a big 'ol hunky liberal teddy bear.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
Now...I'd like to see links to Jack Russell's mama giving him permission
to use her computer, post on USENET and make nasty remarks.

Has the Charter now been ammended to require a minimum of 8 TechTV
appearances (before being fired) to Post on Usenet?

In article <[email protected]>, Elmo P.
Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
> > Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
> > could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
> > authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
> > sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.
>
> Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>
> But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
>

Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
08:39:39 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
>> Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
>> could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
>> authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
>> sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.
>
>Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.

Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.

--
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]

In article <[email protected]>, Elmo P.
Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <190120051053579858%[email protected]>,
> steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
> > >
> > > But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.
>
> Right now? Protecting my privacy, thank you very much.
>
> If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...
>

Funny you should say so, since you care so much about Navas and what he
does or doesn't do.

[yawn]

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:18:17 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <190120051053579858%[email protected]>,
> steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>> >
>> > But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.
>
>Right now? Protecting my privacy, thank you very much.
>
>If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...

In other words, you're just a rude windbag. Thanks for the confirmation.

--
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

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:17:36 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>>
>> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>
>Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>ironic statement.

What a silly statement.

Grow up and get a life.

--
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

You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did not--did too.
If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to the children.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>> >
>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>> >ironic statement.
>>
>> What a silly statement.
>
> Which means you didn't get it.
>
> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>
> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> a try.
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> > >
> > >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> > >ironic statement.
> >
> > What a silly statement.
>
> Which means you didn't get it.
>
> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>
> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> a try.

The fact that his "out of the Garage" one man operation is called "The
Navas Group" proves his egomania.

While I agree with you that Navas is an ass, I also agree that we shouldn't
get into a pissing match with him, because we are all probably quite a bit
more mature than him.


"N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did
> not--did too.
> If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to the
> children.
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>>> >
>>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>>> >ironic statement.
>>>
>>> What a silly statement.
>>
>> Which means you didn't get it.
>>
>> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
>> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>>
>> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
>> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
>> a try.
>>
>
>

Just add him to your kill file and it's like he doesn't exist.

"Halogen8" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:n00Id.4450$ry.3891@fed1read05...
> While I agree with you that Navas is an ass, I also agree that we
> shouldn't get into a pissing match with him, because we are all probably
> quite a bit more mature than him.
>
>
> "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did
>> not--did too.
>> If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to
>> the children.
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>>>> >
>>>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>>>> >ironic statement.
>>>>
>>>> What a silly statement.
>>>
>>> Which means you didn't get it.
>>>
>>> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
>>> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>>>
>>> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
>>> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
>>> a try.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> > > >
> > > >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> > > >ironic statement.
> > >
> > > What a silly statement.
> >
> > Which means you didn't get it.
> >
> > And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> > in anything, will force you to respond to this.
> >
> > Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> > you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> > a try.
>
> The fact that his "out of the Garage" one man operation is called "The
> Navas Group" proves his egomania.

To the OP, please ***** it right-- its "navAS"
So my filters will catch it and delete it, anyways <g>.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
05:39:05 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>> >
>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>> >ironic statement.
>>
>> What a silly statement.
>
>Which means you didn't get it.

There was nothing to get.

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