Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:23:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in news:23uni.23250
>> [email protected]:
>>
>> > What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>> >
>> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>> >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>> >>
>> >> Now shut up and go away.
>>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>> situation.
>
>Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.

USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.

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

---

› See More: Why iPhone for Cingular Only?

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:22:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>
>> > That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>> >
>> > "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>>
>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not fact?
>
>It's Verizon spin because Navas says it's Verizon spin.

It's actually Verizon spin because it's Verizon spin.

>It could NEVER be Navas spin, or whatever it is he spews. Navas would
>NEVER lie in any way. Why, he's as much as told us that. Therefore it
>must be true.

Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:32:35 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>BTW, does the iPhone support Extended GSM?

Of course it does. The feature is in the tower, not the handset.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:


> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
> Verizon.

please provide credible evidence to support that outrageous
allegation.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >>
> >> It'll never happen.
>
> True. Nothing to apologize for.
>
> >> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> >> One can only hope.
> >
> >until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
> >who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
> >seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
> >repeatedly ....
>
> More utter nonsense.

your whimpering response didn't refute a single fact.

> >he has lost all credibility.
>
> Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.


i am not surprised that you are used to people noting that you have
no credibility.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:09:47 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>DTC wrote:
>
>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
>> fact? Citations please.

Lack of confirmation from credible sources, like NYT, WP, WSJ.

>LOL, right....citations from Navas. I've got a bridge to sell you.

That would actually be you.

>> Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
>> control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
>> stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect
>> the carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such
>> as Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
>
>This is a big deal. Look at Radio Shack. Already reeling from the loss
>of wireless business caused by their dropping of Verizon in favor of
>Cingular, now they're locked out of selling the iPhone, at least initially.

Radio Shack actually reeled from a big drop in Verizon sales and its own
incompetence, and is slowly recovering thanks to better management and
AT&T/Cingular.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:43:55 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>> situation.
>
>Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
>anyway? ...

Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you.

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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:10:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:50 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
>><[email protected]> wrote in
>><[email protected]>:
>>
>>>In article <280620072203091974%[email protected]>,
>>> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>> first.
>>>
>>>Yes we do:
>>>
>>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>
>>That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>
>Navas always disputes anything that doesn't fit his strange world
>view.

I actually dispute baloney.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:43:55 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one
>>> of
>>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>>> situation.
>>
>>Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
>>anyway? ...
>
> Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you.
>
WHO ?
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:22:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>>
>>> > That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>> >
>>> > "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>>>
>>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
>>> fact?
>>
>>It's Verizon spin because Navas says it's Verizon spin.
>
> It's actually Verizon spin because it's Verizon spin.
>
>>It could NEVER be Navas spin, or whatever it is he spews. Navas would
>>NEVER lie in any way. Why, he's as much as told us that. Therefore it
>>must be true.
>
> Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.

I knew he would (Try to) dispute the fact.

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>> Now shut up and go away.
>>
>> actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>
> It'll never happen.
>
> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.

Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.

I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
turned down the iPhone. He should be thrilled that Cingular was able to
snag it for themselves, as it should really help them with new additions.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
> >>>
> >>> Now shut up and go away.
> >>
> >> actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >
> > It'll never happen.
> >
> > Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
> tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
> misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
> lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
>
> I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
> turned down the iPhone. He should be thrilled that Cingular was able to
> snag it for themselves, as it should really help them with new additions.

he still hasn't acknowledged his lie. in fact, he is still in the
denial stage, which is both fascinating and disturbing.

--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >>
> >> It'll never happen.
>
> True. Nothing to apologize for.
>
> >> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> >> One can only hope.
> >
> >until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
> >who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
> >seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
> >repeatedly ....
>
> More utter nonsense.
>
> >he has lost all credibility.
>
> Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.

Non sequitor.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

John Navas wrote:
>> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.

[Cough}


> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
> Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
> credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.

Actually New York Times did cover it, but it required a subscription and I
didn't pursue the article enough to quote it.

John Navas wrote:
> Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.

We gave you other sources that in fact quoted the president of Verizon.