Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
  1. #16
    Jar-Jar Binks
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts


    "DTC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
    >>> --
    >>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

    >>
    >> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

    >
    > Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
    > is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
    >


    So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)





    See More: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts




  2. #17
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
    > "DTC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
    >>>> --
    >>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
    >>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

    >> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
    >> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
    >>

    >
    > So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)


    Plagiarized might be too strong of a word.

    If a student "buys" a term paper and copies it, then passes it off as
    his original work; that's plagiarism.

    If a seminary student writing a comprehensive study of the New Testament
    and quotes almost 100% of it as an essential part of his work; that's
    not plagiarism.

    If an MBA student writes a discussion about economic theory and uses the
    information of previous economists (with appropriate use of quotations);
    that's not plagiarism.

    If a scientist promotes his own original work and uses references to
    previous scientific studies to support his work; that's not plagiarism.

    For the most part, WiKi articles are edited compilations of previous
    works, and we see that in the long list of references at the bottom of
    most WiKi pages.

    John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
    industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
    cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

    When confronted with facts that conflict with what we may post, we
    either make a clarification to eliminate ambiguousness or offer
    citations to back up what we offer. This is not to be confused with
    "back-peddling" or "moving the goal posts".



  3. #18
    Mr. Strat
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

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

    > John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
    > industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
    > cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.


    I think we all know where his "hands on" experience lies.



  4. #19
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    Scott wrote:

    > Damn- I thought my dad died a few years ago. I say this because he is the
    > only person I would listen to such an attitude from.


    Your dad was right.

    > Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.


    The people that respond to obnoxious trolls like Navas make lower the
    signal to noise ratio of Usenet.



  5. #20
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
    wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Scott wrote:
    >
    >> Damn- I thought my dad died a few years ago. I say this because he
    >> is the only person I would listen to such an attitude from.

    >
    > Your dad was right.
    >
    >> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use
    >> it.

    >
    > The people that respond to obnoxious trolls like Navas make lower the
    > signal to noise ratio of Usenet.
    >


    But not as significantly as those with nothing better to do then comment on
    it.



  6. #21
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    Bill Kearney wrote:
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.

    >
    > Given the anonymous nature of the net, it's assholes like you that make it
    > such a mess.


    IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is not the trolls like
    Navas, or the spammers trying to sell crap, but those that believe that
    every post by a troll or spammer necessitates a response. The spammers
    that are trying to sell crap don't care as they don't read any of the
    groups they post to. The trolls, crave the attention that they get when
    they post. Believe it or not, the weekly post of the Cingular charter
    onto alt.cellular.attws (where it has no relevance) and the weekly post
    regarding the current put out by a Motorola charger, do not require any
    response at all, not even a "YAWN" or other non-witty comeback.



  7. #22
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
    wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Bill Kearney wrote:
    >> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> Given the anonymous nature of the net, it's assholes like you that
    >> make it such a mess.

    >
    > IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is not the trolls like
    > Navas, or the spammers trying to sell crap, but those that believe
    > that every post by a troll or spammer necessitates a response. The
    > spammers that are trying to sell crap don't care as they don't read
    > any of the groups they post to. The trolls, crave the attention that
    > they get when they post. Believe it or not, the weekly post of the
    > Cingular charter onto alt.cellular.attws (where it has no relevance)
    > and the weekly post regarding the current put out by a Motorola
    > charger, do not require any response at all, not even a "YAWN" or
    > other non-witty comeback.
    >


    IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number of
    sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this is their
    obvious inability to use a kill filter. They ***** and whine about
    unnecessary noise through the use of unnecessary noise. Usenet is dying
    not because of trolls and those that respond to them- it is dying due to
    the volume of posts coming from people who take themselves way too
    seriously and have an insatiable need to have their ego stroked. The
    volume of "useful" information available on any Usenet newsgroup is
    microscopic compared to the volume of posts and harder to find than using
    Google. The volume of misinformation, OTOH, represents the greater part of
    the volume of posting in most groups.

    You choose to ignore it, I don't. Please don't tell me I have to become an
    uncaring wimp like yourself to pass some standard that you think should
    apply to all posters. My standards are much higher than that, and if I
    choose to bait troll from time to time..... oh well.



  8. #23
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    Scott wrote:

    > IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number of
    > sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this is their
    > obvious inability to use a kill filter.


    The problem is not using a kill-file for Navas, I think that he's
    probably present in more kill-files than any other poster on Usenet. The
    problem is the people that feel compelled to respond to his posts with
    "Yawn" or other such expression of disgust. , Filtering them would
    presumably mean losing their useful contributions as well, though from
    looking at your recent posts, this would not be a problem with you.



  9. #24
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
    wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Scott wrote:
    >
    >> IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number
    >> of sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this
    >> is their obvious inability to use a kill filter.

    >
    > The problem is not using a kill-file for Navas, I think that he's
    > probably present in more kill-files than any other poster on Usenet.
    > The problem is the people that feel compelled to respond to his posts
    > with "Yawn" or other such expression of disgust. , Filtering them
    > would presumably mean losing their useful contributions as well,
    > though from looking at your recent posts, this would not be a problem
    > with you.
    >


    Yeah- I don't deny that my views as of late don't conform to your high
    standards. Oh well- it's happened before and it will happen again, as I
    don't subscribe to your opinions on many things as well. You can choose to
    filter me or not- I'll lose no sleep either way. I'm not here to impress
    you or anyone else. As I said earlier, if my feeding the trolls upsets you
    to the point of mentioning it, killfile me if you believe that you can live
    without the other information I provide here.

    Another thing- your habit of filtering Navas and then responding to his
    posts when you see a reply from someone else is no better than those of us
    that don't filter him. Actually, it makes you somewhat hypocritical in
    mentioning your disdain for those of us that eliminate the middle man.



  10. #25
    Mike M
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    Mr. Strat wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, DTC
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
    >> industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
    >> cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

    >
    > I think we all know where his "hands on" experience lies.

    I think we all know that Cingular changed the name to at&t, John Navas
    jewsgroup is obsolete...



  11. #26
    George Kerby
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts




    On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Jar-Jar
    Binks" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

    >
    > Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
    >
    >
    >

    Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
    You didn't know?




  12. #27
    Jar-Jar Binks
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    When did he work with Faraday? I didn't find any references to Navas in the
    documents that were published by Faraday. Nevertheless, Faraday should have
    left Navas in the "Faraday Cage". :-)


    "George Kerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:C384141B.44E74%[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >
    > On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Jar-Jar
    > Binks" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> --
    >>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

    >>
    >> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
    > You didn't know?
    >






  13. #28
    Kevin Weaver
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    "Jar-Jar Binks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > When did he work with Faraday? I didn't find any references to Navas in
    > the documents that were published by Faraday. Nevertheless, Faraday should
    > have left Navas in the "Faraday Cage". :-)
    >
    >
    > "George Kerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:C384141B.44E74%[email protected]...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article [email protected],
    >> "Jar-Jar
    >> Binks" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>>> John Navas
    >>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
    >>>
    >>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
    >> You didn't know?
    >>

    >
    >


    It's a joke. Get it ?




  14. #29
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

    On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:16:59 -0600, George Kerby
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <C384141B.44E74%[email protected]>:

    >On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Jar-Jar
    >Binks" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> --
    >>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

    >>
    >> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?


    Most of it. Likewise the Wireless Wiki below.

    Some of us are constructive. Others are destructive. Which are you?

    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>



  15. #30
    George Kerby
    Guest

    Re: Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts




    On 1/10/08 10:13 AM, in article [email protected],
    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:16:59 -0600, George Kerby
    > <[email protected]> wrote in
    > <C384141B.44E74%[email protected]>:
    >
    >> On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article [email protected], "Jar-Jar
    >> Binks" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
    >>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
    >>>
    >>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

    >
    > Most of it. Likewise the Wireless Wiki below.
    >
    > Some of us are constructive. Others are destructive. Which are you?


    We all know that you worked on Manhattan Project with Oppenheimer.

    Don't be so shy.




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast