For the last f**king time, moron.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Justin Green wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
>>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
>>>
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
>
> if
>
>>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
>>>
>>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
>>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
>
> dated
>
>>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
>
> and
>
>>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
>
> 2000,
>
>>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
>>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
>
> merged
>
>>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
>
> and
>
>>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
>>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
>
> another
>
>>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
>>>
>>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
>>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
>
>>the 6th paragraph:
>>
>>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
>>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
>>
>>
>>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
>
>
> Yes, you dolt, do you really think that the Dow Jones is going to list
> seperately the partners of Cellco? LOOK AT THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
>
> God, it must be nice to be an 8 year old with internet access.
>
>
Give up, stupid- you are going to crap yourself when you read the other
posts I just sent. VZ Wireless even admits in their press releases they
are owned by Verizon. Your asttempt at circular logic just bit you in
the ass.

---

› See More: For the last f**king time, moron.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Justin Green wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
>>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
>>>
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
>
> if
>
>>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
>>>
>>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
>>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
>
> dated
>
>>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
>
> and
>
>>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
>
> 2000,
>
>>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
>>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
>
> merged
>
>>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
>
> and
>
>>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
>>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
>
> another
>
>>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
>>>
>>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
>>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
>
>>the 6th paragraph:
>>
>>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
>>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
>>
>>
>>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
>
>
> Yes, you dolt, do you really think that the Dow Jones is going to list
> seperately the partners of Cellco? LOOK AT THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
>
> God, it must be nice to be an 8 year old with internet access.
>
>
Give up, stupid- you are going to crap yourself when you read the other
posts I just sent. VZ Wireless even admits in their press releases they
are owned by Verizon. Your asttempt at circular logic just bit you in
the ass.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Justin Green wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
>>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
>>>
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
>
> if
>
>>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
>>>
>>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
>>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
>
> dated
>
>>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
>
> and
>
>>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
>
> 2000,
>
>>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
>>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
>
> merged
>
>>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
>
> and
>
>>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
>>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
>
> another
>
>>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
>>>
>>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
>>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
>
>>the 6th paragraph:
>>
>>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
>>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
>>
>>
>>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
>
>
>
> Can't you post anything other than general statements from an article where
> the end user doesn't care about the specific companies that own Cellco?
>
> And please, for once in this thread, answer a question. How is it that the
> partners of Cellco still exist as of July 24, 2003, yet DO NOT FILE WITH THE
> SEC?
>
>
Will this attitude apply to the press releases from Verizon and VZ
Wireles I just posted? THose end users do care, moron.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Justin Green wrote:
>>
>>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
>>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
>>>
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
>
> if
>
>>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
>>>
>>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
>>>
>>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
>>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
>
> dated
>
>>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
>
> and
>
>>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
>
> 2000,
>
>>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
>>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
>
> merged
>
>>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
>
> and
>
>>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
>>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
>
> another
>
>>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
>>>
>>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
>>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
>
>>the 6th paragraph:
>>
>>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
>>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
>>
>>
>>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
>
>
>
> Can't you post anything other than general statements from an article where
> the end user doesn't care about the specific companies that own Cellco?
>
> And please, for once in this thread, answer a question. How is it that the
> partners of Cellco still exist as of July 24, 2003, yet DO NOT FILE WITH THE
> SEC?
>
>
Will this attitude apply to the press releases from Verizon and VZ
Wireles I just posted? THose end users do care, moron.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
> >>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
> >>from you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
if
> > they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
> >
> > Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
> >
> > WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
> > certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
dated
> > as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
and
> > the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
2000,
> > the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
> > hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
merged
> > with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
and
> > (ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
> > Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
another
> > member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
> >
> > See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
> "About Verizon Wireless
>
> Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
> communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
> and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
> Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
> Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
> information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>
> I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?

No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own Cellco.
You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:

Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned by XXX,
owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....

Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file with the
SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the merger,
or the partnership agreement would have said this.

C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
schoolers can.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
> >>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come only
> >>from you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
if
> > they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
> >
> > Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
> >
> > WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
> > certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
dated
> > as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
and
> > the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
2000,
> > the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
> > hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
merged
> > with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
and
> > (ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
> > Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
another
> > member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
> >
> > See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
> "About Verizon Wireless
>
> Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
> communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
> and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
> Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
> Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
> information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>
> I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?

No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own Cellco.
You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:

Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned by XXX,
owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....

Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file with the
SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the merger,
or the partnership agreement would have said this.

C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
schoolers can.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Justin Green wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
> >>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come
only
> >>>
> >>>>from you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
> >>>
> >>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
> >>>
> >>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
> >>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
> >
> > dated
> >
> >>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
> >
> > 2000,
> >
> >>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
> >>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
> >
> > merged
> >
> >>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
> >>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
> >
> > another
> >
> >>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
> >>>
> >>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
> >>
> >
> >
http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
> >
> >>the 6th paragraph:
> >>
> >>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
> >>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
> >>
> >>
> >>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
> >
> >
> > Yes, you dolt, do you really think that the Dow Jones is going to list
> > seperately the partners of Cellco? LOOK AT THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
> >
> > God, it must be nice to be an 8 year old with internet access.
> >
> >
> Give up, stupid- you are going to crap yourself when you read the other
> posts I just sent. VZ Wireless even admits in their press releases they
> are owned by Verizon. Your asttempt at circular logic just bit you in
> the ass.


I did crap after I read that. And the turd in the pot could debate better
than you.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Justin Green wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Yeah, I went there and it offered no proof to counter the statements I
> >>>>made above. Learn to get the facts- I tire of your rants that come
only
> >>>
> >>>>from you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Please tell me how those entities entered into a partnership agreement
> >
> > if
> >
> >>>they were divisions of another company and no longer separate entities.
> >>>
> >>>Here's a quote from the Agreement, AS FILED WITH THE SEC:
> >>>
> >>> WHEREAS, the undersigned constitute all of the current parties to that
> >>>certain Cellco Partnership Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement
> >
> > dated
> >
> >>>as of April 3, 2000 by and among the members of the Bell Atlantic Group
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>the members of the Vodafone Group (as further amended as of July 10,
> >
> > 2000,
> >
> >>>the "Partnership Agreement"), it being the case that prior to the date
> >>>hereof (i) AirTouch Paging, then a member of the Vodafone Group, was
> >
> > merged
> >
> >>>with and into JV PartnerCo, LLC, another member of the Vodafone Group,
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>(ii) GTE Wireless of the South Incorporated, then a member of the Bell
> >>>Atlantic Group, was merged with and into GTE Wireless Incorporated,
> >
> > another
> >
> >>>member of the Bell Atlantic Group; and...
> >>>
> >>>See? They are STILL separate legal entities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Another article from Dow Jones, written today.
> >>
> >
> >
http://money.cnn.com/services/ticker...9_FORTUNE5.htm
> >
> >>the 6th paragraph:
> >>
> >>" Verizon Wireless, which has 34.6 million customers, is a joint venture
> >>of Verizon Communications (VZ) and Vodafone Group PLC (VOD)."
> >>
> >>
> >>Just in case you thought the first article was a typo.
> >
> >
> > Yes, you dolt, do you really think that the Dow Jones is going to list
> > seperately the partners of Cellco? LOOK AT THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
> >
> > God, it must be nice to be an 8 year old with internet access.
> >
> >
> Give up, stupid- you are going to crap yourself when you read the other
> posts I just sent. VZ Wireless even admits in their press releases they
> are owned by Verizon. Your asttempt at circular logic just bit you in
> the ass.


I did crap after I read that. And the turd in the pot could debate better
than you.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>
>>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>>
>>
>
> http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
>>"About Verizon Wireless
>>
>>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
>>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
>>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
>>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
>>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
>>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>>
>>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
>
>
> No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own Cellco.
> You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
>
> Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned by XXX,
> owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
>
> Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file with the
> SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the merger,
> or the partnership agreement would have said this.
>
> C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> schoolers can.
>
>

You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
that you're sitting in.

I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
playing havoc with your memory. And to really jog your memory, I
originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon. I believe that
has been done with information from both entities. You canask for all
of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
need to brush up on the state of affairs.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>
>>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>>
>>
>
> http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
>>"About Verizon Wireless
>>
>>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
>>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
>>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
>>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
>>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
>>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>>
>>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
>
>
> No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own Cellco.
> You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
>
> Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned by XXX,
> owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
>
> Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file with the
> SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the merger,
> or the partnership agreement would have said this.
>
> C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> schoolers can.
>
>

You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
that you're sitting in.

I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
playing havoc with your memory. And to really jog your memory, I
originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon. I believe that
has been done with information from both entities. You canask for all
of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
need to brush up on the state of affairs.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>
>>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>>
>>
>
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
>>"About Verizon Wireless
>>
>>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
>>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
>>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
>>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
>>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
>>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>>
>>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
>
>
> No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own
Cellco.
> You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
>
> Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned
by XXX,
> owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
>
> Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file
with the
> SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the
merger,
> or the partnership agreement would have said this.
>
> C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> schoolers can.
>
>

You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
that you're sitting in.

I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
playing havoc with your memory. And to really jog your memory, I
originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon. I believe that
has been done with information from both entities. You can ask for all
of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
need to brush up on the state of affairs.

Justin Green wrote:
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>>
>>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
>>
>>
>
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
>
>>"About Verizon Wireless
>>
>>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
>>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
>>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
>>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
>>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
>>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
>>
>>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
>
>
> No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own
Cellco.
> You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
>
> Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned
by XXX,
> owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
>
> Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file
with the
> SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the
merger,
> or the partnership agreement would have said this.
>
> C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> schoolers can.
>
>

You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
that you're sitting in.

I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
playing havoc with your memory. And to really jog your memory, I
originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon. I believe that
has been done with information from both entities. You can ask for all
of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
need to brush up on the state of affairs.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >>
> >>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
> >
> >>"About Verizon Wireless
> >>
> >>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
> >>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
> >>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
> >>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
> >>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
> >>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
> >>
> >>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
> >
> >
> > No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own
> Cellco.
> > You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> > partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> > Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
> >
> > Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned
> by XXX,
> > owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
> >
> > Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file
> with the
> > SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the
> merger,
> > or the partnership agreement would have said this.
> >
> > C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> > schoolers can.
> >
> >
>
> You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
> spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
> about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
> that you're sitting in.
>
> I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
> playing havoc with your memory.

No you didn't. Your explanation was simply WRONG.



> And to really jog your memory, I
> originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
> comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon.

It is owned in part by VZ. But it is private. Besides being a dumbass
working at McDonalds, that's the reason you can't go to a broker and buy an
interest in Cellco. You agree that Cellco doesn't have shares outstanding,
or shares at all for that matter, right?

> I believe that
> has been done with information from both entities. You can ask for all
> of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
> the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
> need to brush up on the state of affairs.

Again, explain why the partnership agreement is "wrong" according to you.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >>
> >>This next one is from a Verizon Wireless press release:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/tools/quo...457FB%7D&symb=
> >
> >>"About Verizon Wireless
> >>
> >>Verizon Wireless is the nation's leading provider of wireless
> >>communications. The company has the largest nationwide wireless voice
> >>and data network and 34.6 million customers. Headquartered in
> >>Bedminster, NJ, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon
> >>Communications (VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD). Find more
> >>information on the Web at www.verizonwireless.com. "
> >>
> >>I guess they don't know what thery're talking about either, do they?
> >
> >
> > No, MORON, they're listing the ultimate parent, not the subs who own
> Cellco.
> > You see, a company can own another company, which in turn can own a
> > partnership. People will refer to VZW as being owned by Verizon and
> > Vodaphone because it's easier than saying:
> >
> > Cellco Partnership, owned by Bell Atlantic Cellulcar Holdings, owned
> by XXX,
> > owned by XXX, which is owned by Verizon.....
> >
> > Please, tell me WHY just ONE of the partners in Cellco doesn't file
> with the
> > SEC. They ARE still legal entities. They were NOT eaten up in the
> merger,
> > or the partnership agreement would have said this.
> >
> > C'mon, can't you post any REAL facts to support your point? Most high
> > schoolers can.
> >
> >
>
> You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
> spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
> about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
> that you're sitting in.
>
> I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
> playing havoc with your memory.

No you didn't. Your explanation was simply WRONG.



> And to really jog your memory, I
> originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
> comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon.

It is owned in part by VZ. But it is private. Besides being a dumbass
working at McDonalds, that's the reason you can't go to a broker and buy an
interest in Cellco. You agree that Cellco doesn't have shares outstanding,
or shares at all for that matter, right?

> I believe that
> has been done with information from both entities. You can ask for all
> of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
> the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
> need to brush up on the state of affairs.

Again, explain why the partnership agreement is "wrong" according to you.

>>Justin Green wrote:
>> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>You're right- I'm in a conspiracy with Verizon and Verizon Wireless to
>>spread lies about Verizon. Verizon lies about it, Verizon Wireless lies
>>about it, and I lie about it. I just wonder how big the **** stain is
>>that you're sitting in.
>>
>>I've told you why they don't file- that crack pipe in your right hand is
>>playing havoc with your memory.
>
>
> No you didn't. Your explanation was simply WRONG.
>

I know- I've been wrong about everything (so is Verizon, obviously)

>
>
>
>>And to really jog your memory, I
>>originally was pointing out that VZ Wireless was not a 'private
>>comapny', but was in fact owned (in part) by Verizon.
>
>
> It is owned in part by VZ. But it is private. Besides being a dumbass
> working at McDonalds, that's the reason you can't go to a broker and buy an
> interest in Cellco. You agree that Cellco doesn't have shares outstanding,
> or shares at all for that matter, right?
>

You have me confused with your smarter brother- he's the one in your
family who qualifed for the McDonalds job. Put your keyboard away and
go to bed- Mommy says you need your beauty sleep. You can't buy AOL
stock anymore either- it is now AOL/Time Warner as a result of their
merger. Is AOL a private Company? The AOL corporate entities still do
business. Your logic sucks- just admit defeat and give up.
>
>>I believe that
>>has been done with information from both entities. You can ask for all
>>of the clarification you want. I would suggest you do some research at
>>the SEC website you are so fond of directing others to. You obviously
>>need to brush up on the state of affairs.
>
>
> Again, explain why the partnership agreement is "wrong" according to you.
>

I never said the partnership agreement was wrong- it is quite solid, as
a matter of fact. You are just trying to read things into it that not
only are wrong, but don't make any sense. Parent corporations can make
a business deal using any of the business entities it has at its
disposal. You really need to brush up on these things- this is Business
101 stuff.