Veldhouse- disgrace of USENET

Why are you forging from addreses?

So childish -

Cant explain why SprintPCS is a WLNP loser,
so you forge a form address in revenge??

---

› See More: Veldhouse- disgrace of USENET

"Nebby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why are you forging from addreses?
>
> So childish -
>
> Cant explain why SprintPCS is a WLNP loser,
> so you forge a form address in revenge??

No, you can't explain why SPCS was a WLNP loser Phillipe, yet you keep
harping on it. Put up or shut up ...

Bob

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why are you forging from addreses?
>

What? [email protected]ants is a real address? Since I KNOW it is
you Phillip, I just put in the address and alias that I first met you
with, so that everybody knows for sure to whom I am replying ... that
than some stupid new alias you make up.

> So childish -

I guess it could be considered childish if your constant alias changing
is considered childish. Otherwise, your judgement is sorely lacking.

>
> Cant explain why SprintPCS is a WLNP loser,
> so you forge a form address in revenge??
>

I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser ... that is what you don't
get. But I do care that you post this stuff without valid supporting
evidence to support your [often bogus] claims.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFArNfI1p0e3NXsrtERAuVmAJ9NcYAejmjyH3SaB6HeaR8IjGxuugCgoH0B
APIsgOG5jFkmzoUm7WBTBJ8=
=XGXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[email protected]

> I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser


Except you insult anyone who points it out, so
maybe you do care.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser
>
>
> Except you insult anyone who points it out, so
> maybe you do care.

No, I don't. What I do care about is somebody posting false information
to make a point, and in this case, you have done so about Sprint PCS
(which is logical considering the forum). I defend against the
unfounded insinuation, but there is no implication of what I feel about
Sprint PCS and WLNP, that is entirely your own inference.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFArRGJ1p0e3NXsrtERAk7+AJ9cXgKtaSizQYbyUJLaoJi3zN7TfACbB5v7
ZrQh0FVGrFdBLPAzaMGbql8=
=P5Ix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nebby wrote:

> [email protected]
>
>
>>I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser
>
>
>
> Except you insult anyone who points it out, so
> maybe you do care.

Still don't see you proving that sprint is a loser here, as asked to do.
Why ?
Can you give a definite link ? do you have positive proof ?
Stop dodging and answer up please.

Frank

In article <[email protected]>,
Frankie says <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >
> >
> >>I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser
> >
> >
> >
> > Except you insult anyone who points it out, so
> > maybe you do care.
>
> Still don't see you proving that sprint is a loser here, as asked to do.
> Why ?
> Can you give a definite link ? do you have positive proof ?
> Stop dodging and answer up please.

The 10-K SprintPCS filed with the SEC.

or better yet, you come up with a URL showing SprintPCS as a WLNP winner.


Whoops - SprintPCS is a WLNP loser, and starting May 24, will lose again


Frnksys- todays alias for anonymous insulting for those that dare tell
the truth.

Robert M. wrote:

> The 10-K SprintPCS filed with the SEC.

Ok hot shot, point it out, where in this report does sprint say it is
a loser ? where in ANY article does it say they did worse than the
others ? Show, you can't

> or better yet, you come up with a URL showing SprintPCS as a WLNP winner.

I don't need to, I never said they were a winner, I only asked YOU to
show they are loser, and you can't

> Whoops - SprintPCS is a WLNP loser, and starting May 24, will lose again

Proof, Proof, Prooof Please

> Frnksys- todays alias for anonymous insulting for those that dare tell
> the truth.


If YOU CAN PROVE IT, it's the truth, otherwise it's just you
trolling. Face it... for once.

Frank

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frankie says <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I don't care if Sprint PCS is a WLNP loser
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Except you insult anyone who points it out, so
> > > maybe you do care.
> >
> > Still don't see you proving that sprint is a loser here, as asked to
do.
> > Why ?
> > Can you give a definite link ? do you have positive proof ?
> > Stop dodging and answer up please.
>
> The 10-K SprintPCS filed with the SEC.
>
> or better yet, you come up with a URL showing SprintPCS as a WLNP winner.
>
>
> Whoops - SprintPCS is a WLNP loser, and starting May 24, will lose again
>
>
> Frnksys- todays alias for anonymous insulting for those that dare tell
> the truth.

The 10-K says nothing about WLNP. And this has lad me to a new term for the
links that Phil uses, thinking that the mere posting of a link makes his
post the truth, even though the link posted makes no mention of the topic at
hand. This is a 'vaporfact'.

OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?

It'll be a long wait, because

SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER.

"Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?
>
> It'll be a long wait, because
>
> SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER.

You made the initial statement- the proof is yours to provide.

I pont to the fact that all metrics of acceptable business analysis show an
improvement over the previous year. Compare the 10-K's and see for
yourself. In addition, there has been a complete lack of press indicating
that they are a portability loser, while AT&T has received plenty of print
on the subject. Care to explain that?

[email protected] (R=F8bert=A0M) wrote:
<<OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?
It'll be a long wait, because
SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER. >>

And Sprint looks to want to be a WLNP loser when it goes nationwide
soon... by pushing F&F over F&C for personal consumers... taking away
free Vision for customers with plans $100 and over... taking away free
PCS2PCS in exchange for two-year agreements...

I hope they do better than I predict... I really do, but I often wonder
why Sprint has made some of the decisions it has made recently.

Eric

"Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] (Røbert M) wrote:
<<OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?
It'll be a long wait, because
SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER. >>

And Sprint looks to want to be a WLNP loser when it goes nationwide
soon... by pushing F&F over F&C for personal consumers... taking away
free Vision for customers with plans $100 and over... taking away free
PCS2PCS in exchange for two-year agreements...

I hope they do better than I predict... I really do, but I often wonder
why Sprint has made some of the decisions it has made recently.

Eric

I don't have a clue how much SPCS pays for in house and outside professional
marketing, but it's a ton. At this time, those folks have determined this is
the best direction for them to take. What's more, they haven't stopped
offering F & C.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Røbert M) wrote:
> <<OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?
> It'll be a long wait, because
> SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER. >>
>
> And Sprint looks to want to be a WLNP loser when it goes nationwide
> soon... by pushing F&F over F&C for personal consumers... taking away
> free Vision for customers with plans $100 and over... taking away free
> PCS2PCS in exchange for two-year agreements...
>
> I hope they do better than I predict... I really do, but I often wonder
> why Sprint has made some of the decisions it has made recently.
>
> Eric
>
> I don't have a clue how much SPCS pays for in house and outside professional
> marketing, but it's a ton. At this time, those folks have determined this is
> the best direction for them to take. What's more, they haven't stopped
> offering F & C.

Sprint just had a press release saying they are DOUBLING their
expenditures for advertising so they can attempt to explain F&F.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Røbert M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > OK Scott, if Sprint is not a WLNP loser, you show me proof it isnt?
> >
> > It'll be a long wait, because
> >
> > SPRINT PCS is a WLNP LOSER.
>
> You made the initial statement- the proof is yours to provide.

You deny it, come up with any authoritative URL other than a personal
denial.