Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
09:38:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups
>> >that deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig,
>> >I'll fight back.
>>
>> That would be inappropriate. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
>> Off-topic discussions should be taken someplace else.
>
>So it's OK to attack me, but it's not OK for me to fight back when
>attacked?

Neither are OK.

>Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.

Actually you did, with your inflammatory sig.

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

---

› See More: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
09:38:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups
>> >that deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig,
>> >I'll fight back.
>>
>> That would be inappropriate. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
>> Off-topic discussions should be taken someplace else.
>
>So it's OK to attack me, but it's not OK for me to fight back when
>attacked?

Neither are OK.

>Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.

Actually you did, with your inflammatory sig.

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

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

In <1102958871.983127@sj-nntpcache-3> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:18 -0800,
"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec
>> 2004 01:40:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
>>>>>> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
>>>>> posts by my sig.
>>>>
>>>> A convenient myopia.
>>>
>>> But not on my part.
>>
>> Just the opposite.
>
>No. She is right, you're myopic. The sig is there to incite. It did.
>You're simply dealing with a (very successful) troll. As always
>the solution is to ignore the troller. If she actually wants to be read
>the sig will dissappear. If the main intention is to troll then a lack
>of any response would also result in the sig dissappearing. Kind
>of fitting, especially in this case. Public censure is very democratic.

And ineffective, on Usenet at least. Trolls left unchallenged tend to just
get bolder. Better to challenge them.

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

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

In <1102958871.983127@sj-nntpcache-3> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:23:18 -0800,
"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec
>> 2004 01:40:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
>>>>>> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
>>>>> posts by my sig.
>>>>
>>>> A convenient myopia.
>>>
>>> But not on my part.
>>
>> Just the opposite.
>
>No. She is right, you're myopic. The sig is there to incite. It did.
>You're simply dealing with a (very successful) troll. As always
>the solution is to ignore the troller. If she actually wants to be read
>the sig will dissappear. If the main intention is to troll then a lack
>of any response would also result in the sig dissappearing. Kind
>of fitting, especially in this case. Public censure is very democratic.

And ineffective, on Usenet at least. Trolls left unchallenged tend to just
get bolder. Better to challenge them.

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

In article <1102958871.983127@sj-nntpcache-3>,
"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:

> No. She is right, you're myopic. The sig is there to incite. It did.
> You're simply dealing with a (very successful) troll.

On topic messages become trolls just because of a sig????

> If she actually wants to be read the sig will dissappear.

Do you really believe that everyone thinks as you do?

> If the main intention is to troll then a lack of any response would
> also result in the sig dissappearing.

Well, since my main intention (in fact none of my intentions) have
anything to do with trolling, that's not an issue.

In case you haven't noticed, with the exception of responding to those
who are trying to bully me into removing the sig, all my messages here
have been on topic.

The sensible and rational thing to do is to not reply to my sig, and
reply only to the *content* of my message, if one has something to
contribute in reply to the message.

I'm not the one making an issue or going into a tizzy over my sig.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

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

> >>>>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
> >>>> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
> >>>
> >>> I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
> >>> posts by my sig.
> >>
> >> A convenient myopia.
> >
> > But not on my part.
>
> ALL on your part. You CRAVE the moments of the lime light your sig
> brings. Own that fact.

Not a fact at all; merely your erroneous opinion. In fact, I'd be
happier if no one made any comments on my .sig.

> I'll let you have the final word.

Yeah, sure.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

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

> >Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.
>
> Actually you did, with your inflammatory sig.

Er, no. If people had not responded to the sig, there would be no
discussion. If people who had nothing to contribute in reply to my
message had not gone out of their way to address my sig, there would be
no discussion.

And labeling the sig "inflammatory" is nothing more than an effort to
shift the blame from the flamers to me. That dog ain't running here.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
12:55:27 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.
>>
>> Actually you did, with your inflammatory sig.
>
>Er, no. If people had not responded to the sig, there would be no
>discussion. If people who had nothing to contribute in reply to my
>message had not gone out of their way to address my sig, there would be
>no discussion.
>
>And labeling the sig "inflammatory" is nothing more than an effort to
>shift the blame from the flamers to me. That dog ain't running here.

Given that attitude, I'll simply ignore you from now on.

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

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

> >Er, no. If people had not responded to the sig, there would be no
> >discussion. If people who had nothing to contribute in reply to my
> >message had not gone out of their way to address my sig, there would
> >be no discussion.
> >
> >And labeling the sig "inflammatory" is nothing more than an effort
> >to shift the blame from the flamers to me. That dog ain't running
> >here.
>
> Given that attitude, I'll simply ignore you from now on.

And hold your breath until you turn blue?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

He's ignoring you now, see?

In article <[email protected]>, Michelle
Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >Er, no. If people had not responded to the sig, there would be no
> > >discussion. If people who had nothing to contribute in reply to my
> > >message had not gone out of their way to address my sig, there would
> > >be no discussion.
> > >
> > >And labeling the sig "inflammatory" is nothing more than an effort
> > >to shift the blame from the flamers to me. That dog ain't running
> > >here.
> >
> > Given that attitude, I'll simply ignore you from now on.
>
> And hold your breath until you turn blue?

In article <131220041522221745%[email protected]>,
steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> He's ignoring you now, see?

That doesn't stop me from replying to his messages.

But this is the last message I'll post that has anything to do with my
sig. I'll now ignore any messages concerning my sig.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <131220041522221745%[email protected]>,
> steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He's ignoring you now, see?
>
> That doesn't stop me from replying to his messages.
>
> But this is the last message I'll post that has anything to do with my
> sig. I'll now ignore any messages concerning my sig.

How about mine?

-Quick
--
Stop the political trolling in alt.cellular.*: censure Michelle Steiner.

What an honor to Michelle Steiner, that others would change their sig
in response to hers! ha ha! This is really funny.




In article <1102980984.297144@sj-nntpcache-3>, Quick
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article <131220041522221745%[email protected]>,
> > steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> He's ignoring you now, see?
> >
> > That doesn't stop me from replying to his messages.
> >
> > But this is the last message I'll post that has anything to do with my
> > sig. I'll now ignore any messages concerning my sig.
>
> How about mine?
>
> -Quick
> --
> Stop the political trolling in alt.cellular.*: censure Michelle Steiner.
>
>

Honor?! Only to someone seeking attention. LOL!

In <131220041827348809%[email protected]> on Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:27:34 GMT,
steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>What an honor to Michelle Steiner, that others would change their sig
>in response to hers! ha ha! This is really funny.

>In article <1102980984.297144@sj-nntpcache-3>, Quick
><[email protected]> wrote:

>> Stop the political trolling in alt.cellular.*: censure Michelle Steiner.

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:30:43 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]> chose
to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:48:43 GMT, "Protest" <protest@no_thanks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>With people being able to send SMS via email to cell phones now.
>>These definitions are changing with the times.
>
>Still playing Jeopardy I guess. Spam is still email and telemarketing
>is still voice. There is a difference. You need to learn the
>difference!

Both are forms of marketing and both can be directed to your cell phone, if
the originator has your number. And that it why they can be discussed
together in this forum.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I can do anything you want as long as I don't have to speak." - supermodel
Linda Evangelista (who once bragged that she wouldn't wake up for less than
$10,000)