RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:25:29 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
>>> 12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <%[email protected]>,
>>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>>>>> >significantly different.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was clearly constructive.
>>>>
>>>>man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>>>>the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>>>
>>> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
>>> much easier for you.
>>
>>As did I. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/jttgp
>>
>>Your comments were towards my first attempt to send a control message that
>>resulted in a cancel by a fascist admin somewhere in Holland, but support
>
> Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.

Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up? As far as
fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
who cancel everything.

>
>>prevailed with a directed approach. Indeed, by the time you wrote that, the
>>group was already created on ISC and was beginning to move. I will even give
>>you credit that the third item was mildly constructive, but the remainder of
>>what you have written, including and especially what I posted was clearly not
>>constructive. In particular:
>
> I disagree. I think you have a rather narrow 'if you're not with me
> you're against me' attitude.

No, you are the only person I felt required direct refutation.

>
>>"There will be confusion with the existing group, as I've explained
>>previously."
>
> True.

Who is confused? You?

>
>>"Cingular existed as a separate cellular carrier without an existing
>>newsgroup."
>
> True.

You are commenting on your own comment.

>
>>"T-Mobile USA is already served by a newsgroup."
>
> True.

Again ... commenting on your own commment. And it is false. A voicestream
newsgroup is not a representation of T-Mobile USA.

>
>>T-Mobile is not Voicestream. It is history that Voicestream became T-Mobile,
>>but T-Mobile is NOT Voicestream ... and such a group is not sufficient for
>>what T-Mobile is today.
>
> In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the many others that use it that
> way.

Who? To my knowledge, the only people that use as a discussion forum for
T-Mobile are those that are aware of the history with Voicestream AND who do
so because it is the "best fit" in the absence of a more proper
alt.cellular.t-mobile group that fits the current heirarchy better.

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

---

› See More: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My post was actually quite relevant, as it was an explanation of how
> Navas responds when presented with incontrovertible evidence that
> refutes anything he posts. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is,
> nor that the source is impeccable. He simply refutes it with one of his
> infamous one-line, content-free, responses.

I have tried to avoid bashing JN for the most part. But you are correct. He
takes a smug, one word response approach and then leaves it to somebody else
to refute his unsupported text.

"some quote"
JN: False

"another quote"
JN: True

John even quotes his own comments and then follows up with "True" ... as if he
is adding substance to a discussion.

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

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up?

Very busy.

>As far as
>fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
>who cancel everything.

That doesn't excuse it.

>[SNIP]

On the rest we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up?
>
> Very busy.

No no no. You have been posting all over the place, you just found this post
and decided it wasn't dead. Let's be honest here.

>
>>As far as
>>fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
>>who cancel everything.
>
> That doesn't excuse it.
>

What the description of the admin as fascist? There is nothing that needs
excusing.

>>[SNIP]
>
> On the rest we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>

Yes ... indeed, you are wrong.

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

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:48:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Leads wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> "Deny.
>>>>
>>>> Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
>>>> the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
>>>> who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
>>>> just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"
>>> Highly relevant to alt.cellular.*
>>> Not.
>>
>> And just how did your post fit in, hypocrite.
>
>My post was actually quite relevant, as it was an explanation of how
>Navas responds when presented with incontrovertible evidence that
>refutes anything he posts. ...

That has no relevance here; violates Usenet guidelines; and violates the
Charter. 3 for 3 -- you're not losing your touch!

Your "incontrovertible evidence" is fabrication, like your claims about
Radio Shack, Verizon, and Cingular that are completely contrary to the
factual record.

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

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:03:40 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>Geeze ... you wait more than two weeks to respond? What's up?
>>
>> Very busy.
>
>No no no. You have been posting all over the place, you just found this post
>and decided it wasn't dead. Let's be honest here.

I'm being honest. I see you've still got that chip on your shoulder.

>>>As far as
>>>fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
>>>who cancel everything.
>>
>> That doesn't excuse it.
>>
>
>What the description of the admin as fascist? There is nothing that needs
>excusing.

As I wrote: Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.

>>>[SNIP]
>>
>> On the rest we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
>Yes ... indeed, you are wrong.

You are free to think whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.

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

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>No no no. You have been posting all over the place, you just found this post
>>and decided it wasn't dead. Let's be honest here.
>
> I'm being honest. I see you've still got that chip on your shoulder.
>

True. Or False.

>>>>As far as
>>>>fascist admins go ... that is sort of the general term for the alt.config guys
>>>>who cancel everything.
>>>
>>> That doesn't excuse it.
>>>
>>
>>What the description of the admin as fascist? There is nothing that needs
>>excusing.
>
> As I wrote: Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.
>

False. Or True.

>>
>>Yes ... indeed, you are wrong.
>
> You are free to think whatever you want, no matter how unfounded.
>

True and false ... respectively.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Your "incontrovertible evidence" is fabrication, like your claims about
> Radio Shack, Verizon, and Cingular that are completely contrary to the
> factual record.
>

You mean the claims that have been backed up ad nauseum with factrs and
cites? You are a twit, and a poorply educated one at that.