Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

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

In <2uqdnYcAc9JUzm3cRVn-2g@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:59:43 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:HwJHd.2934$m31.36640@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <vcudnTNYrtkYuHLcRVn-hw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
>20:29:56 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If you feel that my statement was wrong, feel free to point out the errors-
>> >...
>>
>> Been there; done that.
>>
>No you haven't- ...

Actually I have. You just don't like my response.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ZDTJd.3822$m31.53338@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2uqdnYcAc9JUzm3cRVn-2g@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
17:59:43 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:HwJHd.2934$m31.36640@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> In <vcudnTNYrtkYuHLcRVn-hw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
> >20:29:56 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you feel that my statement was wrong, feel free to point out the
errors-
> >> >...
> >>
> >> Been there; done that.
> >>
> >No you haven't- ...
>
> Actually I have. You just don't like my response.
>
> --

Funny- all I saw was a lame attempt at name calling. You have never
addressed the meat of that post. It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
into a single SuperTroll.

> It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
> into a single SuperTroll.

Yes, and unfortunately this union has raised the new message reminderby
bringing you the ALLOVER( ) troll, giving you more unwanted posts on
more servers. Your killfile will *not* expand to include all Phillippe
and OP unwanted messages. Welcome to the new Phillippe.

Standard Disclaimer: Cingular neither moderates, promotes, nor is
associated with either the formerly individual trolls or the new troll
union.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

TH

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

In <wO2dnWWersmCpmXcRVn-1A@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:52:16 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>... It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
>into a single SuperTroll.

Yet more mud slinging. I rest my case.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newsxlKd.4185$m31.56060@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <wO2dnWWersmCpmXcRVn-1A@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
17:52:16 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >... It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
> >into a single SuperTroll.
>
> Yet more mud slinging. I rest my case.
>
> --
More avoidance- I rest my case.

Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the one
asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or the
inability to admit error?

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

In <m4idnSJ1E5VEBGfcRVn-sw@adelphia.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:01:14 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>newsxlKd.4185$m31.56060@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <wO2dnWWersmCpmXcRVn-1A@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:52:16 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >... It's like you and Phillippe have morphed
>> >into a single SuperTroll.
>>
>> Yet more mud slinging. I rest my case.

>More avoidance- I rest my case.

Hardly a sin.

>Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the one
>asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
>Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or the
>inability to admit error?

No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have testified
as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your problem,
not mine.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:d9ILd.4783$m31.64101@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> >Although I noticed that you chose to respond to this post but ignore the
one
> >asking you to cite specific examples of expertise you implied possessing.
> >Should we consider that lack of silence as a lack of said expertise or
the
> >inability to admit error?
>
> No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have
testified
> as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your
problem,
> not mine.
>
> --
But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that testimony
alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. That is truly a
problem.

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

In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:16:20 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:d9ILd.4783$m31.64101@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have testified
>> as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your problem,
>> not mine.

>But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that testimony
>alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. ...

I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching at straws.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
19:16:20 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:d9ILd.4783$m31.64101@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> No, just unwillingness to play your game. You now know that I have
testified
> >> as an expert witness in IP. That you came up with so little is your
problem,
> >> not mine.
>
> >But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that testimony
> >alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. ...
>
> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching at
straws.
>
> --

Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
responsible for posting the following:

"You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic."

That sounds like you made exactly such a claim. You're the one clutching at
straws.

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

In <Ef-dnQ6HxPaEyp3fRVn-sg@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:29:32 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:16:20 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>> >But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that testimony
>> >alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. ...
>>
>> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching at straws.

>Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
>responsible for posting the following:
>
>"You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to give
>>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant experience,
>>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the right
>>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic."
>
>That sounds like you made exactly such a claim.

Nope. Read more carefully.

>You're the one clutching at
>straws.

Hardly. LOL

You've got zero expertise, yet you presume to challenge those that do. Funny
that.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:HdZLd.4929$m31.64931@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Ef-dnQ6HxPaEyp3fRVn-sg@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
21:29:32 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
19:16:20 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> >But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that
testimony
> >> >alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. ...
> >>
> >> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching at
straws.
>
> >Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
> >responsible for posting the following:
> >
> >"You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
> >>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> >>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> >>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic."
> >
> >That sounds like you made exactly such a claim.
>
> Nope. Read more carefully.

I read it just fine. You got caught.

>
> >You're the one clutching at
> >straws.
>
> Hardly. LOL
>
> You've got zero expertise, yet you presume to challenge those that do.
Funny
> that.
>
> --
Pretty confident statement for someone who doesn't have the facts. Care to
back up your words? Or are you simply lashing out in an attempt to deflect
attention from your own lack of expertise.

And know this, John- in the last five years alone I've amassed more
experience and expertise in a couple of these areas than you'll ever care to
know. The fact that I have not had to testify about this expertise does not
make it any less valuable than yours. In fact, my expertise is probably
more valuable than yours in many ways.

Scott Stephenson wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:HdZLd.4929$m31.64931@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <Ef-dnQ6HxPaEyp3fRVn-sg@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
> 21:29:32 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
> 19:16:20 -0700,
>>>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that
>>>>> testimony alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the
>>>>> law. ...
>>>>
>>>> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching
>>>> at straws.
>>
>>> Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
>>> responsible for posting the following:
>>>
>>> "You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which
>>> ought to
> give
>>>>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
>>>>> experience, unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone
>>>>> that I'm not the right kind of expert witness to suit you is
>>>>> pretty pathetic."
>>>
>>> That sounds like you made exactly such a claim.
>>
>> Nope. Read more carefully.
>
> I read it just fine. You got caught.
>
>>
>>> You're the one clutching at
>>> straws.
>>
>> Hardly. LOL
>>
>> You've got zero expertise, yet you presume to challenge those that
>> do. Funny that.
>>
>> --
> Pretty confident statement for someone who doesn't have the facts.
> Care to back up your words? Or are you simply lashing out in an
> attempt to deflect attention from your own lack of expertise.
>
> And know this, John- in the last five years alone I've amassed more
> experience and expertise in a couple of these areas than you'll ever
> care to know. The fact that I have not had to testify about this
> expertise does not make it any less valuable than yours. In fact, my
> expertise is probably more valuable than yours in many ways.



Navas has demonstrated his know it all attitude on many newsgroups over the
years - starting out with comp.dcom.modems. His stupidity has been
demonstrated over and over.