All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note it
has been tried in the past. The request to add the newgroup was followed by a
remove group request citing an indication that there needs to be interest.
The person who submitted the rmgroup was hamstermumke@xs4all.nl. Please
considering sending a personal email to said person expressing your interest
in this new group.
Thanks in advance.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44369923$0$275$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note
> it
> has been tried in the past. The request to add the newgroup was followed
> by a
> remove group request citing an indication that there needs to be interest.
> The person who submitted the rmgroup was *DELETED*. Please
> considering sending a personal email to said person expressing your
> interest
> in this new group.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
>
That system admin is now going to be very angry that you posted his email
all over usenet. Many system admins get such requests for this newsgroup or
that news group and as admin of their domains can choose not to carry your
request.
I would suggest you read the proper requirements for making a news group,
and then try again. It does not mean other news servers will not carry the
usenet group you desire.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <44369923$0$275$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net> on 07 Apr 2006 16:53:55
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note it
>has been tried in the past. The request to add the newgroup was followed by a
>remove group request citing an indication that there needs to be interest.
>The person who submitted the rmgroup was hamstermumke@xs4all.nl. Please
>considering sending a personal email to said person expressing your interest
>in this new group.
>
>Thanks in advance.
Cross-posting restored.
1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
2. Why post this to alt.cellular.cingular?
3. Why not just keep trying to get it started yourself? The best way to do
that is to get one or more major news carriers on your side.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <Xns979E8B83010D6VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30 GMT, Bert
Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>spamfilter0@navasgroup.com (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>$bn3.58422@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>
>Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile. I
may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
NOwhere.
I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
those with Voicestream offices).
Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
right?
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns979E8B83010D6VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30
> GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> spamfilter0@navasgroup.com (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>> $bn3.58422@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>>
>> Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
>
> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has
> yet made a convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would
> actually be beneficial, rather than just causing chaos and confusion.
> That's the place to start.
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
> convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
> rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
>
Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <2TzZf.26443$w86.13487@tornado.socal.rr.com> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:23:26
GMT, "BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote:
>> In <Xns979E8B83010D6VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30
>> GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> spamfilter0@navasgroup.com (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>>> $bn3.58422@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>
>>>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>>>
>>> Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
>>
>> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has
>> yet made a convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would
>> actually be beneficial, rather than just causing chaos and confusion.
>> That's the place to start.
Bottom posting restored. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom)
in mid-thread -- it's confusing, and considered a bit rude.
>I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
>Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
I'll grant you that.
>I
>may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
>easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
>'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
>NOwhere.
My guess is that the great majority of newcomers would use Google Groups, and
would thus find it quite readily. And there are of course other ways to find
it.
>I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
>probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
>those with Voicestream offices).
The "chaos & confusion" comes from having two newsgroups, an old
alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream and a new alt.cellular.t-mobile, with
some posts in one, some in the other, as well as erratic cross-posting. Long
experience with Usenet shows how hard it is to change posting habits -- you
can just order everyone to switch. It's by no means clear that a new
newsgroup would do any real good.
>Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
>Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
>Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
>right?
Pretty much, although the old alt.cellular.attws does still exist, and it will
be interesting to see if there's a migration back. It would at least be a
good test case for the proposed alt.cellular.t-mobile
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <4436ca4f$0$717$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net> on 07 Apr 2006 20:23:43
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
>> convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
>> rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
>
>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
See my prior response to BruceR.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>I
>>may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
>>easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
>>'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
>>NOwhere.
>
> My guess is that the great majority of newcomers would use Google Groups, and
> would thus find it quite readily. And there are of course other ways to find
> it.
>
Uhm ... this is USENET ... not Google Groups!
>>I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
>>probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
>>those with Voicestream offices).
>
> The "chaos & confusion" comes from having two newsgroups, an old
> alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream and a new alt.cellular.t-mobile, with
> some posts in one, some in the other, as well as erratic cross-posting. Long
> experience with Usenet shows how hard it is to change posting habits -- you
> can just order everyone to switch. It's by no means clear that a new
> newsgroup would do any real good.
>
The old voicestream should die a timely death. We can issue a rmgroup
>
> Pretty much, although the old alt.cellular.attws does still exist, and it will
> be interesting to see if there's a migration back. It would at least be a
> good test case for the proposed alt.cellular.t-mobile
>
There is no need for a test case. If anything, the test case is in progress
as many if not most of the old attws users moved to cingular.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
>
> See my prior response to BruceR.
>
Yes, and see my response. This is USENET and not Google Groups. USENET is
not organized for the benefit of Google Groups users.
BTW .. I am not intentionally stripping follow-ups, it is that my damn
newsreader (TIN) seems to enforce follow-ups to one group only (not no groups
and not all groups). I need to get my client fixed!
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <4436e558$0$273$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net> on 07 Apr 2006 22:19:05
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>>>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
>>
>> See my prior response to BruceR.
>
>Yes, and see my response. This is USENET and not Google Groups. USENET is
>not organized for the benefit of Google Groups users.
Irrelevant to my point, which is that Google Groups is a very popular and
convenient way to find newsgroups.
>BTW .. I am not intentionally stripping follow-ups, it is that my damn
>newsreader (TIN) seems to enforce follow-ups to one group only (not no groups
>and not all groups). I need to get my client fixed!
Maybe you should use Google Groups.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note it
> has been tried in the past.
I wondered why no one has gotten this created yet. The old Voicestream
newsgroup (alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream). is totally
non-intuitive, most people in the west have no idea what Voicestream is,
as they never had service out here. Even in areas where Voicestream used
to be a carrier, a lot of people don't know that it morphed into T-Mobile.
Fortunately, if Cingular becomes AT&T Wireless, (if the AT&T acquisition
of BellSouth goes through), there will already is alt.cellular.attws,
which will take over from the existing Cingular newsgroup.
>spamfilter0@navasgroup.com (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>$bn3.58422@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>
>Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
voicestream.com is used by T-Mobile for its wireless data service, so
yes, there is.
--
Jack Hamilton
California
--
<> Qui vit sans folie n'est pas si sage qu'il croit.
<> François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld
BruceR wrote:
> I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
> Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
I never EVER see anyone posting from outside the USA to the VoiceStream
newsgroup. T-Mobile, of course, is a multinational telecom concern that
operates wireless networks just about anywhere. Having alt.cellular.t-mobile
would, IMHO, encourage T-Mobile users outside the USA to post. No non-USA
T-Mo customers are likely to know or care that T-Mobile BORG'd VoiceStream
several years ago.
> I
> may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
> easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
> 'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
> NOwhere.
And never existed outside the US.
> I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
> probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
> those with Voicestream offices).
>
> Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
> Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
> Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
> right?
Well, in fact, there is an alt.cellular.attws, so people can just go back to
using that newsgroup. But I don't hear Mr. Navas complaining about "chaos and
confusion" over the newgroup for alt.cellular.cingular.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, CA ** 888.480.4NET (4638) ** sjsobol@JustThe.net
Resident of Southern California -
the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
Linear Mode
