Results 16 to 25 of 25
- 12-29-2008, 02:39 PM #16Richard B. GilbertGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/08 11:23 AM, in article 291220080923154675%[email protected],
> "Mr. Strat" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Richard B.
>> Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> How about putting this stuff on a web site somewhere. It's not
>>> something we need to see on the newsgroup every few weeks!
>> He's retarded. He's on a mission.
> A mission that has badly gone astray.
>
> A frontal lobotomy may be the only answer.
>
Hmmm! Put the frontal lobe on life support and throw the rest away?? ;-)
› See More: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
- 12-29-2008, 08:42 PM #17swGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:12:58 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >How about putting this stuff on a web site somewhere. It's not
> >>
> >> <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>
> >>
> >> >something we need to see on the newsgroup every few weeks!
> >>
> >> It's standard Usenet practice,
> >
> >"Standard" by whose standard?
>
> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
>
> >If enough of us say that it's "standard usenet practice" to go beat the
> >**** out of you and leave you for dead in the middle of the road, would
> >you accept that?
>
> I don't pay attention to childish thugs and bullies.
hahaaa , almost slide off my chair.... this ass ****ing anus is a moron.
- 12-29-2008, 11:49 PM #18Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
At 29 Dec 2008 10:43:02 -0800 John Navas wrote:
> >> It's standard Usenet practice,
> >
> >"Standard" by whose standard?
>
> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
I'll let others dole out the personal abuse WRT to your FAQ. I'll only ask
one question: why do you call it a "FAQ" when Google ("my friend", as you
say) can't find a SINGLE instance of the question being asked even once on
alt.cellular.cingular, other than in your FAQ.
Makes it more of a "NAQ", (Never Asked Question), doesn't it? Therefore,
I'd suggest you should remove the word "FAQ" from the subject to comply
with "standard usenet practice."
- 12-30-2008, 12:21 AM #19Mr. StratGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
> > How about putting this stuff on a web site somewhere. It's not
> > something we need to see on the newsgroup every few weeks!
>
> LOL, why do you think he does this?
I don't even have a Motorola phone any more, but I continue subscribing
to this group just to laugh at him. I don't know what his motivation
is. He's back posting in some of the photography groups again...trying
to pass off his lack of photographic knowledge and mediocre images.
He's a nut case.
- 12-30-2008, 09:07 AM #20John NavasGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:49:14 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>At 29 Dec 2008 10:43:02 -0800 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >> It's standard Usenet practice,
>> >
>> >"Standard" by whose standard?
>>
>> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
>
>I'll let others dole out the personal abuse WRT to your FAQ. I'll only ask
>one question: why do you call it a "FAQ" when Google ("my friend", as you
>say) can't find a SINGLE instance of the question being asked even once on
>alt.cellular.cingular, other than in your FAQ.
Some of these questions have been asked, and there's nothing wrong with
anticipating questions that haven't been asked. FAQ isn't a literal
threshold.
If you don't want to see this thread, then you can filter it out, as I'm
sure you know how to do. (If not, I'd be happy to help.)
You're making a large tempest in a small teapot. This is a non-issue
except to those with personal axes to grind, and I'm not going to give
in to bullying.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
- 12-30-2008, 09:42 AM #21Mr. StratGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You're making a large tempest in a small teapot. This is a non-issue
> except to those with personal axes to grind, and I'm not going to give
> in to bullying.
No, it *is* an issue. Because you post the same crap about every two
weeks...and the information isn't even accurate. People who frequent
these groups don't want to keep reading your moronic drivel and
shouldn't have to filter you out.
Face it, man - you're a Netard.
- 12-30-2008, 05:46 PM #22The BobGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
On 29 Dec 2008, you wrote in alt.cellular.attws:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:58:56 -0500, "Richard B. Gilbert"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:12:58 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How about putting this stuff on a web site somewhere. It's not
>>>>> <http://cell.wikia.com/wiki/Motorola>
>>>>>
>>>>>> something we need to see on the newsgroup every few weeks!
>>>>> It's standard Usenet practice,
>>>> "Standard" by whose standard?
>>>
>>> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
>>
>>Do you have a link to these "Usenet guidelines"???
>
> "Google is your friend."
>
You the Google that would pull up your precious FAQ's posted in 2006,
thereby eliminating our need to see it every two weeks?
- 12-30-2008, 05:50 PM #23The BobGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:49:14 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>At 29 Dec 2008 10:43:02 -0800 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> >> It's standard Usenet practice,
>>> >
>>> >"Standard" by whose standard?
>>>
>>> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
>>
>>I'll let others dole out the personal abuse WRT to your FAQ. I'll
>>only ask one question: why do you call it a "FAQ" when Google ("my
>>friend", as you say) can't find a SINGLE instance of the question
>>being asked even once on alt.cellular.cingular, other than in your
>>FAQ.
>
> Some of these questions have been asked,
Where? Not in these forums. That would then make the document useless
and there's nothing wrong
> with anticipating questions that haven't been asked. FAQ isn't a
> literal threshold.
And yet nothing even close to the subjects mentioned have been asked in
these forums. That would mean that in addition to being an idiot, you are
not very good at anticipating anything. Hardly a surprise.
>
> If you don't want to see this thread, then you can filter it out, as
> I'm sure you know how to do. (If not, I'd be happy to help.)
>
> You're making a large tempest in a small teapot. This is a non-issue
> except to those with personal axes to grind, and I'm not going to give
> in to bullying.
>
And so it is said by John Novice, Professional Usenet Buffoon.
- 12-30-2008, 10:20 PM #24Todd AllcockGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> >> It's standard Usenet practice,
>>> >
>>> >"Standard" by whose standard?
>>>
>>> Usenet guidelines. You've never read them, have you?
>>
>>I'll let others dole out the personal abuse WRT to your FAQ. I'll only
>>ask
>>one question: why do you call it a "FAQ" when Google ("my friend", as you
>>say) can't find a SINGLE instance of the question being asked even once on
>>alt.cellular.cingular, other than in your FAQ.
>
> Some of these questions have been asked,
I couldn't find them, so even if they've been asked, they certainly haven't
bee n asked "frequently."
> and there's nothing wrong with anticipating questions that haven't been
> asked.
As Motorola's market share crumbles, and they ponder retreating from the
wireless business entirely, perhaps you should anticipate questions like
"What is/was a Motorola Phone?" or "Didn't Motorola, that two-way radio
company, used to manufacture cellular phones?"
> FAQ isn't a literal threshold.
Got a link for that in your Usenet guidelines?
> If you don't want to see this thread, then you can filter it out, as I'm
> sure you know how to do. (If not, I'd be happy to help.)
I know how to filter, but it's not worth the effort. I can ignore it easily
enough when it gets out of hand.
> You're making a large tempest in a small teapot. This is a non-issue
> except to those with personal axes to grind, and I'm not going to give
> in to bullying.
Particularly when you enjoy stirring the "tea," eh?
- 12-31-2008, 11:10 AM #25George KerbyGuest
Re: Motorola cell phones mini FAQ
On 12/30/08 9:42 AM, in article 301220080742581894%[email protected],
"Mr. Strat" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're making a large tempest in a small teapot. This is a non-issue
>> except to those with personal axes to grind, and I'm not going to give
>> in to bullying.
>
> No, it *is* an issue. Because you post the same crap about every two
> weeks...and the information isn't even accurate. People who frequent
> these groups don't want to keep reading your moronic drivel and
> shouldn't have to filter you out.
>
> Face it, man - you're a Netard.
And these newsgroups' personal piñata...
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.motorola
- alt.cellular.motorola
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.motorola
writing essentials
in Chit Chat