reply to discussion |
Results 61 to 75 of 211
- 11-18-2007, 02:44 AM #61Ness NetGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!
You troll and post complete fiction - that is not being "helpful"
It IS going out of your way to be an asshole.
Get a clue - no one wants your "exciting news"
It is NOT "news" and certainly NOT "exciting".
It is fanatical fanboy fantasy - ZERO facts.
› See More: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
- 11-18-2007, 02:49 AM #62Ness NetGuest
Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...
"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>
Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
- 11-18-2007, 03:39 AM #63David FriedmanGuest
Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...
In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are forgetting that Apple and Google are partners in many areas,
> Eric even sits on Apple's Board of Directors so what Steve says, Eric
> does.
I do not think your "so" follows.
> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
I think if you check you will find that Google's market cap is currently
larger than Apple's.
Googling, Apple appears to have about 15 billion in cash currently.
Google had about 11 billion back in March; I don't have a current
figure. But either company could borrow more if needed.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
- 11-18-2007, 04:43 AM #64Peter HayesGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > it's not my info George, it came from newsgroup outside of usenet.
> >
> > So much for your mantra "I only post facts..."
> >
> > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I
> > wish/hope is true..."
>
> it's still a factual piece,
It's not a factual piece, it's someone's opinion, and that someone also
displays a woeful lack of understanding of the technologies involved.
I'm sure you can now see why, when you posted it as your own work,
everyone here had no difficulty believing you wrote it...
> and does exist on the web, problem is it's
> contained inside a subscriber only forum.
Yet the message is here for all to see, http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q - no
subscription needed. So much for "contained inside a subscriber only
forum". ROTFL. You are in error, yet again.
Also, you are now admitting you reproduced material without permission
of the copyright holder and without permission of the forum owner. I
hope you have a good lawyer. Unless, of course, this "ace_92029" is
another of your nyms...
> not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place,
It was unattributed, and contained technical errors so we had no
difficulty believing it was your work.
But if you are going to hide behind "not sure why anyone thought it came
from me in the first place " can we therefore assume everything you post
from now on has come from someone else?
> but i agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided.
No, you should have posted a link to
<http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/St...A/threadview?m
=tm&bn=60&tid=1637316&mid=1637316&tof=1&so=R&frt=2>
Then you wouldn't have looked an even bigger fool by suggesting that "As
this network is already built out for analogue (sic) TV," etc. A 100KW
transmitter on a mountain top is as much use as a fart in a spacesuit
for wifi, idiot.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
- 11-18-2007, 07:18 AM #65GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford wrote:
> George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
>> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.
- 11-18-2007, 07:26 AM #66GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Appears the only place Goggle could find this was in one place...
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/34lt5r
>>>
>>> My gawd...you are so clueless.
>> And if you go back to read it again, It posted by Oxturd. His name is at the
>> top.
>
> talk about clueless Kevin, you win the award for the above comment.
>
> what you pulled up was just a mirror of usenet in a phpBB format.
>
> the post didn't originate with me, you were just too clueless to
> understand that.
Sure it did. Anytime you write something without attribution you are
using your words which means you are the author and understand the topic
and agree that it is correct.
There are numerous ways you could have prevented your yourself from
looking like a fanboi troll such as simply:
Including the URL and putting the content in quotes.
Stating "I found this but I don't understand it so could it be true?"
etc
>
> the mildly smarter DTC found the correct info, just as I had said.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>
> the joke is on you Kevin!
- 11-18-2007, 07:29 AM #67GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> And your point is? Everything points to you as the poster.
>> Oxfart posts something here, and when questioned about its source, goes
>> to that forum and says "but look, it's published elsewhere"--when in
>> reality that "forum" simply reposts whatever anyone posts to the Usenet.
>
> they are not talking about that elmo. what i posted came from yahoo's
> message board, not usenet. learn to read.
But how would anyone know that about what you posted because you read
the fanboi marketing speak bait and wrote it as the author because you
believed it?
- 11-18-2007, 07:31 AM #68GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
>>> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
>>> sold) to cover the entire country.
>> Yahoo message board - http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q
>> Posted by "ace_92029"
>> "http://profiles.yahoo.com/ace_92029
>>
>> [quote]
>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US government in January
>> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
>> sold) to cover the entire country.
>>
>>> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
>>> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
>>> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
>>> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
>>> experience. And here's the best part.
>>> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
>>> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
>>> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band.
>> http://tinyurl.com/ywpwdn
>> Authored by: By Cade Metz in San Francisco
>> [quote]
>> The FCC calls the 700-MHz band "beachfront property." As TV stations
>> vacate this wireless real estate, making the move to digital
>> transmission, it could potentially house a nationwide wireless network
>> that's faster than WiFi and more adept at passing through walls.
>>
>> Would you like salsa to go with the egg on yer face?
>
> why are you so obsessed with me?
I can't speak for him but your whole purpose for posting is obviously to
troll and annoy people who know more than you. You could solve your
problem by going away or posting in a normal non-fanboi fashion.
- 11-18-2007, 07:34 AM #69GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> why are you so obsessed with me?
>> Why are you so obsessed with making yerself look like a fool, fool?
>
> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
I seriously doubt anyone here wants to hear your "exciting news".
>
> apple is going to totally transform it, so I'm here to keep you up to
> date.
>
> yes, you're welcome!
- 11-18-2007, 09:37 AM #70DavidGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
[email protected]:
> i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
> was just the carrier pigeon.
No, you're the carrier asshole. And we don't need to ***** at the
original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
without attrributing it to anyone else.
If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
ATT carries Apple phones.
If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
other carrier's groups.
But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
them.
- 11-18-2007, 10:12 AM #71GeorgeGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
David wrote:
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
> [email protected]:
>
>> i did feel like digging it up, so now go ***** at the author, not me. i
>> was just the carrier pigeon.
>
> No, you're the carrier asshole. And we don't need to ***** at the
> original author, because he didn't post it here. You did, and you did it
> without attrributing it to anyone else.
>
> If you had posted your original toilet paper only in alt.cellular.attws,
> even though a child of 6 would know every part of it was factually
> incorrect, you could atleast have maintained that it was on topic, since
> ATT carries Apple phones.
>
> If the facts were correct and not covered in blathering marketspeak, you
> could have maintained that it was news that would be of interest even in
> other carrier's groups.
>
> But instead you posted a factually incorrect market spiel containing no
> news what so ever to every cellular group, where not only is it wrong,
> your fanboyish verbal masturbations are not wanted. Then when everyone
> points out what an ignorant fanboy tool you are, and how you don't even
> understand the basic facts of analog TV or wireless networking, you get
> your feelings hurt and run off at the mouth even more.
>
> If someone who liked Verizon or Sprint as much as you suck Steve Job's
> penis were to make a post to the Apple news groups every time someone at
> Sprint or Verizon farted, I bet you'd be the first in line to criticise
> them.
Totally accurate and well said.
- 11-18-2007, 10:13 AM #72OxfordGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > > Perhaps you should, in the future, say "I only post information I
> > > wish/hope is true..."
> >
> > it's still a factual piece,
>
> It's not a factual piece, it's someone's opinion, and that someone also
> displays a woeful lack of understanding of the technologies involved.
> I'm sure you can now see why, when you posted it as your own work,
> everyone here had no difficulty believing you wrote it...
poor peter, always so bitter when he gets confused. there were plenty of
facts in that piece, you and todd just didn't want to admit it.
i write facts, this guy had facts, and i in no way said it was my own.
yes, i should have provide the link, but was too lazy that night. deal
with it.
> > and does exist on the web, problem is it's
> > contained inside a subscriber only forum.
>
> Yet the message is here for all to see, http://tinyurl.com/2mgk3q - no
> subscription needed. So much for "contained inside a subscriber only
> forum". ROTFL. You are in error, yet again.
ah, you need a name/password to post which i often type since it expires
every 24 hours, if you don't understand that, tough luck.
> Also, you are now admitting you reproduced material without permission
> of the copyright holder and without permission of the forum owner. I
> hope you have a good lawyer. Unless, of course, this "ace_92029" is
> another of your nyms...
but peter, you are forgetting i don't care.
> > not sure why anyone thought it came from me in the first place,
>
> It was unattributed, and contained technical errors so we had no
> difficulty believing it was your work.
much of it was factual, and *****s the direction apple very well may
take. todd is very fearful of apple so he put up a lot of non-facts to
try and trick people. his knowledge on the subject is on par with the
original poster.
> But if you are going to hide behind "not sure why anyone thought it came
> from me in the first place " can we therefore assume everything you post
> from now on has come from someone else?
yes, everything i post comes from someone else, so just believe in your
lies and you'll be fine.
> > but i agree i should have put a note that a link couldn't be provided.
>
> No, you should have posted a link to
>
> <http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/St...A/threadview?m
> =tm&bn=60&tid=1637316&mid=1637316&tof=1&so=R&frt=2>
shoulda, woulda, coulda... but i didn't and do not care. you are stuck
in caring, but remember it makes no difference to me in the slightest,
i'm just laughing, as usual.
> Then you wouldn't have looked an even bigger fool by suggesting that "As
> this network is already built out for analogue (sic) TV," etc. A 100KW
> transmitter on a mountain top is as much use as a fart in a spacesuit
> for wifi, idiot.
you have no idea what apple is planning for these TV towers, Todd can
spout all his limited knowledge about said subject as well, but none of
us will know until Apple bids on the spectrum. If it happens it will
wipe out large portions of the cell industry, if it doesn't, no big deal.
stick with the facts, like I do and you'll be better for it.
- 11-18-2007, 10:23 AM #73OxfordGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > it's no great secret, DTC had nothing better to do so he dug around and
> > found it.
>
> So you plagarised it, then denied writing it when told how full of holes
> it was, then lied and said you couldn't post a link because it was posted
> on a subscription-only forum.
I didn't plagiarize anything, i simply copy and pasted. plagiarism is
when you edit something and call it your own. i never called it my own
and it was word for word from another forum, that's perfectly fair. so
don't make me laugh even further. I didn't lie in the slightest, when I
go into that very forum, it's set so I can post, so it requires a
password every 24 hours. That's a fact, look it up. What I didn't
realize is if you just want to view the posts, you can do so without a
name/pass, so since that is my only error, please, oh please Todd, i beg
of you to forgive me!
(smirk)
Todd, quit being such an idiot for such a non-event.
- 11-18-2007, 11:23 AM #74OxfordGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> > information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
>
> Hey, as long as you are acknowledging you have no credibility because
> you parrot stuff you don't understand as yours it is fine with me.
i have tons of credibility, people love what i write. and yes, i should
have been clearer of the source, but was feeling lazy at the time and
didn't. deal with it.
- 11-18-2007, 11:29 AM #75OxfordGuest
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network
David <[email protected]> wrote:
why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
that simple.
for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
why, but *****ing about it won't make the iPhone go away.
i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.
if you don't like it, leave.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- LG (Verizon)
Real estate investment in the UAE
in Chit Chat