Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:24:30
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:50:27 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Not changes in the *terms of the merger agreement* ...
>
>But if you look at the original statement, you jumped all over the
>other poster when they said merger agreements were regularly admended.

Hardly. I said:

Once a definitive agreement has been signed, it can only be
modified according to the terms of the agreement.

>That person said NOTHING about significance, only that changes were
>common -- which is very true, if for no other reason than small
>amendments in the share exchange rate, etc.

What Chris actually said was:

A merger is a fluid give and take situation.

As I wrote, it's not, once a definitive agreement has been signed.

>>I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
>>of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
>>change greatly.
>
>But again, those change regularly as well.

I respectfully disagree.

>And you can't exactly say
>the two aren't related. The record writedown that was a result of the
>AOL/TW merger was due to the declining value of assets. While that's
>business related in one way, it's also part ofthe merger. So the two
>issues are very much intertwined.

Again, I respectfully disagree -- the original statement by Chris simply isn't
true.

>[SNIP usual rudeness] As it is, myself and several others,
>have a hard time doing that.

So be it.

>>That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
>>I was saying.
>
>I just went back and Googled the discussion and there were several
>instances where you were saying upstream metering would become common.
>[SNIP]

Actual citations please.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

---

› See More: Looking good for the Cingular takeover of AT&T

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>>I didn't say or even imply that -- the context here is changes in the *terms
>>>of the merger agreement*, not the businesses themselves, which may indeed
>>>change greatly.
>>
>>But again, those change regularly as well.
>
>I respectfully disagree.

You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.

>>>That's not what I said about metering -- you're again misinterpreting what
>>>I was saying.
>>
>>I just went back and Googled the discussion and there were several
>>instances where you were saying upstream metering would become common.
>>[SNIP]
>
>Actual citations please.

(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
Google Groups search:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=me...rio.com&rnum=3

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:41:14
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>I respectfully disagree.
>
>You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.

That of course cuts both ways. :-)

>>Actual citations please.
>
>(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
>Google Groups search:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=me...rio.com&rnum=3

Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

In alt.cellular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> While the FCC lifted the "per se" spectrum cap, it continues to "analyze the
> competitive effects of transactions involving mobile telephony service
> providers on a case-by-case basis." Thus "too much" does still exist as a
> legal concept, just not as a "per se" concept, and it remains "possible" in
> any event -- I didn't say likely - that divestiture might be required in an
> urban area, by the FCC, Justice Department, or at the instigation of an
> interested party (e.g., state government, competitor).

Ah. Thank you for the clarification.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:41:14
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I respectfully disagree.
>>
>>You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.
>
>That of course cuts both ways. :-)
>
>>>Actual citations please.
>>
>>(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
>>Google Groups search:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=me...rio.com&rnum=3
>
>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.

Sorry, Navas, but you don't determine who and who isn't taken
seriously except as it pertains to yourself. You're free to do
whatever you wish in that regard, but as I've said before, I'd be
afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
corner. You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
everywhere you go.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:16:55
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.
>
>Sorry, Navas, but you don't determine who and who isn't taken
>seriously except as it pertains to yourself. You're free to do
>whatever you wish in that regard,

Thank you.

>but as I've said before, I'd be
>afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
>corner.

You might be surprised. :-)

>You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
>everywhere you go.

You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.
It's bad enough that you presume to lecture others in public,
but surely you don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself.
Why ... that would be ... condescending. [gasp]

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >but as I've said before, I'd be
> >afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
> >corner.
>
> You might be surprised. :-)

No doubt he'd overestimate.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
> >everywhere you go.
>
> You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.

Did those words actually come out of John Navas's mouth?

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004
10:12:51 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >but as I've said before, I'd be
>> >afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
>> >corner.
>>
>> You might be surprised. :-)
>
>No doubt he'd overestimate.

Whatever you say.

Still nothing to contribute?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004
10:13:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
>> >everywhere you go.
>>
>> You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.
>
>Did those words actually come out of John Navas's mouth?

Yes.

Still nothing to contribute?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >No doubt he'd overestimate.
>
> Whatever you say.
>
> Still nothing to contribute?

I'm just matching you contribution for contribution.

You just keep on saying that whatever comes out of your mouth is gospel.
We'll just keep on revealing you as the ass you are.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:41:14
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:08:37 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I respectfully disagree.
>>
>>You can respectfully disagree all you want, but it means nothing.
>
>That of course cuts both ways. :-)

But my track record is defendable, so I'm not worried about it.
>
>>>Actual citations please.
>>
>>(You'll have to get these to wrap since they were the result of a
>>Google Groups search:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=me...rio.com&rnum=3
>
>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.

No, I'm not sure I do know. You see, this is typical Navas logic. You
ask for proof, get it, and then start dodging. You're the one that
made the claim, and it's in Google Groups for all the world to see.
When you make predictions that continually defy industry norms in the
technology world, you're going to be called on it occasionally.

Where's your alter ego Giles Harney when you need him now?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:55:10 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:16:55
>GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>>>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.
>>
>>Sorry, Navas, but you don't determine who and who isn't taken
>>seriously except as it pertains to yourself. You're free to do
>>whatever you wish in that regard,
>
>Thank you.
>
>>but as I've said before, I'd be
>>afraid to take a bet as to how many people would line up in your
>>corner.
>
>You might be surprised. :-)

In all these interactions over the years, I've seen ONE, yes only ONE,
individual come out in support of your condescending opinions and it
was Giles Harney. Too bad he's not here when you need him.
>
>>You continue making buddies with your condescending remarks
>>everywhere you go.
>
>You're projecting your own attitudes and feelings onto others.
>It's bad enough that you presume to lecture others in public,
>but surely you don't presume to speak for anyone other than yourself.
>Why ... that would be ... condescending. [gasp]

You lecture people in groups all the time. What do you call the use of
words like "rubbish" or "nonsense"? If that's not lecturing, I don't
know what is. At a certain point, people just get sick of it and ask
you to pony up, which you haven't been able to do in any instance.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004
11:21:56 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >No doubt he'd overestimate.
>>
>> Whatever you say.
>>
>> Still nothing to contribute?
>
>I'm just matching you contribution for contribution.

Not without meaningful content.

>You just keep on saying that whatever comes out of your mouth is gospel.

On the contrary -- even though I work hard at posting good information,
I don't always succeed, as I freely acknowledge.

>We'll just keep on revealing you as the ass you are.

I would hope you have better things to do with your time, but apparently not,
which I think is a bit sad. Whatever.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

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

In <5dc2i09vn2sde7kdlc***[email protected]> on Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:29:09
GMT, Cyrus Afzali <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:51:21 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific than that if you expect to get
>>taken seriously (as I'm sure you know.
>
>No, I'm not sure I do know. You see, this is typical Navas logic. You
>ask for proof,

I asked for "actual citations".

>get it,

What I got was a meaningless Google link, not "actual citations".

>and then start dodging.

Hardly -- just calling it like it is.

>You're the one that
>made the claim,

No, that was you, and you still haven't backed it up. The reason, of course,
is that your claim isn't true.

>and it's in Google Groups for all the world to see.

Indeed -- the record speaks for itself.

>When you make predictions that continually defy industry norms in the
>technology world, you're going to be called on it occasionally.

I don't do that, you wild accusations notwithstanding.

>Where's your alter ego Giles Harney when you need him now?

I nether know nor care who that is.

That you post ad hominems rather than actual citations speaks volumes about
your claims. Likewise your off-topic personal attacks. No offense intended.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>