Dear John Navas

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 08 Sep 2004
21:27:16 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <vyN%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Can't resist replying, can you, John.
>>
>> And you?
>
>Yeah, I can. ...

Had me fooled.

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

---

› See More: Dear John Navas

In article <y5Q%[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >Can't resist replying, can you, John.
> >>
> >> And you?
> >
> >Yeah, I can. ...
>
> Had me fooled.

It's hilarious to watch you DANCE, Navas. You are so predictable. It's
like pulling Howdy Doody's strings.

Dance, modem boy. Dance.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 08 Sep 2004
23:34:35 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <y5Q%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >Can't resist replying, can you, John.
>> >>
>> >> And you?
>> >
>> >Yeah, I can. ...
>>
>> Had me fooled.
>
>[SNIP]

Grow up.

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

Show us this charter, this holy grail of usenet. bring it before our
eyes so we may tremble with fear from the written word of John Navas. We
all know you wrote it... no show it....

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <QrL%c.113274$%[email protected]> on Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:11:09
> -0400, "Steve Larson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>... If your only
>>contributions to newsgroup threads are contrarian, antagonistic, or abrupt,
>>you'll not be taken seriously. ...
>
>
> 1. I'm not here to be taken seriously -- that's strictly up to others.
>
> 2. My contributions can sometimes be abrupt (I'd say terse). Sorry about
> that, but it takes time to write more, and my time is often limited.
>
> 3. I don't think I'm contrarian or antagonistic. Sorry you feel that way.
>
>
>>Thanks to John B for bringing this topic to bear.
>
>
> This topic is inappropriate and off-topic -- see the newsgroup charter.
>

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

In <ttQ%[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:54:01
GMT, Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Show us this charter, ...

It's posted here about every two weeks ("FAQ: Welcome to
alt.cellular.cingular!"), and thus is readily available on Google Groups.

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

Though I really hate to do this I am adding Navas and Elmo to my block list
as they both amount to trolls.


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sxS%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <ttQ%[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
> 03:54:01
> GMT, Ryan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Show us this charter, ...
>
> It's posted here about every two weeks ("FAQ: Welcome to
> alt.cellular.cingular!"), and thus is readily available on Google Groups.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

> >Show us this charter, ...
>
> It's posted here about every two weeks ("FAQ: Welcome to
> alt.cellular.cingular!"), and thus is readily available on Google Groups.

Who posts it?

And why would you make someone use Google to get it, when you could just
post it yourself right here and now?

Because you're full of hot air.

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

> >In article <y5Q%[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >Can't resist replying, can you, John.
> >> >>
> >> >> And you?
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, I can. ...
> >>
> >> Had me fooled.
> >
> >[SNIP]

Yup. Snip away. Can't help but respond, can you.

Dance, modem boy, dance.

Dear Elmo and John,

Give it a break guys. Time out. Take a deep breath.

Shake hands and make up.

Chip


Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <kdP%c.10906$w%[email protected]>,
> "CSS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John's been known for his "opinions" since the days of, oh, 300 baud modems
>>(or at least he'd like to think he's been an "expert" that long). I find it
>>funny that he's surfaced here as I had killfiled him since his days of rants
>>on modem technology.
>
>
> I was around then, but managed to ignore him.
>

I think that each of the people posting here is probably somewhat
unusual. For example, most of the people that I talk to about my
Cingular billing experience have never heard of newsgroups. I find
them to be extremely useful sources of opinion and knowledge and I
don't mind when someone writes a post that is highly opinionated, as
long as its polite and doesn't descend into personal attacks. But the
very fact that you're here, trading info, proves that you are somewhat
unusual.

I think that I overreacted to John's post. His came after several
others that called me things like "idiot", told me to "grow up", etc.
I may be an idiot. I may need to grow up but I never expected such a
one-sided wave of opinion to hit me about my Cingular bill.

No one had any sympathy for my position. It has really taken me aback
and caused me to rethink my whole opinion. At first, I thought that
this group must be just populated with Cell Phone sales guys but then
I realized in talking to some highy successful people at work that
many people share your opinions.

I still think Cingular's managers are attempting to drive their short
term profitability off the people who go over their planned minutes,
rather than service, and that that is going to hurt them in the long
run. I also think that serving the consumer and going beyond what
people expect is what really drives long term profitability.

What if they sent you a voice mail or text message asking you to sign
up for a new plan when you go over your minutes? Then, instead of
having someone like me, complaining about them to 1000 strangers,
you'd have someone locked in for years at a higher rate.

But I do acknowledge that I should pay for the services that I have
received.

And I will try to be a lot less terse in some of the responses that I
write at work. My own style of replying is not quite as strong as
John's , I don't think, but probably comes close on many occasions and
probably causes me as many problems when people get their backs up as
my knowledge or expertise solves.

For example, the other day a co-worker corrupted a huge (1GB+) Access
database. She was complaining that the IT guys hadn't responded to her
calls and that she didn't know what she was going to do. I offered to
help. The file was still there but when it opened, it just looked
blank. After about a half an hour of getting rid of spyware, etc. I
thought of trying to recover the data from within the database.

I was in the middle of making a new database for her and had already
sucked in most of the tables, queries and so on from the corrupted
..mdb file when the IT guys finally showed. They just wanted to do a
restore and I thought that losing a day's worth of work would be a
problem. I just asked for 10 minutes and the help desk guy stomped off
to get his manager. I thought that I explained myself. I thought that
there was no risk to anything that I was doing, but I pissed off the
IT guys and instead of being lauded as a hero, saving the day, I had
to spend a half hour explaining to my manager what I had been doing
and why I was cutting in on IT's turf.

I was frustrated beyond belief. Here I was just trying to help someone
and look what happened. But I realize that had I not hit this poor guy
with an overload of knowledge, trying to get him to deviate from his
procedure, I had already done a lot to help and I would have saved
myself hours and hours of explaining. I need to stop being so invested
in my opinions. It really doesn't matter if I am right. I will just
offer my opinion the one time and then walk away. If they want to do
things their way, in a less efficient way, so what?

You can't fight city hall every day of the week and I am tired of
having to do it every day of every week.

Lastly, for those of you who like to comment on things, I have a new
blog about a totally unrelated subject-- online dating. (John, cut me
some slack just this once. Yes, I'm off topic.) Well, it's not totally
unrelated. I did wrack up at least half of my cell phone bill talking
to my new girlfriend.

At any rate, it's at http://notmtwain.typepad.com It's called
Adventures in Matchland.

Cheers!



"CSS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<kdP%c.10906$w%[email protected]>...
> John's been known for his "opinions" since the days of, oh, 300 baud modems
> (or at least he'd like to think he's been an "expert" that long). I find it
> funny that he's surfaced here as I had killfiled him since his days of rants
> on modem technology. There's little likelihood he'll ever change, give the
> past years of his behavior. Your best bet is to add him to your killfile
> and move on
>
>
> "John Bescherer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I checked out your web page before I posted my reply. You obviously
> > know an awful lot about many things.
> >
> > And your reply was at least written politely, even if if was rather
> > cold.Why not be a little nicer? You know, as Batman says, "If only he
> > would use his powers for good instead of evil."
> >
> > Give it a try for two weeks. You'll like it. You'll probably even get
> > a lot more business as a result.
> >
> > Give it up John. Whoever or whatever got you started was wrong too.
> > But you can do better.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:07:27 -0500, "Irrlaneth" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Though I really hate to do this I am adding Navas and Elmo to my block list
>as they both amount to trolls.

Please stop top-posting or I'll be forced to PLONK you.

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
06:21:30 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <sxS%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Show us this charter, ...
>>
>> It's posted here about every two weeks ("FAQ: Welcome to
>> alt.cellular.cingular!"), and thus is readily available on Google Groups.
>
>Who posts it?

I do.

>And why would you make someone use Google to get it,

I don't -- that's just another option.

>when you could just
>post it yourself right here and now?

I post it every two weeks, the maximum permitted by Usenet guidelines, and
sufficient for ready access from any decent news provider.

>Because you're full of hot air.

You're full of baloney (as usual, and as the record shows).

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

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

> >when you could just
> >post it yourself right here and now?
>
> I post it every two weeks, the maximum permitted by Usenet guidelines,

Oh, crap. You act as if there's a law or something.

Even under the law, judges have--and use--discretion.

But you act as if the world will come apart if you post it more often
than this mythical "maximum permitted by Usenet guidelines".

You're such an ass.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 09 Sep 2004
14:13:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> I post it every two weeks, the maximum permitted by Usenet guidelines,

>You're such an ass.

You're apparently as lazy as you are rude.

Since you seem incapable of anything constructive, here's a direct link:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=wB9Zc.11341[email protected]>

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

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

In <[email protected]> on 9 Sep 2004 03:49:34
-0700, [email protected] (John Bescherer) wrote:

>I still think Cingular's managers are attempting to drive their short
>term profitability off the people who go over their planned minutes,
>rather than service, and that that is going to hurt them in the long
>run.

This has been the pattern of cellular ever since bucket rate plans were
introduced. Cingular broke with tradition in offering Roll Over, which makes
it easier to manage ups and downs in your usage. (To get started, you can
even sign up for a high minute plan, bank the unused minutes after a month or
two, and switch down to a lower plan.) SprintPCS now has the Fair and
Flexible plans, which is another way to manage ups and downs in your usage.

>I also think that serving the consumer and going beyond what
>people expect is what really drives long term profitability.

You may be right -- time will tell -- but thus far consumers have seemed
mostly interested in the lowest possible price.

>What if they sent you a voice mail or text message asking you to sign
>up for a new plan when you go over your minutes? Then, instead of
>having someone like me, complaining about them to 1000 strangers,
>you'd have someone locked in for years at a higher rate.

That's a good suggestion, but in the meantime, why not keep an eye on your
usage? Your phone probably has a minutes counter, and most carriers now have
easy ways to check your current usage.

>Lastly, for those of you who like to comment on things, I have a new
>blog about a totally unrelated subject-- online dating. (John, cut me
>some slack just this once. Yes, I'm off topic.) ...

I have no problem with some off-topic content in an otherwise on-topic post.
The Rule of Reason does apply. ;-)

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