Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
  1. #16
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?



    >
    > "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...


    > >
    > > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005

    > 15:26:06 -0500,
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >False advertising is illegal, no?

    > >
    > > Yes, but this isn't that.


    Thats what a trial of the lawsuit will determine, not your
    pontification.

    > >
    > > >People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not

    > what
    > > >they think will happen when they test it.

    > >
    > > I see no evidence of that.


    The lawsuit is evidence of that.



    See More: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?




  2. #17
    Jack Zwick
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:13:05 -0500,
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...

    >
    > >> I see no evidence of that.

    >
    > >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.

    >
    > From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
    >
    > >You really could
    > >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a Bluetooth
    > >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.

    >
    > It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
    >
    > >If you want to
    > >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days and
    > >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're pretty
    > >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for anyone if
    > >they had a problem.

    >
    > There is no false advertising.


    Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.



  3. #18
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

    You're still an idiot and really do sound like a broken record. At least I
    put a little spin on some of my posts and actually have a thought behind to
    some of the things I say. Idiot, if the lawsuit does pass and it does become
    some thing...what in the world are you going to say since all you seem to be
    able to say is "there is no false advertising". I know...you'll be able to
    say nothing since you really can't think on your own and you're actually too
    scared to even consider the fact that you could be wrong about some thing
    publicly.
    I guess time will tell....and I don't expect anything exciting from your
    response.

    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005

    02:13:05 -0500,
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...

    >
    > >> I see no evidence of that.

    >
    > >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.

    >
    > From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
    >
    > >You really could
    > >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a Bluetooth
    > >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.

    >
    > It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
    >
    > >If you want to
    > >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days

    and
    > >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're

    pretty
    > >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for anyone

    if
    > >they had a problem.

    >
    > There is no false advertising.
    >
    > >You'd be another great asset to a company like Verizon.
    > >Or any other type of customer service company. You'd stick it right to

    them,
    > >with a nice big smile. I'm an asshole some times and maybe get into

    heated
    > >arguments with people...but you're just a dick and have no empathy for th

    e
    > >poor people that were lured in by false Bluetooth advertising.

    >
    > There is no false advertising.
    >
    > >****, there's
    > >a lawsuit on it!

    >
    > Which means nothing.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>






  4. #19
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan
    2005 12:46:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:13:05 -0500,
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]...

    >>
    >> >> I see no evidence of that.

    >>
    >> >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.

    >>
    >> From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
    >>
    >> >You really could
    >> >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a Bluetooth
    >> >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.

    >>
    >> It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
    >>
    >> >If you want to
    >> >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days and
    >> >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're pretty
    >> >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for anyone if
    >> >they had a problem.

    >>
    >> There is no false advertising.

    >
    >Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.


    Fair enough: Thus far there hasn't been a showing of anything even remotely
    close to false advertising, just vague claims. You can only pursue a case for
    misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements with alleged misrepresentation
    and (2) showing the representations in those statements to be false or
    misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the Bluetooth implementation
    would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of actual misrepresentation,
    there can't be a case for misrepresentation.

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



  5. #20
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:54:34 -0500,
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You're still an idiot and really do sound like a broken record. At least I
    >put a little spin on some of my posts and actually have a thought behind to
    >some of the things I say. Idiot, if the lawsuit does pass and it does become
    >some thing...what in the world are you going to say since all you seem to be
    >able to say is "there is no false advertising". I know...you'll be able to
    >say nothing since you really can't think on your own and you're actually too
    >scared to even consider the fact that you could be wrong about some thing
    >publicly.
    >I guess time will tell....


    It will indeed. I'm willing to bet that this doesn't even get certified as a
    class action. Care to take me up on that? ;-)

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



  6. #21
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

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

    In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan
    2005 12:45:11 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...

    >
    >> >
    >> > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005

    >> 15:26:06 -0500,
    >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > >False advertising is illegal, no?
    >> >
    >> > Yes, but this isn't that.

    >
    >Thats what a trial of the lawsuit will determine, not your
    >pontification.


    You can only pursue a case for misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements
    with alleged misrepresentation and (2) showing the representations in those
    statements to be false or misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the
    Bluetooth implementation would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of
    actual misrepresentation, there can't be a case for misrepresentation.

    >> > >People are buying this phone on the premise on what they've read...not

    >> what
    >> > >they think will happen when they test it.
    >> >
    >> > I see no evidence of that.

    >
    >The lawsuit is evidence of that.


    A lawsuit isn't evidence of anything.

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

    "A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
    "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
    than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]



  7. #22
    Guest

    Re: Verizon's answer to lawsuits?

    Of course we all know what will happen. Everything will settle out of the
    court system because Verizon Wireless doesn't want the bad publicity.
    "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan
    > 2005 12:46:27 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>,
    > > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005

    02:13:05 -0500,
    > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> >news:[email protected]...
    > >>
    > >> >> I see no evidence of that.
    > >>
    > >> >From your responses, you're just a dick. Plain and simple.
    > >>
    > >> From your responses, you're just a rude jerk. Plain and simple.
    > >>
    > >> >You really could
    > >> >care less if Verizon Wireless advertises certain functions of a

    Bluetooth
    > >> >phone, but then cripple those same functions it advertises.
    > >>
    > >> It isn't advertising any crippled functions.
    > >>
    > >> >If you want to
    > >> >actually blame the consumer because they didn't test it within 15 days

    and
    > >> >completely disregard the false advertising still stands then you're

    pretty
    > >> >much on the side of big brother and really wouldn't stick up for

    anyone if
    > >> >they had a problem.
    > >>
    > >> There is no false advertising.

    > >
    > >Thats what the lawsuit will determine, not your pontification.

    >
    > Fair enough: Thus far there hasn't been a showing of anything even

    remotely
    > close to false advertising, just vague claims. You can only pursue a case

    for
    > misrepresentation by showing: (1) statements with alleged

    misrepresentation
    > and (2) showing the representations in those statements to be false or
    > misleading. Since Verizon has disclosed what the Bluetooth implementation


    > would do, and since there hasn't been any showing of actual

    misrepresentation,
    > there can't be a case for misrepresentation.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>






  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12