Results 1 to 15 of 19
- 04-07-2006, 10:53 AM #1Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note it
has been tried in the past. The request to add the newgroup was followed by a
remove group request citing an indication that there needs to be interest.
The person who submitted the rmgroup was [email protected]. Please
considering sending a personal email to said person expressing your interest
in this new group.
Thanks in advance.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
› See More: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
- 04-07-2006, 12:24 PM #2John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 16:53:55
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>All, I have been attempting to get alt.cellular.t-mobile created. I note it
>has been tried in the past. The request to add the newgroup was followed by a
>remove group request citing an indication that there needs to be interest.
>The person who submitted the rmgroup was [email protected]. Please
>considering sending a personal email to said person expressing your interest
>in this new group.
>
>Thanks in advance.
Cross-posting restored.
1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
2. Why post this to alt.cellular.cingular?
3. Why not just keep trying to get it started yourself? The best way to do
that is to get one or more major news carriers on your side.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-07-2006, 12:41 PM #3Bert HymanGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[email protected] (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
[email protected]:
> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | [email protected]
- 04-07-2006, 01:12 PM #4John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30 GMT, Bert
Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>[email protected]:
>
>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>
>Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-07-2006, 02:23 PM #5BruceRGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile. I
may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
NOwhere.
I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
those with Voicestream offices).
Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
right?
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30
> GMT, Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>>
>> Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
>
> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has
> yet made a convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would
> actually be beneficial, rather than just causing chaos and confusion.
> That's the place to start.
- 04-07-2006, 02:23 PM #6Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
> convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
> rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
>
Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 04-07-2006, 02:38 PM #7John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:23:26
GMT, "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 18:41:30
>> GMT, Bert Hyman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] (John Navas) wrote in news:M7yZf.69779
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 1. What's wrong with alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream?
>>>
>>> Is there a GSM carrier by that name operating anywhere?
>>
>> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has
>> yet made a convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would
>> actually be beneficial, rather than just causing chaos and confusion.
>> That's the place to start.
Bottom posting restored. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom)
in mid-thread -- it's confusing, and considered a bit rude.
>I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
>Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
I'll grant you that.
>I
>may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
>easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
>'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
>NOwhere.
My guess is that the great majority of newcomers would use Google Groups, and
would thus find it quite readily. And there are of course other ways to find
it.
>I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
>probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
>those with Voicestream offices).
The "chaos & confusion" comes from having two newsgroups, an old
alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream and a new alt.cellular.t-mobile, with
some posts in one, some in the other, as well as erratic cross-posting. Long
experience with Usenet shows how hard it is to change posting habits -- you
can just order everyone to switch. It's by no means clear that a new
newsgroup would do any real good.
>Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
>Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
>Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
>right?
Pretty much, although the old alt.cellular.attws does still exist, and it will
be interesting to see if there's a migration back. It would at least be a
good test case for the proposed alt.cellular.t-mobile
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-07-2006, 02:41 PM #8John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 20:23:43
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> While the name may be clumsy and unintuitive, apparently no one has yet made a
>> convincing case that a new name and newsgroup would actually be beneficial,
>> rather than just causing chaos and confusion. That's the place to start.
>
>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
See my prior response to BruceR.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-07-2006, 04:16 PM #9Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I
>>may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
>>easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
>>'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
>>NOwhere.
>
> My guess is that the great majority of newcomers would use Google Groups, and
> would thus find it quite readily. And there are of course other ways to find
> it.
>
Uhm ... this is USENET ... not Google Groups!
>>I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
>>probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
>>those with Voicestream offices).
>
> The "chaos & confusion" comes from having two newsgroups, an old
> alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream and a new alt.cellular.t-mobile, with
> some posts in one, some in the other, as well as erratic cross-posting. Long
> experience with Usenet shows how hard it is to change posting habits -- you
> can just order everyone to switch. It's by no means clear that a new
> newsgroup would do any real good.
>
The old voicestream should die a timely death. We can issue a rmgroup
>
> Pretty much, although the old alt.cellular.attws does still exist, and it will
> be interesting to see if there's a migration back. It would at least be a
> good test case for the proposed alt.cellular.t-mobile
>
There is no need for a test case. If anything, the test case is in progress
as many if not most of the old attws users moved to cingular.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 04-07-2006, 04:19 PM #10Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
>
> See my prior response to BruceR.
>
Yes, and see my response. This is USENET and not Google Groups. USENET is
not organized for the benefit of Google Groups users.
BTW .. I am not intentionally stripping follow-ups, it is that my damn
newsreader (TIN) seems to enforce follow-ups to one group only (not no groups
and not all groups). I need to get my client fixed!
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
- 04-07-2006, 04:53 PM #11John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 07 Apr 2006 22:19:05
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Now, why would it cause confusion? Further, why does the current voicestream
>>>group NOT cause confusion. That seems like a silly argument to me.
>>
>> See my prior response to BruceR.
>
>Yes, and see my response. This is USENET and not Google Groups. USENET is
>not organized for the benefit of Google Groups users.
Irrelevant to my point, which is that Google Groups is a very popular and
convenient way to find newsgroups.
>BTW .. I am not intentionally stripping follow-ups, it is that my damn
>newsreader (TIN) seems to enforce follow-ups to one group only (not no groups
>and not all groups). I need to get my client fixed!
Maybe you should use Google Groups.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-07-2006, 11:00 PM #12Steve SobolGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
BruceR wrote:
> I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
> Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
I never EVER see anyone posting from outside the USA to the VoiceStream
newsgroup. T-Mobile, of course, is a multinational telecom concern that
operates wireless networks just about anywhere. Having alt.cellular.t-mobile
would, IMHO, encourage T-Mobile users outside the USA to post. No non-USA
T-Mo customers are likely to know or care that T-Mobile BORG'd VoiceStream
several years ago.
> I
> may be way off on this too, but a new TMo subscriber just might find it
> easier to locate the TMo group if it was called 'TMobile' rather than
> 'Voicestream' which, as a company, exists, let's see..., oh yeah,
> NOwhere.
And never existed outside the US.
> I think the name change "chaos & confusion" would be manageable and
> probably wouldn't result in looting or burning in most cities (except
> those with Voicestream offices).
>
> Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
> Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
> Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
> right?
Well, in fact, there is an alt.cellular.attws, so people can just go back to
using that newsgroup. But I don't hear Mr. Navas complaining about "chaos and
confusion" over the newgroup for alt.cellular.cingular.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, CA ** 888.480.4NET (4638) ** [email protected]
Resident of Southern California -
the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
- 04-07-2006, 11:51 PM #13Steve SobolGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
Steve Sobol wrote:
> BruceR wrote:
>> I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard
>> of Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
>
> I never EVER see anyone posting from outside the USA to the VoiceStream
> newsgroup. T-Mobile, of course, is a multinational telecom concern that
> operates wireless networks just about anywhere.
Mmmm, correction, that should be "Deutsche Telekom" (T-Mo's parent company).
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, CA ** 888.480.4NET (4638) ** [email protected]
Resident of Southern California -
the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
- 04-08-2006, 09:38 AM #14John NavasGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <e17***[email protected]> on Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:00:20 -0700, Steve
Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>BruceR wrote:
>> I know this may sound radical, but many people have never even heard of
>> Voicestream or may not know that it is the former name for TMobile.
>
>I never EVER see anyone posting from outside the USA to the VoiceStream
>newsgroup. T-Mobile, of course, is a multinational telecom concern that
>operates wireless networks just about anywhere. Having alt.cellular.t-mobile
>would, IMHO, encourage T-Mobile users outside the USA to post. No non-USA
>T-Mo customers are likely to know or care that T-Mobile BORG'd VoiceStream
>several years ago.
Good point. Perhaps a better new name would be alt.cellular.t-mobile.usa
>> Following your logic though, I suppose you will be against changing the
>> Cingular NG name to ATT even years after the change happens and the
>> Cingular name is long gone, for sake of avoiding "chaos and confusion,"
>> right?
>
>Well, in fact, there is an alt.cellular.attws, so people can just go back to
>using that newsgroup. But I don't hear Mr. Navas complaining about "chaos and
>confusion" over the newgroup for alt.cellular.cingular.
Of course not -- Cingular was a separate operation when I created
alt.cellular.cingular
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
- 04-08-2006, 05:55 PM #15Steve SobolGuest
Re: Proposal alt.cellular.t-mobile
John Navas wrote:
> Good point. Perhaps a better new name would be alt.cellular.t-mobile.usa
That's one way to go. It's just as easy to only do alt.cellular.t-mobile.
> Of course not -- Cingular was a separate operation when I created
> alt.cellular.cingular
well, that's true, its predecessors didn't have their own newsgroups, eh.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, CA ** 888.480.4NET (4638) ** [email protected]
Resident of Southern California -
the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular
Immerse Yourself in Sensual Massage on rubpage
in Chit Chat