RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Hmm, he claims he has no position, yet he argued voraciously against
>>alt.cellular.t-mobile! alt.cellular.t-mobile was to end the confusion
>>over the newsgroup with the name of a non-existent carrier.
>
> Wrong again. I simply listed that as one of the arguments against a new
> newsgroup.
>

You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup, which has a fairly broad
support (you were just about the only critic).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

---

› See More: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Actually, is there a significant charter for alt.cellular.attws?
>
> Why not look it up for yourself?
>

I don't particular care if there is. What I was actually wondering is if
there is one, would you start posting it every couple of days.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:51:40 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hmm, he claims he has no position, yet he argued voraciously against
>>>alt.cellular.t-mobile! alt.cellular.t-mobile was to end the confusion
>>>over the newsgroup with the name of a non-existent carrier.
>>
>> Wrong again. I simply listed that as one of the arguments against a new
>> newsgroup.
>
>You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup,

I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
well.

>which has a fairly broad
>support (you were just about the only critic).

Constructive criticism isn't the same thing as taking a position against
something.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>You didn't post any arguments for the newsgroup,
>
> I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
> well.
>

Hmm ... I don't "recall" any constructive advice. I did get some
"constructive" advice from some friends in either octanews.general or
mn.general, I forget which group I asked the question in.

>>which has a fairly broad
>>support (you were just about the only critic).
>
> Constructive criticism isn't the same thing as taking a position against
> something.
>

It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
significantly different.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
09:20:12 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
>> well.
>
>Hmm ... I don't "recall" any constructive advice. ...

Even though I reminded you? Then probably because of the chip on your
shoulder. Again, what I actually said, way back in the beginning
<http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo>, was:

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.

>> Constructive criticism isn't the same thing as taking a position against
>> something.
>
>It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>significantly different.

It was clearly constructive.

Have a nice day, and have the last word -- further "discussion" is clearly
pointless.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006 07:54:21 -0500,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Actually, is there a significant charter for alt.cellular.attws?
>>
>> Why not look it up for yourself?
>
>I don't particular care if there is. What I was actually wondering is if
>there is one, would you start posting it every couple of days.

Of course not.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
> 09:20:12 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I actually offered constructive advice on how to go about it, and wished it
>>> well.
>>
>>Hmm ... I don't "recall" any constructive advice. ...
>
> Even though I reminded you? Then probably because of the chip on your
> shoulder. Again, what I actually said, way back in the beginning
> <http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo>, was:
>
> 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.
>

Indeed ... after the group had been successfully created and just needed to
proppagate. Remember this posting by you? http://tinyurl.com/jttgp

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>> >significantly different.
>>
>> It was clearly constructive.
>
>man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>the balls to deny that you wrote it???

Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
much easier for you.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://NavasGroup.com/>

In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
> 12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <%[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> >It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>>> >significantly different.
>>>
>>> It was clearly constructive.
>>
>>man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>>the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>
> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
> much easier for you.
>

As did I. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/jttgp

Your comments were towards my first attempt to send a control message that
resulted in a cancel by a fascist admin somewhere in Holland, but support
prevailed with a directed approach. Indeed, by the time you wrote that, the
group was already created on ISC and was beginning to move. I will even give
you credit that the third item was mildly constructive, but the remainder of
what you have written, including and especially what I posted was clearly not
constructive. In particular:

"There will be confusion with the existing group, as I've explained
previously."

and

"Cingular existed as a separate cellular carrier without an existing
newsgroup."

and

"T-Mobile USA is already served by a newsgroup."

T-Mobile is not Voicestream. It is history that Voicestream became T-Mobile,
but T-Mobile is NOT Voicestream ... and such a group is not sufficient for
what T-Mobile is today.

In fact, this has gotten way out of hand and is in fact, now, t-mobile
specific. Followups redirected.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <%[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>>> significantly different.
>> It was clearly constructive.
>
> man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
> the balls to deny that you wrote it???

Did you ever see the movie “A Guide for a Married Man”?

In the flick Walter Matthau asks Robert Morse what to do if his wife
nails him with another woman.

Morse's response:

“Deny, deny, deny.”

“But what if…?”

"Deny."

“But suppose she walks right in and finds…?”

"Deny."

“Right there. In her bed. Right in front of her…?”

"Deny.

Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"

In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>> >the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>>
>> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
>> much easier for you.
>
> Ummmm.....where is that URL?
>
> I noticed you *conveniently* forgot to include it in your above
> posting...
>

In all fairness to John, it isn't hard to find.

http://tinyurl.com/qhxjo

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:25:29 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 23 May 2006
>> 12:58:25 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <%[email protected]>,
>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>>>> >significantly different.
>>>>
>>>> It was clearly constructive.
>>>
>>>man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>>>the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>>
>> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
>> much easier for you.
>
>As did I. Here it is again: http://tinyurl.com/jttgp
>
>Your comments were towards my first attempt to send a control message that
>resulted in a cancel by a fascist admin somewhere in Holland, but support

Nice characterization. Speaks volumes.

>prevailed with a directed approach. Indeed, by the time you wrote that, the
>group was already created on ISC and was beginning to move. I will even give
>you credit that the third item was mildly constructive, but the remainder of
>what you have written, including and especially what I posted was clearly not
>constructive. In particular:

I disagree. I think you have a rather narrow 'if you're not with me
you're against me' attitude.

>"There will be confusion with the existing group, as I've explained
>previously."

True.

>"Cingular existed as a separate cellular carrier without an existing
>newsgroup."

True.

>"T-Mobile USA is already served by a newsgroup."

True.

>T-Mobile is not Voicestream. It is history that Voicestream became T-Mobile,
>but T-Mobile is NOT Voicestream ... and such a group is not sufficient for
>what T-Mobile is today.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the many others that use it that
way.

>In fact, this has gotten way out of hand and is in fact, now, t-mobile
>specific. Followups redirected.

True from the beginning -- it's now a bit late to get religion --
original newsgroups restored.

On Tue, 23 May 2006 17:11:42 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>> >the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>>
>> Nope. What I've written is correct. I even posted the URL to make it that
>> much easier for you.
>
>Ummmm.....where is that URL?
>
>I noticed you *conveniently* forgot to include it in your above
>posting...

It's readily available in my post earlier in the thread. Please do keep
up.

On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <%[email protected]>,
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
>>>> significantly different.
>>> It was clearly constructive.
>>
>> man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
>> the balls to deny that you wrote it???
>
>Did you ever see the movie “A Guide for a Married Man”?
>
>In the flick Walter Matthau asks Robert Morse what to do if his wife
>nails him with another woman.
>
>Morse's response:
>
>“Deny, deny, deny.”
>
>“But what if…?”
>
>"Deny."
>
>“But suppose she walks right in and finds…?”
>
>"Deny."
>
>“Right there. In her bed. Right in front of her…?”
>
>"Deny.
>
>Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
>the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
>who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
>just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"

Highly relevant to alt.cellular.*
Not.

In article <[email protected]>
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> >> In article <%[email protected]>,
> >> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> It wasn't constructive criticism, it was simply an argument against, which is
> >>>> significantly different.
> >>> It was clearly constructive.
> >>
> >> man, John--when it's so easy to go back and see what you wrote, you have
> >> the balls to deny that you wrote it???
> >
> >Did you ever see the movie “A Guide for a Married Man”?
> >
> >In the flick Walter Matthau asks Robert Morse what to do if his wife
> >nails him with another woman.
> >
> >Morse's response:
> >
> >“Deny, deny, deny.”
> >
> >“But what if…?”
> >
> >"Deny."
> >
> >“But suppose she walks right in and finds…?”
> >
> >"Deny."
> >
> >“Right there. In her bed. Right in front of her…?”
> >
> >"Deny.
> >
> >Deny everything. As your wife stands over your marriage bed, deny that
> >the woman she is staring at even exists. When your wife demanded to know
> >who this woman is as she (and you) get hurriedly dressed two feet away,
> >just repeat “What? What are you talking about? What woman?”"
>
> Highly relevant to alt.cellular.*
> Not.

And just how did your post fit in, hypocrite.