Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 73
  1. #46
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Dec 2004
    15:29:26 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

    >If someone wants to ignore what I write because they have a problem with
    >my sig, that's their problem, not mine.


    Really? You don't care if anyone responds to you or not? Then why post at
    all?

    >If they're so ideologically
    >stiff necked that they can't stand to see anything that disagrees with
    >their narrow views, I don't care whether they read my messages or not.
    >Sure there's a chance that I might pose a question that they might be
    >able to answer, but choose not to answer because of my sig; however,
    >that says more about them than it does about me, and what it says is not
    >complimentary.


    It actually says more about you.

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



    See More: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**




  2. #47
    Michelle Steiner
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    > >If someone wants to ignore what I write because they have a problem
    > >with my sig, that's their problem, not mine.

    >
    > Really? You don't care if anyone responds to you or not?


    I didn't say that. If someone is so anal-retentive and has such
    ideological blinders that he won't read my messages because of my .sig,
    he probably doesn't have anything worth reading himself.

    > >If they're so ideologically stiff necked that they can't stand to
    > >see anything that disagrees with their narrow views, I don't care
    > >whether they read my messages or not. Sure there's a chance that I
    > >might pose a question that they might be able to answer, but choose
    > >not to answer because of my sig; however, that says more about them
    > >than it does about me, and what it says is not complimentary.

    >
    > It actually says more about you.


    Not really.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.



  3. #48
    Michelle Steiner
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
    > >>
    > >> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
    > >> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.

    > >
    > > I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
    > > posts by my sig.

    >
    > A convenient myopia.


    But not on my part.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.



  4. #49
    Michelle Steiner
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "John Richards" <[email protected]hole.invalid> wrote:

    > And I repeat, it is naive to assume that a provocative sig will not
    > result in comments, or that it won't color most people's perceptions
    > of the poster.


    Oh, I'm not surprised that extremists froth at the mouth at my .sig, but
    by definition, they're irrational.

    > I happen to be a Republican, but I never would have entertained the
    > idea of posting an "Impeach Clinton" sig in a non-political
    > newsgroup. Politics, like religion, is best left to newsgroups that
    > deal with those inflammatory issues.


    And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups that
    deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig, I'll
    fight back.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.



  5. #50
    Simon Templar
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > I have no desire to deal with telemarketers, spammers, or any other
    > pushy, obnoxious sales type who ignores my wishes and contacts me in
    > an effort to bolster his bottom line - particularly if I'm the one
    > paying for the call, and as far as I'm concerned, the best place for
    > telespammmers is in landfills.
    >


    Well I am glad I don't pay for incoming calls, it is unheard of here in
    Australia. If that were the case I would rarely answer the phone.


    --
    73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
    http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452



  6. #51
    Joseph
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:24:12 +1100, Simon Templar <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Well I am glad I don't pay for incoming calls, it is unheard of here in
    >Australia. If that were the case I would rarely answer the phone.


    Of course you don't care! Someone else is paying the freight for your
    call and is paying up to 10 times the rate of a regular call. Good
    deal for you. Bad deal for them. Similarly I would never call
    someone on their mobile if I knew that it was going to cost me a
    fortune to call them.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




  7. #52
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
    01:43:31 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> And I repeat, it is naive to assume that a provocative sig will not
    >> result in comments, or that it won't color most people's perceptions
    >> of the poster.

    >
    >Oh, I'm not surprised that extremists froth at the mouth at my .sig, but
    >by definition, they're irrational.


    Your .sig itself is extremist.

    >> I happen to be a Republican, but I never would have entertained the
    >> idea of posting an "Impeach Clinton" sig in a non-political
    >> newsgroup. Politics, like religion, is best left to newsgroups that
    >> deal with those inflammatory issues.

    >
    >And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups that
    >deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig, I'll
    >fight back.


    That would be inappropriate. "Two wrongs don't make a right." Off-topic
    discussions should be taken someplace else.

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



  8. #53
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
    01:40:13 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <%[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >If someone wants to ignore what I write because they have a problem
    >> >with my sig, that's their problem, not mine.

    >>
    >> Really? You don't care if anyone responds to you or not?

    >
    >I didn't say that. If someone is so anal-retentive and has such
    >ideological blinders that he won't read my messages because of my .sig,
    >he probably doesn't have anything worth reading himself.


    I don't think that follows at all -- cell phones are politics are totally
    unrelated, and quite reasonable people can be turned off by your extremist
    sig.

    >> >If they're so ideologically stiff necked that they can't stand to
    >> >see anything that disagrees with their narrow views, I don't care
    >> >whether they read my messages or not. Sure there's a chance that I
    >> >might pose a question that they might be able to answer, but choose
    >> >not to answer because of my sig; however, that says more about them
    >> >than it does about me, and what it says is not complimentary.

    >>
    >> It actually says more about you.

    >
    >Not really.


    You are the one with the blinders and with the extreme views.

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



  9. #54
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
    01:40:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
    >> >>
    >> >> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
    >> >> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
    >> >
    >> > I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
    >> > posts by my sig.

    >>
    >> A convenient myopia.

    >
    >But not on my part.


    Just the opposite.

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



  10. #55
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    "Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> And I repeat, it is naive to assume that a provocative sig will not
    >> result in comments, or that it won't color most people's perceptions
    >> of the poster.

    >
    > Oh, I'm not surprised that extremists froth at the mouth at my .sig, but
    > by definition, they're irrational.


    It's a red herring to bring in "extremists." I happen to be a very moderate,
    center-of-the-road Republican, yet I take offense at your inflammatory
    sig. Somehow, your political sensibilities have gone awry.

    --
    John Richards



  11. #56
    Simon Templar
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    Joseph wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:24:12 +1100, Simon Templar <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Well I am glad I don't pay for incoming calls, it is unheard of here in
    >>Australia. If that were the case I would rarely answer the phone.

    >
    >
    > Of course you don't care! Someone else is paying the freight for your
    > call and is paying up to 10 times the rate of a regular call. Good
    > deal for you. Bad deal for them. Similarly I would never call
    > someone on their mobile if I knew that it was going to cost me a
    > fortune to call them.
    >


    Why should I pay for someone to ring me, especially if I don't know
    them? If someone wants to call me they can pay for it, if they choose
    not to it can't be too important!


    --
    73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
    http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/cli...IENT_NO=157452



  12. #57
    Michelle Steiner
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    > >And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups
    > >that deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig,
    > >I'll fight back.

    >
    > That would be inappropriate. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
    > Off-topic discussions should be taken someplace else.


    So it's OK to attack me, but it's not OK for me to fight back when
    attacked?

    Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.

    --
    Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.



  13. #58
    Philip
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**



    "Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
    >>>>
    >>>> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
    >>>> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
    >>>
    >>> I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
    >>> posts by my sig.

    >>
    >> A convenient myopia.

    >
    > But not on my part.


    ALL on your part. You CRAVE the moments of the lime light your sig brings.
    Own that fact. I'll let you have the final word.
    --

    - Philip





  14. #59
    Quick
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

    John Navas wrote:
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec
    > 2004 01:40:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> "Philip" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>> It's just a sig. Can't you simply ignore it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Like it or not, Usenet posters are judged by their sigs.
    >>>>> Michelle's sig distracts from her otherwise sensible posts.
    >>>>
    >>>> I do not see how any reasonable person would be distracted from my
    >>>> posts by my sig.
    >>>
    >>> A convenient myopia.

    >>
    >> But not on my part.

    >
    > Just the opposite.


    No. She is right, you're myopic. The sig is there to incite. It did.
    You're simply dealing with a (very successful) troll. As always
    the solution is to ignore the troller. If she actually wants to be read
    the sig will dissappear. If the main intention is to troll then a lack
    of any response would also result in the sig dissappearing. Kind
    of fitting, especially in this case. Public censure is very democratic.

    -Quick





  15. #60
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone - National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
    09:38:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <_5jvd.11643$_3.12[email protected]>,
    > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >And I tend to keep message content on those topics to newsgroups
    >> >that deal with those issues; however, when I'm attacked for my sig,
    >> >I'll fight back.

    >>
    >> That would be inappropriate. "Two wrongs don't make a right."
    >> Off-topic discussions should be taken someplace else.

    >
    >So it's OK to attack me, but it's not OK for me to fight back when
    >attacked?


    Neither are OK.

    >Keep in mind that *I* did not start any off-topic discussion.


    Actually you did, with your inflammatory sig.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast