FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

>>whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
>
> Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows because
> CNN sucks!

If you ask a foreigner, he will tell you that the wind blows because
Democrats in power suck, and Republicans in power blow.

==AD

---

› See More: FOX News Trashed ATT Wireless

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>>United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
>>are supposed to think.
>>
>
>
> Most media in the US is decidedly NOT right wing.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
>

I think he was just referring to FoxNews, not media in general.

==AD

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Been There wrote on [Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT]:
| >> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
| > So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other
boys,
| > the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
| > bias", I see it as RIGHT!
|
| Well then, you'd be wrong.
|
|
| >> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
| > Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows
because
| > CNN sucks!
|
| Yes, CNN does suck. US news media isn't about NEWS, it's about SELLING
| ADS. So, Fox panders to the right wing fascists, and CNN panders to
| whoever will watch them.
|

that's why there's the BBC (does not air any advertisements, completely
taxpayer and govt funded). quite objective in its reports.

There is something to this, but it depends on what you are measuring. In
our family we have ATTWS, T-Mobile, and Verizion. Verizon seems to have the
most stable and available service. AT&T has the coolest phones and
technology. T-Mobile has the best data prices and is very liberal with
things like unlock codes.

jerry

I disagree that BBC is objective. I was watching BBC coverage of the Iraq
ware and it was *far* from objective. They take there sides just like most
other news outlets.

"Andy M --Tampa Bay--" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Tzwzb.19085$%[email protected]...
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Been There wrote on [Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT]:
> | >> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
> | > So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other
> boys,
> | > the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right wing
> | > bias", I see it as RIGHT!
> |
> | Well then, you'd be wrong.
> |
> |
> | >> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased news
> | > Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows
> because
> | > CNN sucks!
> |
> | Yes, CNN does suck. US news media isn't about NEWS, it's about SELLING
> | ADS. So, Fox panders to the right wing fascists, and CNN panders to
> | whoever will watch them.
> |
>
> that's why there's the BBC (does not air any advertisements, completely
> taxpayer and govt funded). quite objective in its reports.
>
>

Aboutdakota wrote:
>
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> "Harry Krause" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>All this proves is that there is an excess of right-wingers in the
>>>United States who tune in Faux News for their daily feeding of what they
>>>are supposed to think.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most media in the US is decidedly NOT right wing.
>>
>> Tom Veldhouse
>>
>>
>
> I think he was just referring to FoxNews, not media in general.
>
> ==AD
>


That is correct. Fox is blatantly right-wing in its news and editorial
coverage. As is, for example, the Moonie newspaper, the Washington Times.



--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

"Aboutdakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > Aboutdakota wrote:
> >
> >>If you live in the MSP area, Cingular Nation is great. With a T62u,
> >>you can roam on T-Mobile (GSM), AT&T (¿GSM and TDMA? and AMPS), and
> >>Verizon Wireless (AMPS). Coverage cannot be beat with that phone.
> >>
> >>AD
> >
> >
> > If you live in Minneapolis, you can not buy service from Cingular.
Cingular
> > roams primarily onto AT&T in the Twin Cities with T-Mobile probably as
the
> > preferred GSM partner.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
>
> Yes, however, if you have Cingular from another market, you can ROAM in
> MSP. If you are on the Cingular Nation plan, you are required to have a
> GAIT phone (GSM/TDMA/AMPS 850/1900).
>

I just pointed it out because you said "live" in MSP area.

Tom Veldhouse

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:54:53 -0500, Harry Krause <[email protected]>
wrote:

> That is correct. Fox is blatantly right-wing in its news and editorial
> coverage. As is, for example, the Moonie newspaper, the Washington Times.

Fox News is at least open about their predisposition, unlike CNN/MSNBC,
etc.

But despite their "fair and balanced" tagline, it's quite obvious
that they're not trying to pretend to be truly balanced, unlike the
vast majority of other US news sources such as CNN and the New York Times,
which are blatantly liberal but try and make viewers/readers believe
otherwise.

--
Mark

That is true, as they were looking at their interests (their armed forces)
in Iraq. But compared to FOX and CNN, they are waaay more objective.
Everything is relative. Yes, there is no purely objective network in the
business. They got to have a slant somewhere. Oh yes, and that British guy
(spy/govt dude?) who was killed/committed suicide because the BBC revelaed
his identity. That was bad piece of journalism.

I think I'll stick to FARK.com and ****edcompany.com

"Thadius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| I disagree that BBC is objective. I was watching BBC coverage of the Iraq
| ware and it was *far* from objective. They take there sides just like
most
| other news outlets.
|
| "Andy M --Tampa Bay--" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:Tzwzb.19085$%[email protected]...
| > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | Been There wrote on [Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT]:
| > | >> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,
| > | > So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other
| > boys,
| > | > the majority now has a source for news. You may see it as "right
wing
| > | > bias", I see it as RIGHT!
| > |
| > | Well then, you'd be wrong.
| > |
| > |
| > | >> whereas CNN moves where the wind blows. To get somewhat unbiased
news
| > | > Thought I would never see anyone admit this! I guess the wind blows
| > because
| > | > CNN sucks!
| > |
| > | Yes, CNN does suck. US news media isn't about NEWS, it's about SELLING
| > | ADS. So, Fox panders to the right wing fascists, and CNN panders to
| > | whoever will watch them.
| > |
| >
| > that's why there's the BBC (does not air any advertisements, completely
| > taxpayer and govt funded). quite objective in its reports.
| >
| >
|
|
|

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:37:11 GMT, "Been There" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>> Fox News is consistent in it's complete and utter right wing bias,

>So what! After years of constant leftist propaganda from the other boys,
>the majority now has a source for news.

The majority has yet to learn the difference between "news" and
"editorial comment".

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:54:53 -0500, Harry Krause
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>That is correct. Fox is blatantly right-wing in its news and editorial
>coverage. As is, for example, the Moonie newspaper, the Washington Times.

The Washington Times is decidedly *NOT* right-wing. It would have to
move FAR to the left to be right-wing.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:02 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Does the carrier have to let your number go even if they claim that you are
>under contract and owe them a cancellation fee?

Only according to the FCC. How that affects what the companies
actually do - at least until the FCC lands on one of them for refusing
to release a number - remains to be seen.

> I'm trying to convince my
>sister-in-law to just leave AT&T and let them try to get the cancellation
>fee. She's had them for five years, never got a new phone or renewed her
>contract (and turned down offers of new phones because she didn't want to
>extend her contract), but they claim she is under contract. When she turned
>down a new phone the last time, the rep told her he was giving her free long
>distance because she was such a good, long-time customer. She explicitly
>asked if this would put her into a contract and he said no, but it did put
>her under contract.

If she didn't agree to anything that would renew her contract, she's
not under contract. (Since I'm usually not under contract, Verizon
has tried that tactic with me many times.) If they try to collect an
ETF, tell them (or, rather, have her tell them) to be prepared to
present the signed contract as evidence, or face a countersuit for
frivolous suit. Tell her to make sure she gets the rep's name (at the
beginning of the call) and to tell the rep that the rep, personally,
will be named in the countersuit, unless the rep gets AT&T's legal
department in on the call immediately.

The legal department will advise the rep that there's no valid
contract and to drop the empty threats. (Making those threats is
actually illegal, and can subject AT&T to large fines.)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:23:53 GMT, "JerryK" <[email protected]> posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>There is something to this, but it depends on what you are measuring. In
>our family we have ATTWS, T-Mobile, and Verizion. Verizon seems to have the
>most stable and available service. AT&T has the coolest phones and
>technology. T-Mobile has the best data prices and is very liberal with
>things like unlock codes.

Verizon is even more liberal with unlock codes - you don't need any,
since their phones aren't locked.

Al Klein wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:23:53 GMT, "JerryK" <[email protected]> posted
> in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>
>>There is something to this, but it depends on what you are measuring. In
>>our family we have ATTWS, T-Mobile, and Verizion. Verizon seems to have the
>>most stable and available service. AT&T has the coolest phones and
>>technology. T-Mobile has the best data prices and is very liberal with
>>things like unlock codes.
>
>
> Verizon is even more liberal with unlock codes - you don't need any,
> since their phones aren't locked.

Yeah, but many CDMA carriers will not activate or allow an ESN change to
a phone that was not purchased from them. So, for instance, if only
Verizon offers the Nokia 6969q, but Sprint offers teh 6969b, Verizon can
decline to activate the ESN of the 6969b because it offers the 6969q.

==AD

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:05:27 -0600, Aboutdakota
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Yeah, but many CDMA carriers will not activate or allow an ESN change to
>a phone that was not purchased from them. So, for instance, if only
>Verizon offers the Nokia 6969q, but Sprint offers teh 6969b, Verizon can
>decline to activate the ESN of the 6969b because it offers the 6969q.

Verizon doesn't. (I activated a Sprint 6035 on Verizon with just one
request for an ESN change.) From what I hear Altell doesn't. Sprint
won't activate any phone not sold by them.

Who am I leaving out?