Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53
  1. #16
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006
    08:56:10 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> OTOH:
    >>
    >> * The bulk of T-Mobile traffic is still being carried by
    >> alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream, as I had predicted --
    >> alt.cellular.t-mobile is mostly just some cross-posts from other newsgroups.

    >
    >Bulk ... I think the number of posts to both are nearly equal already ... and
    >they are not nearly all cross-posts.
    >
    >As far as your predictions go, you must be edging to claim "victory" as it is
    >just now becoming a globally proppagated group ...


    I'm simply reporting facts. I'm not engaged in any contest.

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



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




  2. #17
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006 09:44:20
    -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >
    >> Bulk ... I think the number of posts to both are nearly equal already ... and
    >> they are not nearly all cross-posts.

    >
    >This is true.


    Actually not.

    >And this is without Google Groups yet. Once Google Groups
    >picks it up, the numbers will change dramatically.


    Time will tell.

    >> As far as your predictions go, you must be edging to claim "victory" as it is
    >> just now becoming a globally proppagated group .

    >
    >It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
    >alt.cellular.t-mobile. Clearly alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream is
    >ridiculous, there has not been a carrier named Voicestream for several
    >years, and the group name was unwieldy even when it did exist.
    >
    >I think that Navas may be worrying about what happens to
    >alt.cellular.cingular when AT&T changes the name to AT&T Wireless. This
    >will result in the now-dormant alt.cellular.attws coming back as an
    >active group, with alt.cellular.cingular gradually becoming dormant. But
    >to resort to lying about the numbers of posts in order to support his
    >position is very weird.


    Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile, or
    any other newsgroup, past, present, or future.

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



  3. #18
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006
    12:29:15 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> I think that Navas may be worrying about what happens to
    >> alt.cellular.cingular when AT&T changes the name to AT&T Wireless. This
    >> will result in the now-dormant alt.cellular.attws coming back as an
    >> active group, with alt.cellular.cingular gradually becoming dormant. But
    >> to resort to lying about the numbers of posts in order to support his
    >> position is very weird.

    >
    >No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will no
    >longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of the
    >charter might have to cease ...


    I will continue to post the charter for this newsgroup as long as that seems
    to be useful.

    >Actually, is there a significant charter for alt.cellular.attws?


    Why not look it up for yourself?

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



  4. #19
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile
    >>

    >
    > With all due respect, we had this discussion before, and the general
    > interpretation of your comments is that you fealt it was confusing and
    > redundant and that you did not support it.


    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.

    There may be another possible explanation as to why he was against it.
    Since he constantly shills for Cingular, he may not like the fact that
    T-Mobile has been doing much better than Cingular in all the independent
    surveys, AND he may not like the fact that T-Mobile is really the only
    carrier with multi-national operations that include the U.S. (you can't
    really count Vodafone with Verizon).

    I don't think we'll ever know the real reasons for his behavior.
    Certainly we shouldn't count on ever getting the truth from Navas!



  5. #20
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006 15:27:04
    -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Total nonsense (as usual). I have no position on alt.cellular.t-mobile
    >>>

    >>
    >> With all due respect, we had this discussion before, and the general
    >> interpretation of your comments is that you fealt it was confusing and
    >> redundant and that you did not support it.

    >
    >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.

    >There may be another possible explanation as to why he was against it.
    >Since he constantly shills for Cingular, he may not like the fact that
    >T-Mobile has been doing much better than Cingular in all the independent
    >surveys, AND he may not like the fact that T-Mobile is really the only
    >carrier with multi-national operations that include the U.S. (you can't
    >really count Vodafone with Verizon).


    Wrong again. I simply post facts. I don't "shill" for anyone.

    >I don't think we'll ever know the real reasons for his behavior.
    >Certainly we shouldn't count on ever getting the truth from Navas!


    You just don't like that I show your many fabrications for what they are.

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



  6. #21
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006
    20:06:59 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > 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 "listed" it over and over again, for some psychotic reason. It was
    >like your pretty new pet--you couldn't let go of it.


    Wrong again. Have a nice day.

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



  7. #22
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
    >> alt.cellular.t-mobile.

    >
    > And that's the crux of it all right there.
    >
    > John has been unnaturally upset, vocally so, about this. That alone
    > should tell you how nuts he is.


    He's not nuts. Usually there's something behind it when he comes out so
    strongly against something that makes perfect sense to everyone else.

    When he attacks surveys from JD Power, Consumer Reports, ACSI, etc.,
    it's pretty easy to figure out why he's so upset--he constantly shills
    for Cingular, and Cingular consistently does very poorly in those
    surveys so it's almost his job to attack those surveys with any
    rationalization that he can come up with, no matter how patently ridiculous.

    In this instance, it has to be related to his opposition to new Usenet
    groups being formed when a company changes identities. While it makes
    sense to everyone else to form a new group that corresponds to the
    actual name of the company, to him it means that the group he formed is
    in danger of disappearing in a few years.






  8. #23
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    John Navas wrote:
    > Wrong again. I simply post facts. I don't "shill" for anyone.


    Unfortunately, some are fundamentally wrong as they are not found on
    Google and not within your realm of professional experience.

    Have a nice day.



  9. #24
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > John has been unnaturally upset

    because he isn't the moderator.







  10. #25
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    John Navas wrote:
    > I'm not engaged in any contest.


    Too bad, it might add some excitement to your dim Shirley McLaine universe.




  11. #26
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

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

    In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 May 2006 17:54:24
    -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's still very strange as to why Navas is so upset about
    >>> alt.cellular.t-mobile.

    >>
    >> And that's the crux of it all right there.
    >>
    >> John has been unnaturally upset, vocally so, about this. That alone
    >> should tell you how nuts he is.

    >
    >He's not nuts. Usually there's something behind it when he comes out so
    >strongly against something that makes perfect sense to everyone else.
    >
    >When he attacks surveys from JD Power, Consumer Reports, ACSI, etc.,
    >it's pretty easy to figure out why he's so upset--he constantly shills
    >for Cingular, and Cingular consistently does very poorly in those
    >surveys so it's almost his job to attack those surveys with any
    >rationalization that he can come up with, no matter how patently ridiculous.
    >
    >In this instance, it has to be related to his opposition to new Usenet
    >groups being formed when a company changes identities. While it makes
    >sense to everyone else to form a new group that corresponds to the
    >actual name of the company, to him it means that the group he formed is
    >in danger of disappearing in a few years.


    Wrong on all counts. Why am I not surprised.

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



  12. #27
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile


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

    >
    > Wrong again. I simply post facts.


    Where? Certainly not in the cellular groups. You avoid facts at every
    opportunity and simply post links to very poorly written, non-authoritative
    and far from mainstream content. Anybody can Google to find crap, but you
    are indeed the champion. I doubt that you understand half of what you
    present as "fact".

    > I don't "shill" for anyone.


    Whatever.

    >
    >>I don't think we'll ever know the real reasons for his behavior.
    >>Certainly we shouldn't count on ever getting the truth from Navas!

    >
    > You just don't like that I show your many fabrications for what they are.
    >


    You show them as the true real world view of things?





  13. #28
    bernard farquart
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile


    "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >
    >> No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will
    >> no
    >> longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of
    >> the
    >> charter might have to cease ...

    >
    > It's the only theory that makes any sense at all. Why would anyone be
    > upset about a new Usenet group for a carrier that they don't use, that's
    > now the fourth largest in the U.S., and where most of its users have no
    > idea what Voicestream was. Voicestream never even had service on the west
    > coast,


    They did, actually. They were in the Seattle
    market, at least.

    Bernard





  14. #29
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: RR adds alt.cellular.t-mobile

    bernard farquart wrote:
    > "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >>
    >>> No offense to JN intended, but it does seem you may be correct. He will
    >>> no
    >>> longer claim to have initiated the group and thus, I think his posting of
    >>> the
    >>> charter might have to cease ...

    >> It's the only theory that makes any sense at all. Why would anyone be
    >> upset about a new Usenet group for a carrier that they don't use, that's
    >> now the fourth largest in the U.S., and where most of its users have no
    >> idea what Voicestream was. Voicestream never even had service on the west
    >> coast,

    >
    > They did, actually. They were in the Seattle
    > market, at least.


    Sorry, I didn't know that. In California, we never had Voicestream. We
    got T-Mobile when Cingular and T-Mobile had an agreement where they each
    provided coverage where the other lacked it. New York City was the major
    area that Cingular gained.



  15. #30
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: 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




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast