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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> Your signature is OK; this posting is not. Please stay on-topic, and keep
> politics in a more appropriate forum. Thank you.

Do you always wear blinders? It is naive to assume that a very provocative
sig will not result in attracting comments.
I for one will never have a sig because I believe it distracts from the
point one is trying to make in one's posting.

--
John Richards

---

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

John Richards wrote:
>
> So you think a few liberals calling for impeachment of Bush will have any
> practical effect? It only reinforces the contempt that the majority of
> people have for far left liberals.
>

I for one don't give a **** about politics, especially when it is in
another country that I don't live in!

Too many wars are started by politics and religion, sure everyone has
there own beliefs BUT don't force it in peoples faces. So piss off with
your political crap and take it somewhere else!


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

I can't say it (below) better myself...
Focus on the "reinforces the contempt".
You could be a really wonderful person and have lots to say,
but you loose most, if not all credibility VERY quickly. And not
with me, but I'd bet the majority of people. Not good for you....

Consider ditching the sig, not for our sake, but YOURS.
Save it for a political forum, where it really belongs.

Then we can go back to discussing all things VZW.


>Do you always wear blinders? It is naive to assume that a very provocative
>sig will not result in attracting comments.
>I for one will never have a sig because I believe it distracts from the
>point one is trying to make in one's posting.

>So you think a few liberals calling for impeachment of Bush will have any
>practical effect? It only reinforces the contempt that the majority of
>people have for far left liberals.
>
>--
>John Richards

"Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:michelle->
> Impeachment has nothing to do with the election. Clinton's re-election
> didn't stop the GOP from their impeachment efforts.
>
> Yes, enough is enough; I've had enough of Bush's malfeasance in office.
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

I can't say it (below) better myself...
Focus on the "reinforces the contempt".
You could be a really wonderful person and have lots to say,
but you loose most, if not all credibility VERY quickly. And not
with me, but I'd bet the majority of people. Not good for you....

Consider ditching the sig, not for our sake, but YOURS.
Save it for a political forum, where it really belongs.

Then we can go back to discussing all things VZW.


>Do you always wear blinders? It is naive to assume that a very provocative
>sig will not result in attracting comments.
>I for one will never have a sig because I believe it distracts from the
>point one is trying to make in one's posting.

>So you think a few liberals calling for impeachment of Bush will have any
>practical effect? It only reinforces the contempt that the majority of
>people have for far left liberals.
>
>--
>John Richards

"Michelle Steiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:michelle->
> Impeachment has nothing to do with the election. Clinton's re-election
> didn't stop the GOP from their impeachment efforts.
>
> Yes, enough is enough; I've had enough of Bush's malfeasance in office.
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>Read more carefully -- I said: "It's actually quite practical for the carrier
>to trace the ORIGINS [not sender] of SMS messages." [emphasis added] And it
>is, as you would know if you were more familiar with GSM infrastructure,
>including SMS gateways.

Short messages (I don't want to get into an argument over whether the
term "SMS" applies only to the GSM messaging infrastructure), at least
in the US, can come through Internet e-mail gateways. You can trace it
as far as the gateway, but you then have the same problem as you have
tracking down e-mail spam.

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[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.

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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:18:46 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[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.
I don't see how anyone could be offended by my sig.
Three cheersm Kerry lost!

Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

Then you're not paying attention.

Do people judge you by the clothes you wear? Do people judge you by the
words you use, and in what fashion they come out of your mouth? Do people
judge you by the quality of your teeth? Do people judge you by your odor?
Do people judge you by your *****ing/grammar? Do people judge you by
inflammatory newsgroup sigs? OF COURSE they do.

Two newsgroup users -- whom you consider "unreasonable", of course --
suggested there is a problem with your sig. I'm suggesting there's a
problem with your sig. I'll bet you your cell phone bill for a month that
more than one other person reading this newsgroup has a problem with your
sig, and they just aren't saying anything.

Now, as I see it, you can either leave the sig the way it is, and continue
to allow it to handicap or negate your otherwise useful, informative,
insightful newsgroup posts, or you can change the sig and remove that
handicap. I'd suggest you start by adding at least your first name to the
sig, but that's just me.

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

[political discussion withheld due to the nature of these newsgroups not
being political]


Kevin M.
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <Dv0vd.51647$Af.37277@fed1read07>, Kevin M.
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Then you're not paying attention.
>
> Do people judge you by the clothes you wear? Do people judge you by the
> words you use, and in what fashion they come out of your mouth? Do people
> judge you by the quality of your teeth? Do people judge you by your odor?
> Do people judge you by your *****ing/grammar? Do people judge you by
> inflammatory newsgroup sigs? OF COURSE they do.
>
> Two newsgroup users -- whom you consider "unreasonable", of course --
> suggested there is a problem with your sig. I'm suggesting there's a
> problem with your sig. I'll bet you your cell phone bill for a month that
> more than one other person reading this newsgroup has a problem with your
> sig, and they just aren't saying anything.
>
> Now, as I see it, you can either leave the sig the way it is, and continue
> to allow it to handicap or negate your otherwise useful, informative,
> insightful newsgroup posts, or you can change the sig and remove that
> handicap. I'd suggest you start by adding at least your first name to the
> sig, but that's just me.
>

Kevin, John,

The fact of her beliefs being different from yours, or that upon
discovering them you are annoyed or distracted is a seperate issue,
that of you not separating the content of her posts from her political
beliefs.

Steve

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 12 Dec 2004
01:39:56 GMT, [email protected]lid (CharlesH) wrote:

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

>>Read more carefully -- I said: "It's actually quite practical for the carrier
>>to trace the ORIGINS [not sender] of SMS messages." [emphasis added] And it
>>is, as you would know if you were more familiar with GSM infrastructure,
>>including SMS gateways.
>
>Short messages (I don't want to get into an argument over whether the
>term "SMS" applies only to the GSM messaging infrastructure), at least
>in the US, can come through Internet e-mail gateways. You can trace it
>as far as the gateway, but you then have the same problem as you have
>tracking down e-mail spam.

The email headers usually identify the source, just as they do with spam, and
the same kind of filtering can be easily applied.

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

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:30:43 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:48:43 GMT, "Protest" <protest@no_thanks.com>
>wrote:
>
>>With people being able to send SMS via email to cell phones now.
>>These definitions are changing with the times.
>
>Still playing Jeopardy I guess. Spam is still email and telemarketing
>is still voice. There is a difference. You need to learn the
>difference!

You're arguing over definitions for no reason. You missed the point;
traditionally the only thing that differentiated a spammer from a
telemarketer was the means by which they contacted you. They are both
undesireable and have similar goals - to sell you something - and the
have no particular care that it's costing YOU money.

Since they are the same breed, and since the method of contact has
become an amalgam of email and telephone, the terms can now be applied
interchangeably, or even in a hybrid term (Telespammers - you heard it
here first!).

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.

In article <Dv0vd.51647$Af.37277@fed1read07>,
"Kevin M." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now, as I see it, you can either leave the sig the way it is, and
> continue to allow it to handicap or negate your otherwise useful,
> informative, insightful newsgroup posts, or you can change the sig
> and remove that handicap.

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

> I'd suggest you start by adding at least your first name to the sig,
> but that's just me.

What would that do?

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

"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:121220041445371076%[email protected]...
> The fact of her beliefs being different from yours, or that upon
> discovering them you are annoyed or distracted is a seperate issue,
> that of you not separating the content of her posts from her political
> beliefs.

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.

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.

--
John Richards

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

> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:121220041445371076%[email protected]...
> > The fact of her beliefs being different from yours, or that upon
> > discovering them you are annoyed or distracted is a seperate issue,
> > that of you not separating the content of her posts from her political
> > beliefs.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Well John, apparently Michelle doesn't share your view. i don't either.
I don't find find her sig to be inflamatory in the least, it is not
part of the substance of her post. Why don't you just kill file her so
you don't see it any more?

steve

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "John Richards" <[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.
--

- Philip