Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:37:56 GMT, John Navas
>>Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
>>evidence to back up your claim?
>I made no claim.

You certainly did make an implied claim, whether you realize it or
not.

>>Through your statements, you are implying, and thus claiming, that
>> Donald's claims are inaccurate, or even false.
>No, I merely asked for substantiation of an unsubstantiated claim.

Doesn't look that way from here. Instead of politely asking for
substantiation, you phrased your "requests" (i.e. "Citation please"
several times in the post) in a rather indignant, provocative manner.
When Donald refused to play along, you responded with "I didn't think
so", a sarcastic statement intended to prove that his statements were
inaccurate or false, since he apparently couldn't provide proof for
them. I'd be interested to hear your interpretation...
Joe Huber
[email protected]

---

› See More: Move to keep Analog Cell Phones

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:34:50
-0500, Joseph Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:37:56 GMT, John Navas
>>>Instead of spewing "Citation please", why don't you provide some
>>>evidence to back up your claim?
>>I made no claim.
>
>You certainly did make an implied claim, whether you realize it or
>not.

I disagree. You're reading things into what I wrote that aren't really there.

>>>Through your statements, you are implying, and thus claiming, that
>>> Donald's claims are inaccurate, or even false.
>>No, I merely asked for substantiation of an unsubstantiated claim.
>
>Doesn't look that way from here.

You are of course welcome to think whatever you want.

>Instead of politely asking for
>substantiation, you phrased your "requests" (i.e. "Citation please"
>several times in the post) in a rather indignant, provocative manner.

That's your perception. Perceptions can and do vary. My perception is that
you're picking an inappropriate fight with me simply because you don't like
what I had to say.

>When Donald refused to play along, you responded with "I didn't think
>so", a sarcastic statement intended to prove that his statements were
>inaccurate or false, since he apparently couldn't provide proof for
>them.

It was simply intended to show that he completely ducked the question,
creating a presumption that he didn't have anything to back up the claim.

>I'd be interested to hear your interpretation...

"You asked for it, you got it!"

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

"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Puhleez..."Citation, please". How much more polite can you get? Maybe
> "Citation, pretty please"?

It's just John's manner. Like a child who's learned that he can always get a
response by just asking "Why?" to every answer. Most of us who have been
here for a while understand and tune it out. Let it drop. One thing's for
sure, if you don't, John will keep it going until the cows come home. He
seems to have a lot of free time.

--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Puhleez..."Citation, please". How much more polite can you get? Maybe
>>"Citation, pretty please"?
>
>
> It's just John's manner. Like a child who's learned that he can always get a
> response by just asking "Why?" to every answer. Most of us who have been
> here for a while understand and tune it out. Let it drop. One thing's for
> sure, if you don't, John will keep it going until the cows come home. He
> seems to have a lot of free time.
>


I would submit he has a lot of free time because he's not doing someone
else's homework.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Donald Newcomb wrote:
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in
> message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Puhleez..."Citation, please". How much more polite can you get? Maybe
>> "Citation, pretty please"?
>
> It's just John's manner. Like a child who's learned that he can
> always get a response by just asking "Why?" to every answer. Most of
> us who have been here for a while understand and tune it out. Let it
> drop. One thing's for sure, if you don't, John will keep it going
> until the cows come home. He seems to have a lot of free time.

Rubbish.



(Sorry, couldn't resist. If you get the joke fine; if not, let it go.
And to Joe: this was sarcasm, and not anything directed at Donald.)


--
Mike | As the light changed from red to green to yellow
| and back to red again, I sat there thinking about
| life. Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking
| and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way.

"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BTW...I must have missed the link to your cellular info/help website or
> links to your nationally syndicated tech TV show appearances. Could you
> be so kind as to post them again. I like to give credit where credit is
> due. Have a good one.

Of course, one thing to remember is that this is not the "Transactions of
the IEEE" or the "Journal of Molecular Biophysics". It is an unmoderated
Usenet "alt.*" discussion forum. While this is a pretty good alt.* group,
everyone should understand that Usenet in general and alt groups in
particular are traditionally the home of unsubstantiated rumor of the first
order. Insofar as any facts at all are presented in the "alt" hierarchy
should only be regarded as pure happenstance.

If you need a citation, here it is:
1. Personal communications.

But the fact remains that NextWave erected a practically non-functional CDMA
network for the sole purpose of providing a minimal, legally mandated,
signal simply to meet the letter of the law WRT to providing service to the
licensed area. If you were to ask them, they were "conducting customer
service trials" on their active network, but it was a network that never had
a single real customer, either retail or wholesale.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 9 Aug 2005 23:07:04 -0500, "Donald
Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> BTW...I must have missed the link to your cellular info/help website or
>> links to your nationally syndicated tech TV show appearances. Could you
>> be so kind as to post them again. I like to give credit where credit is
>> due. Have a good one.
>
>Of course, one thing to remember is that this is not the "Transactions of
>the IEEE" or the "Journal of Molecular Biophysics". It is an unmoderated
>Usenet "alt.*" discussion forum. While this is a pretty good alt.* group,
>everyone should understand that Usenet in general and alt groups in
>particular are traditionally the home of unsubstantiated rumor of the first
>order. Insofar as any facts at all are presented in the "alt" hierarchy
>should only be regarded as pure happenstance.

I disagree. alt newsgroups are no different from the Big Eight, a mixture of
wheat and chaff and weeds. Unless we want them all to degenerate into chaos
and irrelevance, we need to do whatever we can to help raise the level of
discourse, and to encourage people to follow Usenet guidelines, as well as
newsgroup charters.

Usenet discussion is slowly but surely becoming an endangered species, thanks
in large part to unchallenged rumormongers and childish bullies. "All that is
necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

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

In <4zfKe.8358$p%[email protected]> John Navas <[email protected]> writes:

[ snip ]

>Usenet discussion is slowly but surely becoming an endangered species, thanks
>in large part to unchallenged rumormongers and childish bullies. "All that is
>necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

With that "quotation" from Edmund Burke being a prime example
of such misinformation.

He never said (nor wrote) it.

One cite, among many others (including professional historians)

http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:12:32 +0000 (UTC),
danny burstein <[email protected]> wrote:

>In <4zfKe.8358$p%[email protected]> John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>>Usenet discussion is slowly but surely becoming an endangered species, thanks
>>in large part to unchallenged rumormongers and childish bullies. "All that is
>>necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
>
>With that "quotation" from Edmund Burke being a prime example
>of such misinformation.
>
>He never said (nor wrote) it.
>
>One cite, among many others (including professional historians)
>
> http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

Doesn't seem to be an authoritative source -- if you've actually got something
from "professional historians" then by all means post your citations.

Of note from that personal webpage:

Jesus's `give us this day our daily bread'

That quote actually comes from Matthew 6. Luke 11 is slightly different.
Since this isn't actual writing by Jesus, these aren't really better than
unverified accounts of what Burke said (theological arguments aside).

That said, what's most troubling about this site is that the "proof" boils
down to I-couldn't-find-it,-so-it-must-not-be-true, which doesn't really
qualify as scholarly research.

This isn't just a Web phenomenon (as your webpage suggests) -- it also appears
widely in books (which are presumably subject to a much more thorough vetting)
-- see <http://print.google.com/print?q=triumph-of-evil+do-nothing>
In a quick review of the results, I could find no challenge to that quotation
-- can you?

p.s. Would you prefer: "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those
who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." -Albert
Einstein

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

In <y%hKe.8381$p%[email protected]> John Navas <[email protected]> writes:

>p.s. Would you prefer: "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those
>who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." -Albert

How about: "we, the jurors, find the murderer not guilty"?
(referring to a famous case in Calif about a decade ago...)

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:4zfKe.8358$p%[email protected]:

> I disagree. alt newsgroups are no different from the Big Eight, a
> mixture of wheat and chaff and weeds. Unless we want them all to
> degenerate into chaos and irrelevance, we need to do whatever we can
> to help raise the level of discourse, and to encourage people to
> follow Usenet guidelines, as well as newsgroup charters.
>
> Usenet discussion is slowly but surely becoming an endangered species,
> thanks in large part to unchallenged rumormongers and childish
> bullies. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good
> men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
>

So? Why does John Navas show up on so many newsgroups, if they are as you
say? Is someone forcing you to read this drivel?



--
Larry

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:24:16 -0400,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:4zfKe.8358$p%[email protected]:
>
>> I disagree. alt newsgroups are no different from the Big Eight, a
>> mixture of wheat and chaff and weeds. Unless we want them all to
>> degenerate into chaos and irrelevance, we need to do whatever we can
>> to help raise the level of discourse, and to encourage people to
>> follow Usenet guidelines, as well as newsgroup charters.
>>
>> Usenet discussion is slowly but surely becoming an endangered species,
>> thanks in large part to unchallenged rumormongers and childish
>> bullies. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good
>> men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

>So? Why does John Navas show up on so many newsgroups, if they are as you
>say? Is someone forcing you to read this drivel?

My participation this year is in fact much less than last year.

Thanks for you concern.

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:51:20 -0700, Proconsul <[email protected]> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>On 8/6/05 1:08 PM, in article [email protected], "Jer"
>wrote:
>
>>> My additional comments were more for others than for you - as I see it, you
>>> "grok" reality better than most who post here......
>>
>> FWIW, I love the grok term. It's been a while since I cranked up the
>> Way Back machine.
>
>It puts things in perspective - especially when you are dealing with those
>who don't "grok" what grok means.....
>
>As one character from Robert A. Heinlein's novel ³Stranger in a Strange
>Land² says:
>
>'Grok' means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of
>the observed - to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group
>experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy,
>and science - and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as
>color means to a blind man.
>
>In common usage, "Do you grok?" seems close in meaning to "Do you get it?"

In that case, I'm not sure I get how either of those definitions relates to
"I grok Spock" bumper stickers.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"Oh, Cosmo Schmosmo. If you had a brain, you wouldn't be readin' Cosmo."
- Whoopi Goldberg