Sprint committing outright FRAUD

>Haven't you figured it out by now? We are all Sprint Shills and are paid to
>frequent this newsgroup.

Nah.

---

› See More: Sprint committing outright FRAUD

>Haven't you figured it out by now? We are all Sprint Shills and are paid to
>frequent this newsgroup.

Oh, and may I add. Way to keep a thread alive that you declared "done
for you" yesterday.

I don't think you are a shill for Sprint at all, I think you are a
shill for some company that sells realy, really bad dictionaries.

For the REAL definition of "done", check out www.dictionary.com ->
"done".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I think it is rather entertaining, particulary Rob trying to explain
> how it is not calling someone a liar when one flat out tells that
> person, who has first-hand knowledge of an event, that said event
> could not have happened as that person has related it.
>

That is not what I said.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

O/Siris wrote:
>
> <snip>

Holy ****, Rob!

The two of you are like two little kids, playing "he hit me first."

Grow up!

Notan

>That is not what I said.

You didn't say that the guy was relaying a story that never happened?

You didn't say you were done with this thread?

Blast those Usenet post re-writers!

You can't post anything anymore without some Usenet hacker breaking
into the global NetNews spool and rewording your posts.

They are probably pesky Sprint customers. I hear those "customer" guys
are really nasty, untrustworthy fellows.

>It is clear he is referring to your accusation that he called the OP a liar.

No, actually it is not clear at all.

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:07:45

Rob wrote:

"You're right, though. I'm done here. "

Read the whole thread before jumping in with critique.

>I never saw him post that he called or insinuated the OP lied.

Then might I suggest you learn to read?

>Can you please supply the message ID (or Google link)?

I CAN provide several message ID's where he "suggested" as much. I'm
not sure why anyone would post the message ID's though. Just read the
thread, and there they are.

I'm not going to post the IP address of www.cnn.com either, but that
doesn't mean it's not there. And if you can't find it, that's your
problem *shrug*

> I seem to recall that he indicated that the OP did not represent the entire story ... or >all of the facts.

He "indicated" this even though he had aboslutely no evidence to
support the claim. None whatsoever. Nor was he present. The OP was
the only person on the thread present.

When you tell someone who was there, that they "are not representing
the entire story or all of the story or all of the facts", you are
calling them a liar.

And grass is green and the sky is blue.

Why do you think the OP was not given the benefit of the doubt by Rob?
Why do you think Rob opined that he thought he was lying, no wait,
exuse me .... why do you think Rob opined that the OP "was not
representing the entire story or all of the facts"?

>The OP may be guilty of ommision, but has not been accused to be guilty of lying.

The OP may be guilty of nothing.

Why has the OP been accused of anything?

>Then, my alternative statement stands ... you are being obtuse.

Ad-hominem attacks are the intellectual debating tactics of the
intellectually lazy, or the flat out wrong.

I'm sure you could make your point without them.

>I have been reading it.

Then how you could have missed it escaped me. I simply cannot explain
it, unless your news server has a very small queue.

> I am also pretty familiar with Rob and how he posts over the years.

Not sure what this means (is this a good thing? bad thing? legitimate
bragging point?) or how it is relevant in any way, shape or form ...
but okay. Duly noted.

Congratulations .......... I guess. *shrug*

>This has nothing to do with reading comprehension. This has to do with
>your inferences.

I just read what is posted.

I asked Rob to clarify, but he declined (because he says he doesn't
reply to people like me, even thoguh he clearly does).

And really, "infer" doesn't really mean much here.

The statement was self evident.

One can "infer" that the sum of one and one is two. it's not an
inference that many rational people would debate.

>At no point was there an implication of a lie.

Well, at least that is your take on it.

Most everyone I know would take something along the lines of "I think
you omitted information and facts from your account of events" to mean
that the person relaying the information was not being honest. In
other words, lying.

Maybe where you are from, as long as you don't utter a specific word,
you can pretty much call someone whatever you want to via every other
similar word and then point to the word you didn't say as evidence that
you never called the person what you did, indeed, call them.

But like I said, we don't do that here.

We have a vast language and use a large amount of words and have many
ways to convey any given point.

And where I live, Rob just called the OP a liar (or dishonest,
unruthful, or any number of similar words).

>Instead, you have made such an inference.

No, actually I think the OP was telling the truth. Since I wasn't
there, and have no reason to believe otherwise, I am going to take his
word for it. Nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary.

I don't know why the OP has been presumed to have made some sort of
error.

Nobody has been able to articulate a reason why there is reason to
beleive that he is "ommitting facts or information".

>Actually, you won't because no post out there implies that OP lied.

I won't what?

And there are several posts that "imply" that the OP lied.

And you know there are.

I'm assuming you are taking the position that if you say something
often enough that it will become true. Good luck with that. When you
have several posts in the thread "implying" that the guy did not tell
the truth, it's going to be a tough sell.

Please indulge me if you will. If "The OP ommitted information and
facts from his first hand knowledge of the encounter", what does that
imply to you? If it does not imply that he is lying, then what do you
think such a statement is trying to make about the OP? He was just
confused? He's not very bright? Do you think he accidentally ommitted
such information? What would make you think that?

Maybe if you could explain, I would understand your regional dialect
better.

In article <[email protected]>, veldy71
@yahoo.com says...
> I thought you were no longer a Sprint PCS rep. Did that change
> recently? I have been away a bit.
>
Nope. Hasn't changed. It's just two or three people here that have
convinced themselves they have some psychic connection to Sprint's
payroll department.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> The two of you are like two little kids, playing "he hit me first."
>

Actually, that was a third party I was responding to. Not FWIW.

Unless he and Joseph Huber are the same person.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

On 07 Nov 2005 16:28:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>I never saw him post that he called or insinuated the OP lied. Can
you
>please supply the message ID (or Google link)? I seem to recall that he
>indicated that the OP did not represent the entire story ... or all of
>the facts. The OP may be guilty of ommision, but has not been accused
>to be guilty of lying.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of the noun "lie":
1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true
2) Something meant to decieve or give a wrong impression

Purposely leaving out facts or misrepresenting the story would be a
lie by definition 2).

Rob, whether he wants to admit it or not, most certainly did call the
OP a liar, by any reasonable definition, and more than once.

Joe Huber
[email protected]

I wish that there was such a thing as a "Super Usenet Administrator" and
that I could just make this thread permanently go away and never appear
again.

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 07 Nov 2005 16:28:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>>I never saw him post that he called or insinuated the OP lied. Can
> you
>>please supply the message ID (or Google link)? I seem to recall that he
>>indicated that the OP did not represent the entire story ... or all of
>>the facts. The OP may be guilty of ommision, but has not been accused
>>to be guilty of lying.
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary definition of the noun "lie":
> 1) A false statement deliberately presented as being true
> 2) Something meant to decieve or give a wrong impression
>
> Purposely leaving out facts or misrepresenting the story would be a
> lie by definition 2).
>
> Rob, whether he wants to admit it or not, most certainly did call the
> OP a liar, by any reasonable definition, and more than once.
>
> Joe Huber
> [email protected]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:55:08 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>I wish that there was such a thing as a "Super Usenet Administrator" and
>that I could just make this thread permanently go away and never appear
>again.

And I wish you would stop whining about this thread, but that's not
going to happen either. Or better yet, if it bugs you so much, why in
the hec don't you just figure out how to make your newsreader ignore
this thread???

Joe Huber
[email protected]

It is simple to make the newsreader ignore the thread. The problem is the
nature of the folks that just will not let it go.

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:55:08 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>>I wish that there was such a thing as a "Super Usenet Administrator" and
>>that I could just make this thread permanently go away and never appear
>>again.
>
> And I wish you would stop whining about this thread, but that's not
> going to happen either. Or better yet, if it bugs you so much, why in
> the hec don't you just figure out how to make your newsreader ignore
> this thread???
>
> Joe Huber
> [email protected]