reply to discussion
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    SMS
    Guest
    Hell and High Water wrote:
    > I thought alt.cellular.cingular was going away, to be replaced by
    > alt.cellular.attws.


    It takes time. It took months for alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream
    to wither.

    For the time being, it's best to post to both groups.



    See More: alt.cellular.attws???




  2. #2
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    Kevin K wrote:

    > Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
    > they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
    > press release.


    Technically, the alt.cellular.attws group was for AT&T Wireless, while
    the old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
    (according to AT&T).

    So maybe there should be a group alt.cellular.wsatt, but in reality
    alt.cellular.attws is a better name. I don't think that anyone could get
    a vote through to create alt.cellular.att or alt.cellular.wsatt.

    Look at how upset the chief Cingular shill was about the creation of
    alt.cellular.t-mobile, which was a logical creation given the old group
    of alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. Of course the reason he fought
    it was because he didn't want the alt.cellular.cingular group to suffer
    the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.



  3. #3
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    Mr Navas has done a very good job as the leader of the cingular and attws
    newsgroups. Why would anyone want ot believe that they need to create a new
    group? Mr Navas has both of these groups well under control and I am sure
    that he knew of the name change many months in advance. Everyone should be
    able to understand why it is and was appropriate for Mr Navas to post the
    charter to both of these newsgroups.





  4. #4
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    Andy S wrote:

    > The charter is NOT enforced.
    > If it were, there's be no spam, no cross posts, etc.
    > As it is, the "charter" has not been posted in the last two months.


    Still, I think that most posters to abide by the charter, even if they
    aren't aware that it even exists. It's mostly just good manners.
    Ironically, Navas is one of the worst violators of newsgroup charters,
    both in alt.cellular.cingular and in other newsgroups.

    I went back to the beginning of the alt.cellular.attws group, and could
    never find a charter posted. If it existed, the creator of the
    alt.cellular.attws group was pretty mellow, and not so full of himself.

    As to why Navas posts the alt.cellular.cingular charter into the
    alt.cellular.attws newsgroup, I would guess that it's just to annoy
    people that haven't kill-filed him. The charter certainly doesn't apply
    to any other group than the one it was written for.



  5. #5
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.

    >
    > More nonsense. Grow up.
    >


    You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
    based on some inner conviction on your part.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0





  6. #6
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Indeed -- the rebranding is expected to take quite a while.
    >


    Even when the rebranding is complete, they will still forward www.cingular.com
    over to whatever the new URL is.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0





  7. #7
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: alt.cellular.attws???

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    > In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.

    >> More nonsense. Grow up.
    >>

    >
    > You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
    > based on some inner conviction on your part.


    It was very strange. Not only was the old name unwieldy, with two more
    levels of hierarchy than was necessary, it didn't match the carrier name
    so newcomers would never find it.

    The only explanation is that he was worried about the precedent of
    creating new groups when a company changes names or is acquired by
    another company and the existing name is eliminated. This would mean
    that alt.cellular.cingular would fade away, and alt.cellular.attws would
    take its place, and he had no role in creating the latter. This may
    explain why he spams the alt.cellular.cingular charter into the
    alt.cellular.attws group, despite numerous requests for him to stop
    spamming. Some people just enjoy being obnoxious, and Navas is one of them.



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.