Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.

Tags:
  • Cingular
  • GSM
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
July 14, 2004 6:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"No roaming charges, ever!", or so says the commercial for Cingular
Nation GSM plans. So instead of calling it a roaming charge, they
call it a "Roamer Admin Fee" and tack the bogus $3.50 fee onto the
bills of their Nation GSM customers, with mo mention of such a fee in
the contract.

More about : roaming charges yeah

Anonymous
July 14, 2004 11:39:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>"No roaming charges, ever!", or so says the commercial for Cingular
>Nation GSM plans. So instead of calling it a roaming charge, they
>call it a "Roamer Admin Fee" and tack the bogus $3.50 fee onto the
>bills of their Nation GSM customers, with mo mention of such a fee in
>the contract.

You should not be charged the Roamer Administration Fee. Call CS to get it
removed. I roam frequently and have never been charged the fee or for minutes
used.
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 1:17:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On 14 Jul 2004 19:39:12 GMT, dm4484@aol.com (Dm4484) wrote:

>>"No roaming charges, ever!", or so says the commercial for Cingular
>>Nation GSM plans. So instead of calling it a roaming charge, they
>>call it a "Roamer Admin Fee" and tack the bogus $3.50 fee onto the
>>bills of their Nation GSM customers, with mo mention of such a fee in
>>the contract.
>
>You should not be charged the Roamer Administration Fee. Call CS to get it
>removed. I roam frequently and have never been charged the fee or for minutes
>used.

Likewise...but my contract is 4 years old, back when they were putting
out good deals.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 1:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Bill Reynolds" <breynoTIE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0ombf01rqp7721q01vthsjicdvemj1hndr@4ax.com...
> On 14 Jul 2004 19:39:12 GMT, dm4484@aol.com (Dm4484) wrote:
>
> >>"No roaming charges, ever!", or so says the commercial for Cingular
> >>Nation GSM plans. So instead of calling it a roaming charge, they
> >>call it a "Roamer Admin Fee" and tack the bogus $3.50 fee onto the
> >>bills of their Nation GSM customers, with mo mention of such a fee in
> >>the contract.
> >
> >You should not be charged the Roamer Administration Fee. Call CS to get
it
> >removed. I roam frequently and have never been charged the fee or for
minutes
> >used.
>
> Likewise...but my contract is 4 years old, back when they were putting
> out good deals.
>

Likewise- But my Contract is 3 Months Old
July 15, 2004 9:30:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

dm4484@aol.com (Dm4484) wrote:

>You should not be charged the Roamer Administration Fee. Call CS to get it
>removed. I roam frequently and have never been charged the fee or for minutes
>used.

Yes, the Cingular FAQ confirms this. It says,

"The roamer administration fee is a fee assessed to cover the costs
for processing and billing roamer charges. This fee does not apply on
Cingular calling plans introduced after January 1, 2001. This fee only
appears on bills for accounts with those older calling plans (offered
prior to January 1, 2001) which contain roaming charges. The fee is
charged one time per billing cycle during which an eligible customer
has roamed. The charge for the roamer administration fee varies by
market."

Yet there it is on my GSM Nation bill. One wonders how many
unsuspecting customers Cingular has quietly slipped this bogus charge
in on. Cingular knows that a significant portion of their customers
would not question such a charge. When someone does question it, it
is simply explained away as a "mistake" and removed. Meanwhile, those
customers who don't question it pay the bogus $3.50 charge month after
month. Cingular could find and eliminate such bogus charges
throughout their customer base quite easily. Many companies, however,
have a de facto policy of not fixing such "mistakes" unless the
customer complains about it. Perhaps Cingular is such a company.
July 15, 2004 9:30:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 05:30:35 -0400, JT <jt@nomail.com> wrote:

>When someone does question it, it
>is simply explained away as a "mistake" and removed. Meanwhile, those
>customers who don't question it pay the bogus $3.50 charge month after
>month. Cingular could find and eliminate such bogus charges
>throughout their customer base quite easily. Many companies, however,
>have a de facto policy of not fixing such "mistakes" unless the
>customer complains about it. Perhaps Cingular is such a company.

You must live in a different world than the rest of us. Pretty much
the norm is if you come into any program and program details change it
is not the company's responsibility to alert you to every change and
to make sure that you change your plan if a new plan comes along that
*might* be better for you. The norm is for companies to offer you
what they've offered you and it's your responsibility to inquire if
there's something better for you that you should use instead. Just
because grandma Clara has been charged $3.50 per month for her old
black dial telephone that she had with Illinois Bell and then went to
AT&T when the Bell System broke up doesn't matter. You and I know
that we could go down to the nearest Kmart and get her a swell
touch-tone phone for $10 which is less than she'd spend with three
month's rental from AT&T. It's not AT&T's responsibility to remind
her that she's spending $3.50 each month to rent an old outdated piece
of equipment.

If you don't want to get "ripped off" it's a good idea to keep your
ears open to what the latest promotions are. It's hardly a company's
responsibility to keep you advised when something that's *possibly*
better comes along.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 4:34:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <q5scf01jmmhvujl8p8h8q04dbtguqf8m8g@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You must live in a different world than the rest of us. Pretty much
> the norm is if you come into any program and program details change it
> is not the company's responsibility to alert you

Ahem. They MUST notify you and give you 30 days notice to decline and
cancel the contract at no penalty. Problem is notification is typically
very fine print at the bottom of page 6 f previous month's bill.
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 6:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Did you call C/S to ask them why the charge appears on your bill? If you've
been a customer for a while, you may have an old billing code on your
account that is causing the charge to appear. It's also possible that if you
just changed to the GSM Nation plan, you may have had older charges that
just appeared (billing cycle before the new plan started), or your plan may
not have started till the end of a billing cycle and the roaming can lag by
as much as 45 days.

The bottom line is, call C/S and ask. Try the approach of; "I thought I
didn't pay roaming charges on my rate plan. What's this Roamer
Administrative Fee?" Try to avoid "What the hell are you crooks trying to
pull?"...You'll get more cooperation if you start with asking for help in
understanding rather than starting a fight with some poor girl that has to
defend the company without knowing what you're talking about.

Mark
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 6:36:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Mark W. Oots" <mark_ctc@(delete this)ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<WDwJc.36990$eH1.17664905@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> Did you call C/S to ask them why the charge appears on your bill? If you've
> been a customer for a while, you may have an old billing code on your
> account that is causing the charge to appear. It's also possible that if you
> just changed to the GSM Nation plan, you may have had older charges that
> just appeared (billing cycle before the new plan started), or your plan may
> not have started till the end of a billing cycle and the roaming can lag by
> as much as 45 days.
>
> The bottom line is, call C/S and ask. Try the approach of; "I thought I
> didn't pay roaming charges on my rate plan. What's this Roamer
> Administrative Fee?" Try to avoid "What the hell are you crooks trying to
> pull?"...You'll get more cooperation if you start with asking for help in
> understanding rather than starting a fight with some poor girl that has to
> defend the company without knowing what you're talking about.
>
> Mark

This approach has worked for me wonderfully. I upgraded my phones to
GSM without having to pay an upgrade fee and added a line to my plan.
The activation fee was waived for the added line. I used the "nice"
approach instead of the arrogant approach. Try it sometime.

Pete
July 15, 2004 8:48:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:34:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty>
wrote:

>In article <q5scf01jmmhvujl8p8h8q04dbtguqf8m8g@4ax.com>,
> Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You must live in a different world than the rest of us. Pretty much
>> the norm is if you come into any program and program details change it
>> is not the company's responsibility to alert you
>
>Ahem. They MUST notify you and give you 30 days notice to decline and
>cancel the contract at no penalty. Problem is notification is typically
>very fine print at the bottom of page 6 f previous month's bill.

You're missing the point. It's not their responsibility to coddle you
and put in big 20 point letters that you have a choice and it's your
responsibility to know what you have and what your options are. Too
many people whine that they've been "taken advantage of" when in fact
they were given notice and often just chose to ignore it. It's not a
company's responsibility if you choose to ignore any notice that may
come with a bill or special notifications or note what their
responsibilities are in any contractual obligation they may have or
may have earlier had. It's not a bank's responsibility to alert you
that mortgage rates have gone down and would you like to re-finance
your loan. In the same way it's not any company's obligation to set
off bells under you when an option is available to you that *may* be
beneficial to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
July 15, 2004 10:09:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You must live in a different world than the rest of us.

And you must not be able to read. My GSM Nation plan contract began
in December of 2003 and, as the Cingular FAQ clearly states, the
"Roamer Admin Fee" does not apply to such an account. Cingular was in
error in charging that fee and it took the Cingular customer service
rep four minutes to figure it out and apply the correction. The
correction, as it turns out, is the addition of "Roamer Admin Fee
Exclusion" to the plan -- something that should have been on the plan
from the get-go. As I stated earlier, some companies have a de facto
policy of not fixing such revenue generating "mistakes".

The remainder of your silly reply simply isn't relevant to anything
written earlier in this thread. In that, one is left to wonder
exactly what world YOU live in...

>Pretty much
>the norm is if you come into any program and program details change it
>is not the company's responsibility to alert you to every change and
>to make sure that you change your plan if a new plan comes along that
>*might* be better for you. The norm is for companies to offer you
>what they've offered you and it's your responsibility to inquire if
>there's something better for you that you should use instead. Just
>because grandma Clara has been charged $3.50 per month for her old
>black dial telephone that she had with Illinois Bell and then went to
>AT&T when the Bell System broke up doesn't matter. You and I know
>that we could go down to the nearest Kmart and get her a swell
>touch-tone phone for $10 which is less than she'd spend with three
>month's rental from AT&T. It's not AT&T's responsibility to remind
>her that she's spending $3.50 each month to rent an old outdated piece
>of equipment.
>
>If you don't want to get "ripped off" it's a good idea to keep your
>ears open to what the latest promotions are. It's hardly a company's
>responsibility to keep you advised when something that's *possibly*
July 15, 2004 10:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Mark W. Oots" <mark_ctc@(delete this)ameritech.net> wrote:

>Did you call C/S to ask them why the charge appears on your bill? If you've
>been a customer for a while, you may have an old billing code on your
>account that is causing the charge to appear. It's also possible that if you
>just changed to the GSM Nation plan, you may have had older charges that
>just appeared (billing cycle before the new plan started), or your plan may
>not have started till the end of a billing cycle and the roaming can lag by
>as much as 45 days.

It has been 7 months now since I upgraded my plan to the Nation GSM
plan. It turns out that Roaming Admin Fee was indeed a "mistake" and
has been fixed by Cingular. The fix was to add a "Roaming Admin Fee
Exclusion" to my plan. Such an explicit exclusion, however, should be
automatic for anyone upgrading to a plan which includes no roaming
charges. That it isn't automatic leads me to suspect that there are
likely tens of thousands of other Cingular customers who have similar
revenue generating "mistakes" on their bills. My earlier comments
stand.

>The bottom line is, call C/S and ask. Try the approach of; "I thought I
>didn't pay roaming charges on my rate plan. What's this Roamer
>Administrative Fee?" Try to avoid "What the hell are you crooks trying to
>pull?"...You'll get more cooperation if you start with asking for help in
>understanding rather than starting a fight with some poor girl that has to
>defend the company without knowing what you're talking about.

I am always polite to such service representatives. Thanks for your
input. The problem has been solved, for me anyway.
July 15, 2004 10:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:09:28 -0400, JT <jt@nomail.com> wrote:

>And you must not be able to read. My GSM Nation plan contract began
>in December of 2003 and, as the Cingular FAQ clearly states, the
>"Roamer Admin Fee" does not apply to such an account. Cingular was in
>error in charging that fee and it took the Cingular customer service
>rep four minutes to figure it out and apply the correction. The
>correction, as it turns out, is the addition of "Roamer Admin Fee
>Exclusion" to the plan -- something that should have been on the plan
>from the get-go. As I stated earlier, some companies have a de facto
>policy of not fixing such revenue generating "mistakes".

Seems to me that you just like to whine. cingular fixed their
mistake. If you have some lofty ideal that all companies get things
right all the time I'm afraid you're constantly going to be
disappointed that things didn't go exactly as you think they should
have. It's very rare for any service industry to get things right
100% of the time. I think some people just like to be the "victim"
and think that the whole world is out to get them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 2:23:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

JT <jt@nomail.com> wrote in message news:<g20ef0d7haf2b3o8fgfnaqsd1mg812pjlu@4ax.com>...

> And you must not be able to read. My GSM Nation plan contract began
> in December of 2003 and, as the Cingular FAQ clearly states, the
> "Roamer Admin Fee" does not apply to such an account. Cingular was in
> error in charging that fee and it took the Cingular customer service
> rep four minutes to figure it out and apply the correction. The
> correction, as it turns out, is the addition of "Roamer Admin Fee
> Exclusion" to the plan -- something that should have been on the plan
> from the get-go.

True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
rep's defense, the billing system is very complex. Each rate plan is
basically a collection of arcane codes- there are individual codes for
free long distance, free roaming, whether or not to charge roamer
admin fees, interconnect fees when calling landlines (very old
grandfathered plans still have this), call waiting, forwarding,
voicemail, etc. etc. Sadly it's not as simple as the CSR just
punching in "rate plan B7..."

I suspect the billing system will get a lot messier when they have to
work all of AT&T's plans and codes in when the merger finally happens.

> As I stated earlier, some companies have a de facto
> policy of not fixing such revenue generating "mistakes".

And sometimes it's just a mistake, Agent Mulder, and not a conspiracy.
Sometimes they are revenue forfeiting mistakes, in the customer's
favor, instead!
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 4:11:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <u36ef05650jhlbltfvaid8u5ekoc87t93i@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Seems to me that you just like to whine. cingular fixed their
> mistake.

And what compensation did he get for his grief?
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 4:12:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <1k5ef01mrj8slo0qoij0ohgpm0ocmi25e7@4ax.com>,
Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:34:32 GMT, "Robert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <q5scf01jmmhvujl8p8h8q04dbtguqf8m8g@4ax.com>,
> > Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You must live in a different world than the rest of us. Pretty much
> >> the norm is if you come into any program and program details change it
> >> is not the company's responsibility to alert you
> >
> >Ahem. They MUST notify you and give you 30 days notice to decline and
> >cancel the contract at no penalty. Problem is notification is typically
> >very fine print at the bottom of page 6 f previous month's bill.
>
> You're missing the point. It's not their responsibility to coddle you
> and put in big 20 point letters that you have a choice and it's your
> responsibility to know what you have and what your options are. Too
> many people whine that they've been "taken advantage of" when in fact
> they were given notice and often just chose to ignore it. It's not a
> company's responsibility if you choose to ignore any notice that may
> come with a bill or special notifications or note what their
> responsibilities are in any contractual obligation they may have or
> may have earlier had. It's not a bank's responsibility to alert you
> that mortgage rates have gone down and would you like to re-finance
> your loan. In the same way it's not any company's obligation to set
> off bells under you when an option is available to you that *may* be
> beneficial to you.

They must love customers like you that think they can do no wrong.
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 3:04:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <de37a2e0.0407152123.61104be8@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
> rep's defense,

No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 3:05:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <de37a2e0.0407152123.61104be8@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> I suspect the billing system will get a lot messier when they have to
> work all of AT&T's plans and codes in when the merger finally happens.

If they're smart, they'll keep AT&T as a separate division for a year or
more. Cingular STILL hasn't integrated SBC, BS, PacBell, etc leftover
from their creation THREE + years ago.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:41:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...

> elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>
> > True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
> > rep's defense,
>
> No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.

I mention my background as a credential (although in the world of
electronics, being out of the business for three years makes me
woefully out-of-date.)

When I opened my retail store in 1997, I had already been a
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (it wasn't Cingular yet!) customer
for several years. I chose to sell SBMS service because of my good
experiences with them as a customer, DESPITE the fact that the
competition (Cellular One of Kansas City, eventually Verizon Wireless)
paid better dealer commissions. So I will NOT apologize to you or
anyone else for choosing to represent a service I believed in!

Was SBMS/Cingular perfect? Not by a long shot. Often I had to play
consumer advocate when I thought a customer was getting a raw deal,
but overall I was happy with the level of service they provided.

As for you calling ANYONE "unobjective"- that's like David Duke
calling someone a racist!
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:45:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-BE2CCB.06052516072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...

> If they're smart, they'll keep AT&T as a separate division for a year or
> more. Cingular STILL hasn't integrated SBC, BS, PacBell, etc leftover
> from their creation THREE + years ago.

They've integrated as much as practical. The old SBC and BS wireless
operations are fairly integrated. Total integration wasn't practical
until the entire company was on GSM. Now with the AT&T merger
looming, I suspect folding the old PacBell operation in seamlessly
isn't a priority with yet another large operation to blend in later
this year.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:46:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...

> elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
>
> > True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
> > rep's defense,
>
> No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.

I mention my background as a credential (although in the world of
electronics, being out of the business for three years makes me
woefully out-of-date.)

When I opened my retail store in 1997, I had already been a
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (it wasn't Cingular yet!) customer
for several years. I chose to sell SBMS service because of my good
experiences with them as a customer, DESPITE the fact that the
competition (Cellular One of Kansas City, eventually Verizon Wireless)
paid better dealer commissions. So I will NOT apologize to you or
anyone else for choosing to represent a service I believed in!

Was SBMS/Cingular perfect? Not by a long shot. Often I had to play
consumer advocate when I thought a customer was getting a raw deal,
but overall I was happy with the level of service they provided.

As for you calling ANYONE "unobjective"- that's like David Duke
calling someone a racist!
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:03:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <de37a2e0.0407162145.37772c31@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-BE2CCB.06052516072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> > If they're smart, they'll keep AT&T as a separate division for a year or
> > more. Cingular STILL hasn't integrated SBC, BS, PacBell, etc leftover
> > from their creation THREE + years ago.
>
> They've integrated as much as practical. The old SBC and BS wireless
> operations are fairly integrated.

NOPE. Still different billing systems that havent been integrated.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:06:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <de37a2e0.0407162146.96ee9c9@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> > elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
> >
> > > True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
> > > rep's defense,
> >
> > No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
>
> I mention my background as a credential (although in the world of
> electronics, being out of the business for three years makes me
> woefully out-of-date.)
>
> When I opened my retail store in 1997, I had already been a
> Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (it wasn't Cingular yet!) customer
> for several years. I chose to sell SBMS service because of my good
> experiences with them as a customer, DESPITE the fact that the
> competition (Cellular One of Kansas City, eventually Verizon Wireless)
> paid better dealer commissions. So I will NOT apologize to you or
> anyone else for choosing to represent a service I believed in!
>
> Was SBMS/Cingular perfect? Not by a long shot. Often I had to play
> consumer advocate when I thought a customer was getting a raw deal,
> but overall I was happy with the level of service they provided.
>
> As for you calling ANYONE "unobjective"- that's like David Duke
> calling someone a racist!

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You just got through apologizing for Cingular STILL not inegrating all
the components SBC, PacBell, BS, Mobile One that it absorbed over THREE
years ago. They've dropped the ball, and will have real grief absorbing
AT&T as judged by their track record.

Just ask anyone who travels to another part of the country and has
trouble roaming, as Cingular is far from properly integrated.
Anonymous
July 17, 2004 2:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <de37a2e0.0407162141.33983d31@posting.google.com>,
elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> > elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:
> >
> > > True. I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago, and in the Cingular
> > > rep's defense,
> >
> > No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
>
> I mention my background as a credential (although in the world of
> electronics, being out of the business for three years makes me
> woefully out-of-date.)
>
> When I opened my retail store in 1997, I had already been a
> Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (it wasn't Cingular yet!) customer
> for several years. I chose to sell SBMS service because of my good
> experiences with them as a customer, DESPITE the fact that the
> competition (Cellular One of Kansas City, eventually Verizon Wireless)
> paid better dealer commissions. So I will NOT apologize to you or
> anyone else for choosing to represent a service I believed in!
>
> Was SBMS/Cingular perfect? Not by a long shot. Often I had to play
> consumer advocate when I thought a customer was getting a raw deal,
> but overall I was happy with the level of service they provided.
>
> As for you calling ANYONE "unobjective"- that's like David Duke
> calling someone a racist!

If you need to answer twice, I must have hit the nail on the head.
Anonymous
July 19, 2004 2:27:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-EAD01F.05070217072004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...

> If you need to answer twice, I must have hit the nail on the head.

That's one explanation... (the wrong one of course!)

A simpler one is Google Groups reported an error when I posted it the
first time. Weird, though- Google is usually "smart" enough to
prevent double posts.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 3:49:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Fri, 16 Jul
2004 11:04:02 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:

>No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.

Pot ... kettle ... ;-)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 3:50:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <25e68f26.0407151243.311f8bd7@posting.google.com> on 15 Jul 2004 13:43:41
-0700, peterc_7@hotmail.com (Pete C.) wrote:

>... I used the "nice"
>approach instead of the arrogant approach. Try it sometime.

Amen. Worth repeating.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/&gt;
August 3, 2004 11:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <10gudeahildev98@corp.supernews.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >... I used the "nice" approach


> Amen. Worth repeating.

Well lets see. When I signed up for Cingular, I got the unlimited Media
Package at $19.99/month. I gave it up after 2 weeks. It had 2 speeds.
SLOW and Hyper-SLOW. I was promised a credit would show up on my
statement for the rest of the month that they had charged me for the
package, but I didn't have it.. WHOOPS. It didn't. By being nice, I
succeeded in having a Supervisor hangup on me; they all played dumb,
and apparently didn't know how to parse a Cingular statement.

Finally 5 calls later the credit was issued. So much for one call
resolution and being overly polite the first call. Doesn't always work.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 12:06:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-D787B9.02581603082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
07:58:17 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <10gudeahildev98@corp.supernews.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >... I used the "nice" approach
>
>> Amen. Worth repeating.
>
>Well lets see. When I signed up for Cingular, I got the unlimited Media
>Package at $19.99/month. I gave it up after 2 weeks. It had 2 speeds.
>SLOW and Hyper-SLOW. I was promised a credit would show up on my
>statement for the rest of the month that they had charged me for the
>package, but I didn't have it.. WHOOPS. It didn't. By being nice, I
>succeeded in having a Supervisor hangup on me; they all played dumb,
>and apparently didn't know how to parse a Cingular statement.
>
>Finally 5 calls later the credit was issued. So much for one call
>resolution and being overly polite the first call. Doesn't always work.

Being polite works *far* more often than being nasty.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 3, 2004 12:07:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <10gudbiec4uli77@corp.supernews.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Fri, 16 Jul
> 2004 11:04:02 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>
> >No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)

TOTAL NONSENSE, but make sure you cut out the reference. Typical
nonsense from someone proven wrong.

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.  
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago

===================================================
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 12:08:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-D787B9.02581603082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
07:58:17 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>... By being nice, ...

I'm skeptical (no offense intended), based on your conduct here.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 12:10:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-61B9C9.03072203082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
08:07:23 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <10gudbiec4uli77@corp.supernews.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Fri, 16 Jul
>> 2004 11:04:02 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>>
>> >No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
>>
>> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)
>
>TOTAL NONSENSE, ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Meanwhile we're still waiting for you to back up your wild claims.
How long will we have to wait? Enquiring minds want to know.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 3, 2004 4:56:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <gKHPc.5335$54.88326@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM143-D787B9.02581603082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> 07:58:17 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >... By being nice, ...
>
> I'm skeptical (no offense intended), based on your conduct here.

I'm now skeptical now, and EVERYTHING you say is suspect. Like the guy
who posted about how does he connect he phone to a PC.

- NAVAS "you should have checked before you bought".

- Robert - identidies Cable and software for user.
August 3, 2004 4:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <tIHPc.5333$54.88317@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM143-D787B9.02581603082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> 07:58:17 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <10gudeahildev98@corp.supernews.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >... I used the "nice" approach
> >
> >> Amen. Worth repeating.
> >
> >Well lets see. When I signed up for Cingular, I got the unlimited Media
> >Package at $19.99/month. I gave it up after 2 weeks. It had 2 speeds.
> >SLOW and Hyper-SLOW. I was promised a credit would show up on my
> >statement for the rest of the month that they had charged me for the
> >package, but I didn't have it.. WHOOPS. It didn't. By being nice, I
> >succeeded in having a Supervisor hangup on me; they all played dumb,
> >and apparently didn't know how to parse a Cingular statement.
> >
> >Finally 5 calls later the credit was issued. So much for one call
> >resolution and being overly polite the first call. Doesn't always work.
>
> Being polite works *far* more often than being nasty.

You could be right, it sure didn't in my case, they just wanted to act
dumb and deny credit.

In any event one call resolution was a fiction in this case. Of course
you can't have one call resolution if CSRs are ordered to never give
credits. (i.e. the first rep I spoke said he didn't have authority to
issue credits).
August 3, 2004 5:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <9MHPc.5336$54.88337@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM143-61B9C9.03072203082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug
> 2004
> 08:07:23 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <10gudbiec4uli77@corp.supernews.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In <rmarkoff-CAB77A.06040216072004@news06.east.earthlink.net> on Fri, 16
> >> Jul
> >> 2004 11:04:02 GMT, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No wonder you're so unobjective in your posts.
> >>
> >> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)
> >
> >TOTAL NONSENSE, ...
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
> Meanwhile we're still waiting for you to back up your wild claims.
> How long will we have to wait? Enquiring minds want to know.

The URL was posted, where were you yesterday morning? Of course you
could find many more in a 20 second Google search IF YOU WANTED TO.

Contracts are easily gotten out of, often thats all some lawyers do,
they're called

= = drum roll = =

"Contract Lawyers".

===================


And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
previous message. SO here it is again:

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.  
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 6:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-F31D04.07583003082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
12:58:31 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <tIHPc.5333$54.88317@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Being polite works *far* more often than being nasty.
>
>You could be right, it sure didn't in my case, they just wanted to act
>dumb and deny credit.

I didn't say it *always* works, just that it works *far* more often than being
nasty.

>In any event one call resolution was a fiction in this case. ...

I didn't say that either. In fact I've said previously that persistence
(e.g., multiple calls) is often required.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 6:22:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-70E15A.07560803082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
12:56:08 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <gKHPc.5335$54.88326@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> - NAVAS "you should have checked before you bought".

Actually posts accurate information.

> - Robert - identidies Cable and software for user.

Makes things up that are often wrong, frequently stoops
to ad hominem attacks in violation of the charter.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 6:26:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-7EAEEE.08020103082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
13:02:01 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <9MHPc.5336$54.88337@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Meanwhile we're still waiting for you to back up your wild claims.
>> How long will we have to wait? Enquiring minds want to know.
>
>The URL was posted, where were you yesterday morning? Of course you
>could find many more in a 20 second Google search IF YOU WANTED TO.

In fact I responded to that post, pointing out that your URL *didn't* support
your wild claims, and asking you to be more specific. You haven't done that,
so we're still waiting. (What a shock.)

>Contracts are easily gotten out of, often thats all some lawyers do,
>they're called
>
> = = drum roll = =
>
>"Contract Lawyers".

You obviously don't know much about this either -- contract lawyers mostly
[drum roll] negotiate and write contracts.

>And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
>previous message. SO here it is again:
>
>The poster said:

> I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago

I fail to see any relevant point.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 3, 2004 8:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <GgNPc.5347$54.88966@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
> >previous message. SO here it is again:
> >
> >The poster said:
>
> > I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
>
> I fail to see any relevant point.


Of course it's relevant, folks paid by Cingular might be viewed by some
as not being objective when discussing Cingular.

And again you snipped, so here it is for proof.

===========



And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
previous message. SO here it is again:

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
August 3, 2004 8:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <6bNPc.5345$54.88936@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >In any event one call resolution was a fiction in this case. ...
>
> I didn't say that either. In fact I've said previously that persistence
> (e.g., multiple calls) is often required.

So whats the solution, or do you regard 5 calls for resolution
acceptable?
August 3, 2004 8:43:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <1dNPc.5346$54.89009@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM143-70E15A.07560803082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> 12:56:08 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <gKHPc.5335$54.88326@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > - NAVAS "you should have checked before you bought".
>
> Actually posts accurate information.
>
> > - Robert - identidies Cable and software for user.
>
> Makes things up that are often wrong, frequently stoops
> to ad hominem attacks in violation of the charter.

Insult someone you disagree with. I am sorry when I post my experience
they disagree with your preconceived notions, so you call it made up,
but it never is.

And as for the charter, since its your creation you are judge jury and
executioner, except the charter is meaningless, as you make zero effort
to enforce it where it needs to be enforced, against Scamers, spamer,
and worm posters. You do make lame threats against me for pointing out
to people that this group is unmoderated, thats the way it was created,
so the Charter is an unenforceable document.
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 9:24:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-F0ACB6.11400003082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
16:40:00 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <6bNPc.5345$54.88936@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >In any event one call resolution was a fiction in this case. ...
>>
>> I didn't say that either. In fact I've said previously that persistence
>> (e.g., multiple calls) is often required.
>
>So whats the solution, or do you regard 5 calls for resolution
>acceptable?

Yes.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 9:26:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-FD2305.11432203082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
16:43:23 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <1dNPc.5346$54.89009@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> [Robert] Makes things up that are often wrong, frequently stoops
>> to ad hominem attacks in violation of the charter.
>
>Insult someone you disagree with.

I leave that to you.

>I am sorry when I post my experience
>they disagree with your preconceived notions, so you call it made up,
>but it never is.

I've shown repeatedly that it is.

>And as for the charter, since its your creation you are judge jury and
>executioner, except the charter is meaningless, as you make zero effort
>to enforce it where it needs to be enforced, against Scamers, spamer,
>and worm posters.

You have no idea what I do or don't do.

>You do make lame threats against me for pointing out
>to people that this group is unmoderated, thats the way it was created,
>so the Charter is an unenforceable document.

If you persist in violating the charter, you'll find that my warnings aren't
lame.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 9:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-3E763B.11391503082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
16:39:15 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <GgNPc.5347$54.88966@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
>> >previous message. SO here it is again:
>> >
>> >The poster said:
>>
>> > I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
>>
>> I fail to see any relevant point.
>
>Of course it's relevant, folks paid by Cingular might be viewed by some
>as not being objective when discussing Cingular.

He's not being paid by Cingular. Hence, no relevance.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 3, 2004 10:11:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <w%PPc.5386$54.89208@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM143-3E763B.11391503082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> 16:39:15 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <GgNPc.5347$54.88966@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
> >> >previous message. SO here it is again:
> >> >
> >> >The poster said:
> >>
> >> > I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
> >>
> >> I fail to see any relevant point.
> >
> >Of course it's relevant, folks paid by Cingular might be viewed by some
> >as not being objective when discussing Cingular.
>
> He's not being paid by Cingular. Hence, no relevance.

Why do you ALWAYS snip the part of the Post you are commenting on??

Obviously trying to snow readers rather than let them decide for
themselves:

=====================

As many times as you try to fool people by snipping, I shall repost.
The world is onto your tactics.

===================


And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
previous message. SO here it is again:

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago


===========================

John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?
Anonymous
August 3, 2004 10:18:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-B71718.13113903082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
18:11:44 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <w%PPc.5386$54.89208@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <RM143-3E763B.11391503082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
>> 16:39:15 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <GgNPc.5347$54.88966@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
>> >> >previous message. SO here it is again:
>> >> >
>> >> >The poster said:
>> >>
>> >> > I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago
>> >>
>> >> I fail to see any relevant point.
>> >
>> >Of course it's relevant, folks paid by Cingular might be viewed by some
>> >as not being objective when discussing Cingular.
>>
>> He's not being paid by Cingular. Hence, no relevance.
>
>Why do you ALWAYS snip the part of the Post you are commenting on??

I don't.

Why do you ALWAYS fail to back up your silly claims??

>John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?

Lots of them, especially ex-dealers.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 4, 2004 12:12:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <yFQPc.5458$54.89212@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Why do you ALWAYS snip the part of the Post you are commenting on??
>
> I don't.
>
> Why do you ALWAYS fail to back up your silly claims??
>
> >John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?
>
> Lots of them, especially ex-dealers.

One more time.

=============


And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
previous message. SO here it is again:

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago


===========================

John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?


So the reason they became exdealers is that Cingular never paid them???
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 1:03:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

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

In <RM143-0CF1F1.15123203082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
20:12:32 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:

>In article <yFQPc.5458$54.89212@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Why do you ALWAYS snip the part of the Post you are commenting on??
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> Why do you ALWAYS fail to back up your silly claims??
>>
>> >John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?
>>
>> Lots of them, especially ex-dealers.
>
>One more time.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still irrelevant.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 1:03:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <H4TPc.5485$54.89609@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still irrelevant.

All hail! John has spoken! He declares it irrelevant, therefore by
definition it is!

Whatever John says is true. Just ask him. He'll be more than happy to
tell you. Every time.
August 4, 2004 2:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <H4TPc.5485$54.89609@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> In <RM143-0CF1F1.15123203082004@news04.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 03 Aug 2004
> 20:12:32 GMT, Robert <RM143@ret.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <yFQPc.5458$54.89212@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Why do you ALWAYS snip the part of the Post you are commenting on??
> >>
> >> I don't.
> >>
> >> Why do you ALWAYS fail to back up your silly claims??
> >>
> >> >John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?
> >>
> >> Lots of them, especially ex-dealers.
> >
> >One more time.
>
> No matter how many times you repeat this, it's still irrelevant.

Your saying so doesn't make it so. But you did snip again:

One more time.

=============


And again as you ALWAYS do you snipped a relevant portion of the
previous message. SO here it is again:

The poster said:

From: Todd Allcock (elecconnec@aol.com)
Subject: Re: "No roaming charges, ever!" -- Yeah,sure.
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular
Date: 2004-07-15 22:24:21 PST

> snip

I used to be a Cingular dealer years ago


===========================

John do you really know any Cingular dealers not paid by Cingular?


So the reason they became exdealers is that Cingular never paid them???
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!