Cingular Nation coverage

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

Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.

I'm currently an ATTWS One Rate subscriber, contract long since
expired, and am in a group that will soon be dumped off to Alltel. I
love the plan and coverage I have now but am wasting no time crying
over losing it and Alltel's plans do not appeal to me. Moving to a
new plan on Cingular seems a viable option but I have questions about
coverage. Their map shows GSM coverage in some rural areas,
particularly in western Kansas and Nebraska to be rather spotty and my
work often takes me to rural areas in those and other southern and
central plains states. With ATTWS (sometimes with the help of an
external antenna) and an old Nokia 5160 I've had good coverage in
those areas, often managing to get a usable signal even where ATT's
maps show no coverage. Yes, I realize the maps are only guides but
compared to ATTWS maps of coverage in the same areas it appears I may
be giving up some areas I used to be able to work in and that is a
concern for me.

So my question is two fold. First, if I go with one of the Cingular
Nation plans what kind of coverage can I expect in the above mentioned
areas, And does "no roaming" mean exactly what it says, i.e. that if
I get a signal I can receive and make calls without facing roaming
charges. In other words if I got coverage in a certain area with my
old ATTWS plan can I expect coverage in the same area with Cingular
too?

And secondly, my new phone will need to be one that is better than
average at pulling in weak signals. Other features are secondary,
it's ability to work in fringe areas is of paramount importance. Any
recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

N.S.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

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

> Their map shows GSM coverage in some rural areas,
> particularly in western Kansas and Nebraska to be rather spotty and my
> work often takes me to rural areas in those and other southern and
> central plains states. With ATTWS (sometimes with the help of an
> external antenna) and an old Nokia 5160 I've had good coverage in
> those areas, often managing to get a usable signal even where ATT's
> maps show no coverage. Yes, I realize the maps are only guides but
> compared to ATTWS maps of coverage in the same areas it appears I may
> be giving up some areas I used to be able to work in and that is a
> concern for me.
>
> So my question is two fold. First, if I go with one of the Cingular
> Nation plans what kind of coverage can I expect in the above mentioned
> areas, And does "no roaming" mean exactly what it says, i.e. that if
> I get a signal I can receive and make calls without facing roaming
> charges. In other words if I got coverage in a certain area with my
> old ATTWS plan can I expect coverage in the same area with Cingular
> too?
>
> And secondly, my new phone will need to be one that is better than
> average at pulling in weak signals. Other features are secondary,
> it's ability to work in fringe areas is of paramount importance. Any
> recommendations will be greatly appreciated.
>
> N.S.
>
External dual-band antenna like the Wilson trucker.
GSM nation plan with the "GAIT feature and TDMA/AMPS interoperbility"
SE tu62 phone.
A 3-watt amp is also useful but a little expensive.
You may have trouble finding the phone but it is cheap on ebay. If you look
on ebay the Nokia 6340i will also work.
AT&T "GAIT phones are locked to AT&TW"
The TDMA/AMPS mode should work in the Cingular/at&t aera that is without
GSM.
Some on this NG have reported problems that their GAIT phone would not work
properly, you may want to search old posts about "GAIT".

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:02:14
-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:

>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.

FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
redundant postings.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:02:14
>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>
>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>redundant postings.

What a jerk. Why didn't you just answer the question.

Reply to mark

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

In article <7eBDd.531$m31.6948@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>
> FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
> redundant postings.

FYI, you can also use a killfile to avoid Navas's articles and thus
avoid...Navas.

Reply to Anonymous

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

> External dual-band antenna like the Wilson trucker.
> GSM nation plan with the "GAIT feature and TDMA/AMPS interoperbility"
> SE tu62 phone.

I think it that if this works for you (planwise), you should be able to
get the Nokia 6340i phone (check eBay) and use it, that way you would
already have extra chargers/accessories, I believe it would be
compatible with the external antenna you are already using, but not
positive, so you'd have to verify.

Another option, but I'm not sure if you could do it, would be to "move"
to another ATTW area that Cingular is taking over. You would have to
get a new phone number if you could, but then you'd be a Cingular customer.

TH

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <airtt0h6pkomp84nvh932is1asjc424sif@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:14:38
GMT, Mark <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:02:14
>>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>>
>>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>>redundant postings.
>
>What a jerk.

Referring to yourself?

>Why didn't you just answer the question.

Because:

1. I'm under no obligation to do so (last time I checked at least.

2. It serves him better to tell him what to do in the future.

3. The question was already answered.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

This must be one of those useful and informative posts people were touting
the other day.

I hope those people get this far into the thread to realize that John Navas
MIGHT occasionaly provide SOME useful insight into a subject but about 98%
of the time this is what we get. If John doesn't know the answer to
something I wish he'd just refrain from posting.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:BwODd.733$m31.8313@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <airtt0h6pkomp84nvh932is1asjc424sif@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
> 20:14:38
> GMT, Mark <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
>>>11:02:14
>>>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>>>
>>>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>>>redundant postings.
>>
>>What a jerk.
>
> Referring to yourself?
>
>>Why didn't you just answer the question.
>
> Because:
>
> 1. I'm under no obligation to do so (last time I checked at least.
>
> 2. It serves him better to tell him what to do in the future.
>
> 3. The question was already answered.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to johnf

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

My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack without
any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.

In <IOUDd.83494$uM5.21546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sat, 08 Jan
2005 17:32:24 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>This must be one of those useful and informative posts people were touting
>the other day.
>
>I hope those people get this far into the thread to realize that John Navas
>MIGHT occasionaly provide SOME useful insight into a subject but about 98%
>of the time this is what we get. If John doesn't know the answer to
>something I wish he'd just refrain from posting.
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:BwODd.733$m31.8313@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <airtt0h6pkomp84nvh932is1asjc424sif@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
>> 20:14:38
>> GMT, Mark <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
>>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
>>>>11:02:14
>>>>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>>>>
>>>>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>>>>redundant postings.
>>>
>>>What a jerk.
>>
>> Referring to yourself?
>>
>>>Why didn't you just answer the question.
>>
>> Because:
>>
>> 1. I'm under no obligation to do so (last time I checked at least.
>>
>> 2. It serves him better to tell him what to do in the future.
>>
>> 3. The question was already answered.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

Thanks to Stanley Reynolds and Tropical Haven for usable replies.

Reply to Anonymous

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

In article <47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack without
> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.

So, John, tell us: when are YOU going to abide by the charter and
Usenet guidelines?

Never. We know that. We just want to hear you try to justify yourself.

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <elmop-3B3E09.16495008012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005
16:49:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
>> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack without
>> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
>
>So, John, tell us: when are YOU going to abide by the charter and
>Usenet guidelines?

I always have. When are YOU going to do so?

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

In article <RNZDd.795$m31.9362@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >So, John, tell us: when are YOU going to abide by the charter and
> >Usenet guidelines?
>
> I always have.

You mean, like this post of yours?

Reply to Anonymous

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

Boys, boys, do I sense someone needs some quiet time

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <elmop-3B3E09.16495008012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005
> 16:49:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
>>>useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack without
>>>any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
>>
>>So, John, tell us: when are YOU going to abide by the charter and
>>Usenet guidelines?
>
>
> I always have. When are YOU going to do so?
>

Reply to Dave

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

In article <BjdEd.2063$KJ2.1905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Dave <davids1955@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Boys, boys, do I sense someone needs some quiet time
>
> John Navas wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <elmop-3B3E09.16495008012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Sat, 08 Jan 2005
> > 16:49:50 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> >>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
> >>>useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
> >>>without
> >>>any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
> >>
> >>So, John, tell us: when are YOU going to abide by the charter and
> >>Usenet guidelines?
> >
> >
> > I always have. When are YOU going to do so?
> >

When someone has appointed themselves manager of this newsgroup (a
nonexistant position for an unmoderated newsgroup), they are free to run
roughshod over others who might disagree with them, or prove them wrong
whether it be Cingular's timing of buying AT&T Wireless, Cingular's easy
conversion of back office stuff (NOT), Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15) or legal
issues on making and distributing ringtones.

Navas can be proved wrong, but you'll be violating some of his rules for
pointing out same.

Reply to Anonymous

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

Jack Zwick answered:

> Navas can be proved wrong, but you'll be violating some of his rules for
> pointing out same.

I forgot to add, you must be anally bobbing on a carrot, just as I am,
when you try to prove Navas wrong.

Reply to Anonymous

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

No. A small percentage of your posts are informative. The rest are "not it's
not" and "search the Google groups". What useful information did you
actually convey to the original poster of this thread? My post was simply to
point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and are
typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts. I've never
claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than yours
was.

Of course it was a personal attack. I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't really
have an answer. If you have some useful information then by all means
provide it. If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
next thread. Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it. You can call it
hypocrisy if you like but I'm just following your example. Once you quit
posting usless threads everyone else will as well.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
> without
> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
> Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.
>
> In <IOUDd.83494$uM5.21546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sat, 08
> Jan
> 2005 17:32:24 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>This must be one of those useful and informative posts people were touting
>>the other day.
>>
>>I hope those people get this far into the thread to realize that John
>>Navas
>>MIGHT occasionaly provide SOME useful insight into a subject but about 98%
>>of the time this is what we get. If John doesn't know the answer to
>>something I wish he'd just refrain from posting.
>>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:BwODd.733$m31.8313@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>
>>> In <airtt0h6pkomp84nvh932is1asjc424sif@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
>>> 20:14:38
>>> GMT, Mark <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
>>>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
>>>>>11:02:14
>>>>>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>>>>>
>>>>>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>>>>>redundant postings.
>>>>
>>>>What a jerk.
>>>
>>> Referring to yourself?
>>>
>>>>Why didn't you just answer the question.
>>>
>>> Because:
>>>
>>> 1. I'm under no obligation to do so (last time I checked at least.
>>>
>>> 2. It serves him better to tell him what to do in the future.
>>>
>>> 3. The question was already answered.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to johnf

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

In article <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Of course it was a personal attack. I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
> of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't really
> have an answer. If you have some useful information then by all means
> provide it. If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
> next thread.

I predict John Navas will ignore this advice completely. Further, he
will insist that anything he writes by definition follows the charter
and the accepted conventions of Usenet.

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-8B47AC.18470609012005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course it was a personal attack. I'm glad you figured that out. I'm
tired
> > of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't
really
> > have an answer. If you have some useful information then by all means
> > provide it. If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to
the
> > next thread.
>
> I predict John Navas will ignore this advice completely. Further, he
> will insist that anything he writes by definition follows the charter
> and the accepted conventions of Usenet.

Oooooohhhh Boy!!! You guys are in BIG trouble now!!! He'll throw you off his
newsgroup.

--
SS

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <jzwick3-CAE8A5.12060709012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
2005 18:06:14 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>When someone has appointed themselves manager of this newsgroup ...

No, just the creator. And you?

>prove them wrong
>whether it be Cingular's timing of buying AT&T Wireless,

Nope.

>Cingular's easy
>conversion of back office stuff (NOT),

Nope.

>Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
>Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15)

Nope.

>or legal
>issues on making and distributing ringtones.

Nope.

0 for 4, even worse than your usual dismal average.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.

The majority are.

>The rest are "not it's
>not" and "search the Google groups".

Informative.

>What useful information did you
>actually convey to the original poster of this thread?

How to help himself.

>My post was simply to
>point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and are
>typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts.

Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.

>I've never
>claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than yours
>was.

Nope.

>Of course it was a personal attack.

And thus off-topic, a violation of the charter and Usenet guidelines, and
utterly uninformative.

>I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
>of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't really
>have an answer.

Tough luck.

>If you have some useful information then by all means
>provide it.

I do.

>If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
>next thread.

Mind your own business.

>Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
>from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it.

Until then, when you act like a jerk, be prepared to be called a jerk.

>You can call it
>hypocrisy if you like

It is what it is.

>but I'm just following your example.

Nope.

>Once you quit
>posting usless threads everyone else will as well.

Hardly.

Have a nice day.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
>> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
>> without
>> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
>> Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <34e47aF49k9qpU1@individual.net> on Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:30:31 -0600,
"Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:

>Oooooohhhh Boy!!! You guys are in BIG trouble now!!! He'll throw you off his
>newsgroup.

I'll actually just point how out how childish you both are.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <elmop-8B47AC.18470609012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 09 Jan 2005
18:47:06 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course it was a personal attack. I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
>> of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't really
>> have an answer. If you have some useful information then by all means
>> provide it. If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
>> next thread.
>
>I predict John Navas will ignore this advice completely. ...

For once you are right. But only this once.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

In article <XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
> 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.
>
> The majority are.
>
> >The rest are "not it's
> >not" and "search the Google groups".
>
> Informative.
>
> >What useful information did you
> >actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>
> How to help himself.
>
How does this article of yours follow the charter and Usenet
conventions, John?

Oh, sorry. I caught you being a hypocrite again. Now come your forged
posts.

> >My post was simply to
> >point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and are
> >typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts.
>
> Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.
>
> >I've never
> >claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than yours
> >was.
>
> Nope.
>
> >Of course it was a personal attack.
>
> And thus off-topic, a violation of the charter and Usenet guidelines, and
> utterly uninformative.
>
> >I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
> >of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't really
> >have an answer.
>
> Tough luck.
>
> >If you have some useful information then by all means
> >provide it.
>
> I do.
>
> >If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
> >next thread.
>
> Mind your own business.
>
> >Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
> >from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it.
>
> Until then, when you act like a jerk, be prepared to be called a jerk.
>
> >You can call it
> >hypocrisy if you like
>
> It is what it is.
>
> >but I'm just following your example.
>
> Nope.
>
> >Once you quit
> >posting usless threads everyone else will as well.
>
> Hardly.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far more
> >> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
> >> without
> >> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet guidelines.
> >> Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.

Reply to Anonymous

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

In article <elmop-DBF021.07192110012005@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
> > 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.
> >
> > The majority are.
> >
> > >The rest are "not it's
> > >not" and "search the Google groups".
> >
> > Informative.
> >
> > >What useful information did you
> > >actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
> >
> > How to help himself.
> >
> How does this article of yours follow the charter and Usenet
> conventions, John?
>

> Oh, sorry. I caught you being a hypocrite again. Now come your forged
> posts.
>

Again? "Still" is the better word.

Reply to Anonymous

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

"...stay on target.....stay on target"
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> No. A small percentage of your posts are informative. The rest are "not
it's
> not" and "search the Google groups". What useful information did you
> actually convey to the original poster of this thread? My post was simply
to
> point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and
are
> typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts. I've never
> claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than
yours
> was.
>
> Of course it was a personal attack. I'm glad you figured that out. I'm
tired
> of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't
really
> have an answer. If you have some useful information then by all means
> provide it. If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to
the
> next thread. Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
> from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it. You can call it
> hypocrisy if you like but I'm just following your example. Once you quit
> posting usless threads everyone else will as well.
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far
more
> > useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
> > without
> > any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet
guidelines.
> > Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.
> >
> > In <IOUDd.83494$uM5.21546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sat, 08
> > Jan
> > 2005 17:32:24 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This must be one of those useful and informative posts people were
touting
> >>the other day.
> >>
> >>I hope those people get this far into the thread to realize that John
> >>Navas
> >>MIGHT occasionaly provide SOME useful insight into a subject but about
98%
> >>of the time this is what we get. If John doesn't know the answer to
> >>something I wish he'd just refrain from posting.
> >>
> >>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >>news:BwODd.733$m31.8313@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>>
> >>> In <airtt0h6pkomp84nvh932is1asjc424sif@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
> >>> 20:14:38
> >>> GMT, Mark <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT, John Navas
> >>>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>In <3pftt09i8cbqld275fpc2plj5v9bh52bh9@4ax.com> on Fri, 07 Jan 2005
> >>>>>11:02:14
> >>>>>-0600, Nathan S. <nate@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
> >>>>>redundant postings.
> >>>>
> >>>>What a jerk.
> >>>
> >>> Referring to yourself?
> >>>
> >>>>Why didn't you just answer the question.
> >>>
> >>> Because:
> >>>
> >>> 1. I'm under no obligation to do so (last time I checked at least.
> >>>
> >>> 2. It serves him better to tell him what to do in the future.
> >>>
> >>> 3. The question was already answered.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

John,

If you would totally ignore these personal attacks, they DO go away. It may
take years, but they go away. IGNORE 'EM so the groups stays useful..
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09
Jan
> 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.
>
> The majority are.
>
> >The rest are "not it's
> >not" and "search the Google groups".
>
> Informative.
>
> >What useful information did you
> >actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>
> How to help himself.
>
> >My post was simply to
> >point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and
are
> >typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts.
>
> Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.
>
> >I've never
> >claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than
yours
> >was.
>
> Nope.
>
> >Of course it was a personal attack.
>
> And thus off-topic, a violation of the charter and Usenet guidelines, and
> utterly uninformative.
>
> >I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
> >of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't
really
> >have an answer.
>
> Tough luck.
>
> >If you have some useful information then by all means
> >provide it.
>
> I do.
>
> >If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
> >next thread.
>
> Mind your own business.
>
> >Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
> >from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it.
>
> Until then, when you act like a jerk, be prepared to be called a jerk.
>
> >You can call it
> >hypocrisy if you like
>
> It is what it is.
>
> >but I'm just following your example.
>
> Nope.
>
> >Once you quit
> >posting usless threads everyone else will as well.
>
> Hardly.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far
more
> >> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
> >> without
> >> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet
guidelines.
> >> Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to Anonymous

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09
> Jan
> 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.
>
> The majority are.

Umm.... No. Sorry to break it to you but they're not. At least not to anyone
but you. That's what everyone is trying to tell you.

>
>>The rest are "not it's
>>not" and "search the Google groups".
>
> Informative.

Telling someone to go look it up somewhere else is not being informative.
Giving them an answer is being informative. Telling them to look elsewhere
is telling them there's no information to be found here. Why does this group
even exists if everyone should just look somewhere else? It doesn't matter
if it's been asked before. If you don't want to give a real answer than
don't.

>
>>What useful information did you
>>actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>
> How to help himself.

He was trying to by coming here and asking a question. You're response was
to simply tell him to look elsewhere. Again if you don't know an answer
you're not required to post. Let someone who does know answer the question.

>
>>My post was simply to
>>point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and
>>are
>>typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts.
>
> Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.

As was our original response. Hence the followup off-topic responses.

>
>>I've never
>>claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than
>>yours
>>was.
>
> Nope.

Yup.

>
>>Of course it was a personal attack.
>
> And thus off-topic, a violation of the charter and Usenet guidelines, and
> utterly uninformative.

Give me a break. Isn't this last response of your's a violation of this
so-called charter? What exactly does a charter for a usenet group mean
anyway (other than to get it initally approved)? Who exactly enforces this
charter? Usenet is the ultimate in anarchy. There are no rules. That's why
we have to way to stop your useless responses other than to badger you
everytime you post one.

I also hate to break it to you but you don't own this group. I know you
claim to have started it and I don't really care if you did because someone
else would have started it eventually anyway. But even if you did start it,
nobody owns it and the direction it takes is driven by the people on it
regardless of what your charter might say.

>
>>I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
>>of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't
>>really
>>have an answer.
>
> Tough luck.

Same to ya.

>
>>If you have some useful information then by all means
>>provide it.
>
> I do.

Occasionaly. And it's welcomed when and if you do.

>
>>If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
>>next thread.
>
> Mind your own business.

My business is trying to learn more about Cingular. So I'm having to weed
through your responses to EVERY thread in this group. That effects me.

>
>>Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
>>from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it.
>
> Until then, when you act like a jerk, be prepared to be called a jerk.

No problem. Just following your example.

>
>>You can call it
>>hypocrisy if you like
>
> It is what it is.

Ok. You know better than I do. My goal is just to get you to stop responding
to every thread when you have nothing to add.

>
>>but I'm just following your example.
>
> Nope.

Yup.

>
>>Once you quit
>>posting usless threads everyone else will as well.
>
> Hardly.

At least you can be the start.

>
> Have a nice day.

I will. You too.

Reply to johnf

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

Useless response #123,456. Exactly zero amount of new and useful information
contained in this post.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:LVqEd.1013$m31.12842@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-CAE8A5.12060709012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
> 2005 18:06:14 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>>When someone has appointed themselves manager of this newsgroup ...
>
> No, just the creator. And you?
>
>>prove them wrong
>>whether it be Cingular's timing of buying AT&T Wireless,
>
> Nope.
>
>>Cingular's easy
>>conversion of back office stuff (NOT),
>
> Nope.
>
>>Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
>>Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15)
>
> Nope.
>
>>or legal
>>issues on making and distributing ringtones.
>
> Nope.
>
> 0 for 4, even worse than your usual dismal average.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to johnf

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

They don't though. He honestly feels like he's providing some service to
everyone. It's like a mental disorder. Then one person comes along and says
he provides useful information and his head grows one size bigger and
suddenly it's justified his whole existance up to this point. How do you
deal with someone like this in a forum where there are no rules? I would
think simply asking would be enough? I'll stop if someone asks. Will Navas?

"Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0IwEd.2374$tF.684@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> John,
>
> If you would totally ignore these personal attacks, they DO go away. It
> may
> take years, but they go away. IGNORE 'EM so the groups stays useful..
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09
> Jan
>> 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. A small percentage of your posts are informative.
>>
>> The majority are.
>>
>> >The rest are "not it's
>> >not" and "search the Google groups".
>>
>> Informative.
>>
>> >What useful information did you
>> >actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>>
>> How to help himself.
>>
>> >My post was simply to
>> >point out to your groupies that most of your posts are condescending and
> are
>> >typically just there to oppose whatever someone else posts.
>>
>> Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.
>>
>> >I've never
>> >claimed to be informative but my post was still more informative than
> yours
>> >was.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >Of course it was a personal attack.
>>
>> And thus off-topic, a violation of the charter and Usenet guidelines, and
>> utterly uninformative.
>>
>> >I'm glad you figured that out. I'm tired
>> >of your trite flippant responses to peoples questions when you don't
> really
>> >have an answer.
>>
>> Tough luck.
>>
>> >If you have some useful information then by all means
>> >provide it.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> >If you don't have anything useful to add then just go on to the
>> >next thread.
>>
>> Mind your own business.
>>
>> >Until then, be prepared to receive these types of responses
>> >from myself and everyone else here who are tired of it.
>>
>> Until then, when you act like a jerk, be prepared to be called a jerk.
>>
>> >You can call it
>> >hypocrisy if you like
>>
>> It is what it is.
>>
>> >but I'm just following your example.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >Once you quit
>> >posting usless threads everyone else will as well.
>>
>> Hardly.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> >news:47VDd.780$m31.8175@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> >> My response here and the great majority of my other responses are far
> more
>> >> useful and informative than this posting of yours, a personal attack
>> >> without
>> >> any relevant content that violates both the charter and Usenet
> guidelines.
>> >> Can you say "hypocrisy?" Have a nice day.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
>

Reply to johnf

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

In article <d6xEd.95685$uM5.45518@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Useless response #123,456. Exactly zero amount of new and useful information
> contained in this post.
Zero for Navas.

>
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:LVqEd.1013$m31.12842@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-CAE8A5.12060709012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
> > 2005 18:06:14 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>When someone has appointed themselves manager of this newsgroup ...

But he regularly acts like his self-written charter has any authority
when in an unmoderated group it doesn't.

> >
> > No, just the creator. And you?
> >
> >>prove them wrong
> >>whether it be Cingular's timing of buying AT&T Wireless,

End of October he insisted it hadnt happened yet, despite all the news
stories and Cingular press releases saying it had.

> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >>Cingular's easy
> >>conversion of back office stuff (NOT),

Thats what he said.

> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >>Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
> >>Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15)
> >
> > Nope.

<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>

Cingular said so, Navas refuse to believe still.
> >
> >>or legal
> >>issues on making and distributing ringtones.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > 0 for 4, even worse than your usual dismal average.

4 for 4 his lying.

We'll see what he says when RIAA calls him, I got an email from a lurker,
telling me they reported him to RIAA.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

In article <0IwEd.2374$tF.684@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> If you would totally ignore these personal attacks, they DO go away. It may
> take years, but they go away. IGNORE 'EM so the groups stays useful..
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net...

It's Navas that starts in with the personal attacks when he's proven to
be wrong.

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <d6xEd.95685$uM5.45518@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Mon, 10 Jan
2005 15:23:53 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>... Exactly zero amount of new and useful information
>contained in this post.

Actually a correction of misinformation.

p.s. Please don't switch posting styles (top vs bottom) in mid-thread -- it's
confusing, and considered a bit rude. Thanks.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:LVqEd.1013$m31.12842@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <jzwick3-CAE8A5.12060709012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
>> 2005 18:06:14 GMT, Jack "Chicken Little" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>When someone has appointed themselves manager of this newsgroup ...
>>
>> No, just the creator. And you?
>>
>>>prove them wrong
>>>whether it be Cingular's timing of buying AT&T Wireless,
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>Cingular's easy
>>>conversion of back office stuff (NOT),
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
>>>Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15)
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>or legal
>>>issues on making and distributing ringtones.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> 0 for 4, even worse than your usual dismal average.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <jzwick3-2A38BC.09500310012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Mon, 10 Jan
2005 15:50:11 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>[John Navas] regularly acts like his self-written charter has any authority
>when in an unmoderated group it doesn't.

It has moral authority, except to those (like you) that don't respect it.
It also has practical authority in cases of severe abuse.

>End of October [John Navas] insisted [the merger] hadnt happened yet,
>despite all the news
>stories and Cingular press releases saying it had.

Nope. I wrote that it wasn't a done deal until approved by the Court, and
posted a citation proving that.

>> >>Cingular's easy
>> >>conversion of back office stuff (NOT),
>
>Thats what he said.

Nope. What I actually wrote
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Iutgd.2064%24_3.27393%40typhoon.sonic.net>
or <http://tinyurl.com/3mxd3>:

From: John Navas
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws
Subject: Re: Going from ATTWS to Cingular
Message-ID: <Iutgd.2064$_3.27393@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:39:20 GMT
...
The number of users (subscribers) is largely irrelevant -- what matters is
the number (one) and type of (compatible) back office systems. This
integration actually looks to be easier than prior integrations.

Which part of that don't you understand? Shall we start with "This"?

>> >>Cinular's conversion of all AT&T
>> >>Wirless stores (falsely claimed to have happened on Nov. 15)
>> >
>> > Nope.
>
><http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
>UL1&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004>
>
>Cingular said so, ...

Nope. Not what it says.

>We'll see what he says when RIAA calls him, I got an email from a lurker,
>telling me they reported him to RIAA.

LOL! I'm not holding my breath -- are you?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <elmop-DBF021.07192110012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Mon, 10 Jan 2005
07:19:21 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <v1hEd.10510$c13.4305@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Sun, 09 Jan
>> 2005 21:06:35 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >What useful information did you
>> >actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>>
>> How to help himself.
>>
>How does this article of yours follow the charter and Usenet
>conventions, John?

By not violating them. ( Seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm happy to clear
that up for you.

>Oh, sorry. I caught you being a hypocrite again. Now come your forged
>posts.
>[SNIP]

I don't forge (and haven't forged) posts.
That's a pretty serious charge. Got any proof?

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <0IwEd.2374$tF.684@bignews6.bellsouth.net> on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:57:28
-0500, "Joe Fabeitz" <jf@hotmail.com> wrote:

>John,
>
>If you would totally ignore these personal attacks, they DO go away. It may
>take years, but they go away. IGNORE 'EM so the groups stays useful..

Thanks for the advice (seriously), but my (long experience on Usenet is that
ignoring personal attacks unfortunately just serves to (a) actually embolden
those making them and (b) mislead lurkers, many of whom think there must be at
least some merit in attacks left unchallenged.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <v4xEd.13113$c13.4459@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Mon, 10 Jan
2005 15:22:03 GMT, "JohnF" <u85721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:XZqEd.1014$m31.12791@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> The majority [of my posts] are [informative].
>
>Umm.... No. Sorry to break it to you but they're not.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>At least not to anyone
>but you. That's what everyone is trying to tell you.

You presume to speak for "everyone?" I think not. (How arrogant and silly.)

>> Informative.
>
>Telling someone to go look it up somewhere else is not being informative.

Telling someone where to go look it up is being informative.

>... Why does this group
>even exists if everyone should just look somewhere else?

Mostly for new material.

>It doesn't matter
>if it's been asked before. ...

Actually it does, as Dear Emily Postnews makes clear:

Q: What about other important questions? How should I know when to post?

A: Always post them. It would be a big waste of your time to find a
knowledgeable user in one of the groups and ask through private mail if the
topic has already come up. Much easier to bother thousands of people with
the same question.

Hint: That's sarcasm. See also "Rules for posting to Usenet":

Before posting a question to the net (especially one that you think
will be easy for experts to answer), consider carefully whether
posting is the most appropriate way to get the answer. There are
many ways to find answers without using up network resources and
forcing thousands of people to read your question (and several
helpful volunteers to spend time responding). ...

>>>What useful information did you
>>>actually convey to the original poster of this thread?
>>
>> How to help himself.
>
>He was trying to by coming here and asking a question. You're response was
>to simply tell him to look elsewhere.

I actually told him where to look, something he clearly didn't know.

>... Let someone who does know answer the question.

I'm not stopping others from respond, and in fact there were other responses.

>> Your post was just an off-topic ad hominem.
>
>As was our original response.

Nope.

>Hence the followup off-topic responses.

Not a good excuse. "Two wrongs don't make a right."

>> Mind your own business.
>
>My business is trying to learn more about Cingular. So I'm having to weed
>through your responses to EVERY thread in this group. That effects me.

That's Usenet. If you don't like my posts, filter them out.

>... My goal is just to get you to stop responding
>to every thread when you have nothing to add.

Surely you have better things to do with your time.

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:09BEd.1124$m31.13272@typhoon.sonic.net...
> That's Usenet. If you don't like my posts, filter them out.

Done! You all have fun reading Navas' asinine responses.

Reply to johnf

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

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B6C188.19200707012005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <7eBDd.531$m31.6948@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
> >
> > FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
> > redundant postings.
>
> FYI, you can also use a killfile to avoid Navas's articles and thus
> avoid...Navas.
>

Did this yesterday. I would recommend it for everyone. It's like a fresh of
breath air coming here and not seeing any posts from Navas.

Reply to johnf

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

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

In <J8_Ed.3455$7N1.1854@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Wed, 12 Jan
2005 00:26:17 GMT, "JohnF" <u8721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:09BEd.1124$m31.13272@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> That's Usenet. If you don't like my posts, filter them out.
>
>Done! ...

Works for me too!

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

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

In <Ha_Ed.3466$7N1.180@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> on Wed, 12 Jan 2005
00:28:23 GMT, "JohnF" <u8721@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>news:elmop-B6C188.19200707012005@text.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <7eBDd.531$m31.6948@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Hello all, I'm a newbie so please forgive if this is redundant.
>> >
>> > FYI, you can use Google Groups to search back articles and thus avoid
>> > redundant postings.
>>
>> FYI, you can also use a killfile to avoid Navas's articles and thus
>> avoid...Navas.
>
>Did this yesterday. I would recommend it for everyone. It's like a fresh of
>breath air coming here and not seeing any posts from Navas.

Let me guess ... you're 12? 10?

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

Reply to Anonymous

Forum Mobility Networks : Cingular - Cingular Nation coverage

Please mind

Focus On

Cingular Nation coverage

Forum Mobility Networks : Cingular - Cingular Nation coverage

Please mind