Can someone help me! Cingular not living up to deal!

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

Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to be
a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would get a
'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up all four
phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could resell
them and buy what I wanted.

Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan, even
though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove it! When
I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't there
anymore!

Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?

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

In article <n_6dna9n-NiqpHDcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>,
"Ben" <ben14@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to be
> a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would get a
> 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5.

Offer subject to change.

Or didn't you read that part of the deal?

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

>
> AT&T Wireless no longer exists. You can't have any deal with a now defunct
> company.
>
> --
> JJS

Ummmm . . . does that mean that the OP is no longer getting billed for
wireless service? After all, the company no longer exists, so they must not
be sending out monthly bills. -Dave

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

>
> Offer subject to change.
>
> Or didn't you read that part of the deal?

Yes, "change" not "disappearance"

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

I couldn't be the only one who enrolled in that program. It was a great
giveaway, it stated they would give you a free phone every year you remained
a loyal customer, the time was concurrent with the required 2 years
agreement to get the nice phones and rebates.

I mean the CSR acknowledged the program but said Cingular (after speaking to
her supervisor) wasn't going to honor the obligation! But they would give me
a free phone if I give up my 950 anytime minutes/4 phone lines/unl M2M/unl
N&W/free incoming SMS messages/ extra minutes $.4, to upgrade! to 450
minutes/5000 N&W/ unl M2M/$.10 per SMS/extra minutes $.45! They must think
people are devoid of any intelligence!

I guess till a better deal comes along I will go month to month till
Cingular takes my plan away and chases me to another carrier! I miss the old
AWS, at least here in Florida they were tops for me!

If no help there how about the $25.85 in taxes on a $69.95 plan! I believe
they are overstating the cost (on each extra line they mark it up to $19.95
then discount each line $10 [but not the taxes], but its not what I signed
up for the advertising was clear $9.95 per line) then taxing on the higher
number. Taxes on the extra lines are $4.70 on $10! Add the cryptic $1.75 per
line blah blah. I believe if you say it costs $9.95, it should cost $9.95
not $16!

If there are taxes to be paid shouldn't the phone company pay them aren't
they the one making the profit??

Ben

I can't see anything to be done. Probably go to pay as you go.


"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-DB088C.19034218012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the assets
>> and
>> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
>> honor
>> promises made by ATTWS.
>
> Yeah, so what should the man do to get Cingular to perform? We know
> calling BBB is worthless.

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <355b84F4ho02vU1@individual.net> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:51:31 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>
> >"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> >news:elmop-F82BEC.14553318012005@text.usenetserver.com...
> >> In article <n_6dna9n-NiqpHDcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>,
> >> "Ben" <ben14@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I
continued
> >to be
> >> > a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would
get
> >a
> >> > 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5.
> >>
> >> Offer subject to change.
> >>
> >> Or didn't you read that part of the deal?
> >
> >AT&T Wireless no longer exists. You can't have any deal with a now
defunct
> >company.
>
> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the assets
and
> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
honor
> promises made by ATTWS.

Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before posting.
Your reply is total and complete nonsense.

How do you function in life being this stupid.

--
SS

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

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

In <3576trF4ipp4oU1@individual.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
"Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the assets and
>> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to honor
>> promises made by ATTWS.
>
>Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before posting.
>Your reply is total and complete nonsense.

You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:

Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
goes out of business, what can I do?

A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
obligations of the old company. ...

The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide

<http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_9.pdf>

>How do you function in life being this stupid.

How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.

--
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]

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

In article <RAxHd.2763$m31.34472@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-DB088C.19034218012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Wed, 19 Jan
> 2005 01:05:18 GMT, Jack "FUDMEISTER" Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the assets
> >> and
> >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
> >> honor
> >> promises made by ATTWS.
> >
> >Yeah, so what should the man do to get Cingular to perform?
>
> I've already told him.


No you didn't.
>
> >We know
> >calling BBB is worthless.
>
> Just the opposite.

BBB is worthless, they're paid by Cingular.

Likely best bet, a factual non judgemental letter to his State Attorney
General with a certified copy to Cingular HQ.

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

The link below may help; you probably just have to make sure the call
center you get to is a "blue" one, and the rep remembers the deal
you're talking about. Was it a matter of not extending your agreement
by another two years?

http://forums.attwireless.com/attw [...] ge.id=9128


Ben wrote:
> Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I
continued to be
> a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would
get a
> 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up
all four
> phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could
resell
> them and buy what I wanted.
>
> Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan,
even
> though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove
it! When
> I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't
there
> anymore!
>
> Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8RxHd.2768$m31.34773@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <3576trF4ipp4oU1@individual.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the
assets and
> >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
honor
> >> promises made by ATTWS.
> >
> >Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before posting.
> >Your reply is total and complete nonsense.
>
> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>
> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> goes out of business, what can I do?
>
> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> obligations of the old company. ...
>
> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>
>
<http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_9
..pdf>



Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.



>
> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>
> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.



By being right.

--
SS

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

With the link to the ATT free phone site, I now have my "proof", so Cingular
will honor the deal, now that I have paper proof.

Thanks to all that were helpful,
Ben

For me this thread is complete.

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-0A8A2F.11161520012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <35a167F4id16oU1@individual.net>,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:8RxHd.2768$m31.34773@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>> >
>> > In <3576trF4ipp4oU1@individual.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
>> > "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >"John Navas" <jnavas@sonic.netm> wrote in message
>> > >news:IBfHd.2667$m31.32566@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> >
>> > >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the
>> assets and
>> > >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated
>> > >> to
>> honor
>> > >> promises made by ATTWS.
>> > >
>> > >Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before
>> > >posting.
>> > >Your reply is total and complete nonsense.
>> >
>> > You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>> >
>> > Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
>> > goes out of business, what can I do?
>> >
>> > A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
>> > usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
>> > obligations of the old company. ...
>> >
>> > The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>> >
>> >
>> <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_9
>> .pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>> >
>> > How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>>
>>
>>
>> By being right.
>>
>> --
>> SS
> If Cingular is not honoring AT&TWS contracts, write a straightforward
> nonjudgemental letter to your State's Attorney General, with a certified
> copy to Cingular HQ in Atlanta.

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

In article <41F07446.7000205@example.net>,
Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:

> Ben wrote:
> > Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to
> > be
> > a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would get a
> > 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up all four
> > phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could resell
> > them and buy what I wanted.
> >
> > Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan, even
> > though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove it! When
> > I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't there
> > anymore!
> >
> > Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?
>
> In case there are any future issues, docuement EVERYTHING, including but
> not limited to:
>
> - Number Called
> - Start Time of Call
> - Operator who answered (and any subsequent operators you may have been
> transfered to)

Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
(John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
themselves upon request.

> - Any pertinent information
> - End Time of Call
> - Duration of Call
>
> This will all help should anybody question you about information from
> operators.
>
> TH

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

In article <35cp1jF4lb740U1@individual.net>,
"Tsheer" <fwdtopcs@yah00.com> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jzwick3-EBA3B1.05520821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <41F07446.7000205@example.net>,
> > Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:
>
> > Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
> > (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
> > themselves upon request.
>
> Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?

Their employer

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:GmTJd.3814$m31.53252@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <35a167F4id16oU1@individual.net> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:8RxHd.2768$m31.34773@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> >>
> >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> >> goes out of business, what can I do?
> >>
> >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> >> obligations of the old company. ...
> >>
> >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> >>
>
><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_
9
> >.pdf>
> >
> >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>
> It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same --
read
> the citation more carefully.


That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.

You can do better right? Otherwise this just isn't any fun!


>
> >> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
> >>
> >> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
> >
> >By being right.
>
> Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.
>

And when did YOU prove me wrong?

--
JJS

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-E34F01.20560027012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <35tne0F4p39rsU1@individual.net>,
> "Jiu JitSuperfly" <shaolinsuperfly@mma.tv> wrote:
>
> > "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> > news:GmTJd.3814$m31.53252@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> > >
> > > In <35a167F4id16oU1@individual.net> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
09:30:30 -0600,
> > > "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:8RxHd.2768$m31.34773@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > >
> > > >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> > > >>
> > > >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company
that
> > > >> goes out of business, what can I do?
> > > >>
> > > >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> > > >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the
contract
> > > >> obligations of the old company. ...
> > > >>
> > > >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> > > >>
> > >
> >
><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_
> > 9
> > > >.pdf>
> > > >
> > > >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
> > >
> > > It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the
same --
> > read
> > > the citation more carefully.
> >
> >
> > That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
> > because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>
>
> duh - what do you think a buyout is.


Well it's not a merger, dumbass.

You really should think before you post.

--
JJS

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

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

In <35tne0F4p39rsU1@individual.net> on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:46:41 -0600, "Jiu
JitSuperfly" <shaolinsuperfly@mma.tv> wrote:

>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:GmTJd.3814$m31.53252@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <35a167F4id16oU1@individual.net> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
>> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8RxHd.2768$m31.34773@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>> >>
>> >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
>> >> goes out of business, what can I do?
>> >>
>> >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
>> >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
>> >> obligations of the old company. ...
>> >>
>> >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>> >>
>>
>><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/books/family_legal_guide/chapter_
>9
>> >.pdf>
>> >
>> >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>>
>> It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same --
>read
>> the citation more carefully.
>
>
>That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
>because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>
>You can do better right? Otherwise this just isn't any fun!

I don't have to do better, because this was a merger.

>> >> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>> >>
>> >> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>> >
>> >By being right.
>>
>> Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.
>>
>
>And when did YOU prove me wrong?

In all of these posts.

--
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]

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

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

In <41F9B4B6.70003@example.net> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:42:41 GMT, Tropical
Haven <user@example.net> wrote:

>>>>That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
>>>>because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>>>
>>>duh - what do you think a buyout is.
>>
>> Well it's not a merger, dumbass.
>>
>> You really should think before you post.
>
>I know it's been covered a little bit already in this thread, but it is
>not a merger of companies. Cingular paid cash outright for AT&T
>Wireless. Now, Cingular is going through a merger of physical assets
>and operations it gained from the purchase of AT&T Wireless, with its
>own already established network and operations. For most consumers who
>may not understand what happened, it's just easier to call it a merger
>of companies. But we know better.

You may think you know better, but from a legal standpoint it's a merger
nonetheless.

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

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

According to Merriam-Webster, a merger is "absorption by a corporation
of one or more others; also : any of various methods of combining two or
more organizations (as business concerns)".

www.m-w.com

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

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> It does not matter whether they paid cash or stock or both or
> whatever. Yov yovrself said "Cingvlar is going throvgh a merger"

Yes, bvt it all depends on which way yov look at it (I'm looking at it
from a lingval standard). It is a merger of assets and operations, bvt
AT&T Wireless ceases to exist as a company, and is not offering anything
to the "Cingvlar/AT&T Wireless Union" and therefore in that regard it is
not a merger.

From the consvmer standpoint, it doesn't really matter. Bvt believe
me, from the accovnting standpoint, it does.

TH

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:TMlKd.4188$m31.56499@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-43C25E.10410421012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 21 Jan
> 2005 16:42:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <35cp1jF4lb740U1@individual.net>,
> > "Tsheer" <fwdtopcs@yah00.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jzwick3-EBA3B1.05520821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <41F07446.7000205@example.net>,
> >> > Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
> >> > (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
> >> > themselves upon request.
> >>
> >> Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?
> >
> >Their employer
>
> Any you "know" this ... how?
>
> --
Here, Phil- I'll give you a hand on this one.

Based on my real-life professional experience (as opposed to an imagined
blanket expertise in all things written), every company that I have ever
been associated with or been employed by that operates call centers REQUIRES
agents to give the customer a unique identifier when asked to supply one.
Compliance is monitored and non-compliance is not just swept under the rug.
And let's be clear on this, John- I know this because I have not only
written the policy for major call centers such as this, I have also been
responsible for managing the monitoring of such activities. And unless you
can provide any comparable experience, your participation in this vine of
the thread is no longer needed- leave the information to the experts.

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

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

In <wpSdnZpnz8iSPWfcRVn-vA@adelphia.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:27:43 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:TMlKd.4188$m31.56499@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <jzwick3-43C25E.10410421012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 21 Jan
>> 2005 16:42:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35cp1jF4lb740U1@individual.net>,
>> > "Tsheer" <fwdtopcs@yah00.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jzwick3-EBA3B1.05520821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
>> >> > In article <41F07446.7000205@example.net>,
>> >> > Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
>> >> > (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
>> >> > themselves upon request.
>> >>
>> >> Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?
>> >
>> >Their employer
>>
>> Any you "know" this ... how?
>>
>Here, Phil- I'll give you a hand on this one.

Be scared, Phil, be very scared.

>Based on my real-life professional experience (as opposed to an imagined
>blanket expertise in all things written), every company that I have ever
>been associated with or been employed by that operates call centers REQUIRES
>agents to give the customer a unique identifier when asked to supply one.
>...

Based on my real-life professional experience (as opposed to an childish
harassment), *not* every company that I have ever been associated with or been
employed by that operates call centers REQUIRES agents to give the customer a
unique identifier when asked to supply one.

>And let's be clear on this, John- I know this because I have not only
>written the policy for major call centers such as this,

And let's be clear on this, Scott- your experience means squat in this
context. Likewise mine. That's because neither of us actually knows the
policy is at Cingular. All we can do is guess. I suspect Phil is in the same
boat.

>I have also been
>responsible for managing the monitoring of such activities.

Likewise.

>And unless you
>can provide any comparable experience, your participation in this vine of
>the thread is no longer needed- leave the information to the experts.

I guess we'll have to call it a draw. ;-)

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

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

"John Novice" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:VtAKd.4314$m31.57589@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <wpSdnZpnz8iSPWfcRVn-vA@adelphia.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005
13:27:43 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:TMlKd.4188$m31.56499@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> In <jzwick3-43C25E.10410421012005@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Fri, 21
Jan
> >> 2005 16:42:41 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <35cp1jF4lb740U1@individual.net>,
> >> > "Tsheer" <fwdtopcs@yah00.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:jzwick3-EBA3B1.05520821012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> >> >> > In article <41F07446.7000205@example.net>,
> >> >> > Tropical Haven <user@example.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify
themselves.
> >> >> > (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely
identify
> >> >> > themselves upon request.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?
> >> >
> >> >Their employer
> >>
> >> Any you "know" this ... how?
> >>
> >Here, Phil- I'll give you a hand on this one.
>
> Be scared, Phil, be very scared.
>
> >Based on my real-life professional experience (as opposed to an imagined
> >blanket expertise in all things written), every company that I have ever
> >been associated with or been employed by that operates call centers
REQUIRES
> >agents to give the customer a unique identifier when asked to supply one.
> >...
>
> Based on my real-life professional experience (as opposed to an childish
> harassment), *not* every company that I have ever been associated with or
been
> employed by that operates call centers REQUIRES agents to give the
customer a
> unique identifier when asked to supply one.

You have no experience in this- quit trying to be a know-it-all child.

>
> >And let's be clear on this, John- I know this because I have not only
> >written the policy for major call centers such as this,
>
> And let's be clear on this, Scott- your experience means squat in this
> context. Likewise mine. That's because neither of us actually knows the
> policy is at Cingular. All we can do is guess. I suspect Phil is in the
same
> boat.

How do you know that neither of us knows the policy at Cingular?

>
> >I have also been
> >responsible for managing the monitoring of such activities.
>
> Likewise.

Lie- you have no experience in this. I will point to your own words and
even to your beloved website for proof. You see, your need to boast and
pontificate for all of these years has left a very clear record of your
experience. Nothing here is part of that experience- you are lying (if not
here, then somewhere else). Trying to expand the Myth known as John Novice?

And if you feel the need to bash me on this- you better use your friend
Google. You will find many posts over many groups dealing in this area.
There is no record of any from you .
>
> >And unless you
> >can provide any comparable experience, your participation in this vine of
> >the thread is no longer needed- leave the information to the experts.
>
> I guess we'll have to call it a draw. ;-)
>

Go ahead and call it a draw- I tend to look at it as you lying through your
teeth to try and make a point. This seems to be a common thing for you.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

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

In article <4pAKd.4312$m31.57593@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Care to cite your credentials this time...
>
> I've done over two dozens deals, ranging from 10's to 100's of millions in
> value.

He asked if you cared to cite your credentials--not just make random
claims without any backing.

So all you have to offer are random claims with no backing, then?
That's our Navas.

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

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

In <WP6dnWtpsdgjSGfcRVn-hg@adelphia.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:16:47 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Novice" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:4pAKd.4312$m31.57593@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> I've done over two dozens deals, ranging from 10's to 100's of millions in
>> value.
>
>Funny- no public record of that anywhere.

That you could find. ;-)

>I believe that would entitle me
>to say, "Bullshit, you are lying."

That would actually only entitle you to say, "I can't find it."

>> Your turn.
>
>No- it is still your turn. You have yet to prove your expertise. "I say I
>am" is far from proof.

You are welcome to think whatever you want, true or not

>BTW- I have nothing to prove. You are the only one here claiming expertise
>in M&A.

In other words, you now admit you were just blowing smoke in
<news:WtKdna4pULNEB2fcRVn-pg@adelphia.com>.

>That is getting to be quite a long list- M&A, sound recording
>copyright, truth in advertising and a few other areas of legal expertise you
>are trying to claim.

Not so long, and by no means complete -- I've had a rich and varied career.

>Of course, it is all a complete lie-

It's actually still true, no matter how many times you make empty accusations.

>none of it can be
>independently verified

It actually can, your failure notwithstanding.

>and you are unable to provide credentials for any of
>this.

I could, but I'm not going to play your game.

>All you can do is point to your use as an expert witness in computer
>code comparison and the delusion that it makes you Perry Mason. Quite sad.

My CV lists 15 cases in which I've testified, which isn't complete because it
doesn't include quite a few other cases in which I didn't actually testify.

The sad things here are your nasty attempts to defame me simply because you
don't like my point of view.

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

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

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

In <elmop-1AC2B8.19392628012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Fri, 28 Jan 2005
19:39:26 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <3MlKd.4187$m31.56551@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> You may think you know better, but from a legal standpoint it's a merger
>> nonetheless.
>
>There goes Navas, practicing law again.

Nope.

>Last time you tried to practice law, Navas, it was a travesty.

I've never done that.

>Don't
>you ever learn?

Learn what?

>How are those ringtones coming, John?

They work fine.

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