Which character on TechTv was John Navis?

[Guest]

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

Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?

Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his nurdy sidekick?

Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <RLhHd.4249$K72.1053788@twister.southeast.rr.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
00:23:13 GMT, "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote:

>Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?
>
>Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his nurdy sidekick?
>
>Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?

<http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm>

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

 

[Guest]

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

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:BhiHd.2700$m31.32833@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RLhHd.4249$K72.1053788@twister.southeast.rr.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
> 00:23:13 GMT, "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?
>>
>>Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or his
>>nurdy sidekick?
>>
>>Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?
>
> <http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm>
>
> --

John Navas is a big 'ol hunky liberal teddy bear.

 

[Guest]

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

===============================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <jackru$$ell2@notmail.com>
* Newsgroup alt.cellular.cingular
* Reply to: All; "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com>
* Date:Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:19:46 -0500
* Subj: Which character on TechTv was John Navis?
=====================================================

N>Which guy on TechTV was John Navis?

N>Was he the chubby one who always wore untucked hawaiian shirts or
N>his nurdy sidekick?

N>Are there any old re-runs anywhere? Or still shots?


Old news to most. Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.
--
Jack

 

[Guest]

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

In article <356r1sF4ivh0iU1@individual.net>,
"Jack D. Russell, Sr." <jackru$$ell2@notmail.com> wrote:

> Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
> Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
> could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
> authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
> sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.

Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.

But since this is only Usenet, who cares.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <elmop-1ECD63.08393919012005@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <356r1sF4ivh0iU1@individual.net>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Jr." <jackrussell2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
Now...I'd like to see links to Jack Russell's mama giving him permission
to use her computer, post on USENET and make nasty remarks.

Has the Charter now been ammended to require a minimum of 8 TechTV
appearances (before being fired) to Post on Usenet?

 

[steve]

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

In article <elmop-1ECD63.08393919012005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo P.
Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <356r1sF4ivh0iU1@individual.net>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <jackru$$ell2@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
> > Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
> > could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
> > authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
> > sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.
>
> Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>
> But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
>

Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <190120051053579858%reply@news.group>,
steve <reply@news.group> wrote:

> > Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
> >
> > But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
> >
>
> Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.

Right now? Protecting my privacy, thank you very much.

If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <elmop-1ECD63.08393919012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
08:39:39 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <356r1sF4ivh0iU1@individual.net>,
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <jackru$$ell2@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now...I'd like to see links to Phillipe's/Jack
>> Zwick's/Elmo's/etc. media appearances, websites, or anything else that
>> could be even remotely considered to put them (him) in an
>> authoritative, knowledgeable position in this or any other group. I'm
>> sure we'll all be waiting for quite a while.
>
>Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.

Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.

--
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]

 

[Guest]

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

In article <8nyHd.2781$m31.34760@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>
> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.

Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
ironic statement.

(Think ringtones, John. Ringtones. Get it?)

 

[steve]

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

In article <elmop-8857B2.18181719012005@text.usenetserver.com>, Elmo P.
Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <190120051053579858%reply@news.group>,
> steve <reply@news.group> wrote:
>
> > > Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
> > >
> > > But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.
>
> Right now? Protecting my privacy, thank you very much.
>
> If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...
>

Funny you should say so, since you care so much about Navas and what he
does or doesn't do.

[yawn]

 

[Guest]

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

In article <190120051721255596%reply@news.group>,
steve <reply@news.group> wrote:

> > If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...
> >
>
> Funny you should say so, since you care so much about Navas and what he
> does or doesn't do.

In his personal life? I care not one whit.

When he comes here and blusters around? I call him on it.

I don't judge him based on his personal life, what he may do or have
done, etc. It's who he shows himself to be here--and he's showing
himself to be a huge jackass with an ego the size of Montana, one that
he can't back up.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <elmop-8857B2.18181719012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:18:17 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <190120051053579858%reply@news.group>,
> steve <reply@news.group> wrote:
>
>> > Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>> >
>> > But since this is only Usenet, who cares.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, I care. Please tell us what you've done or are doing.
>
>Right now? Protecting my privacy, thank you very much.
>
>If you're on Usenet and you care, by definition you're a bit dangerous...

In other words, you're just a rude windbag. Thanks for the confirmation.

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <elmop-21859E.18173619012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:17:36 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <8nyHd.2781$m31.34760@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Actually (and I speak for myself here), you'd be QUITE surprised.
>>
>> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>
>Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>ironic statement.

What a silly statement.

Grow up and get a life.

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

 

[Guest]

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

In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> >
> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> >ironic statement.
>
> What a silly statement.

Which means you didn't get it.

And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
in anything, will force you to respond to this.

Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
a try.

 

[Guest]

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

You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did not--did too.
If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to the children.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message news:elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>> >
>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>> >ironic statement.
>>
>> What a silly statement.
>
> Which means you didn't get it.
>
> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>
> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> a try.
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article <elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> > >
> > >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> > >ironic statement.
> >
> > What a silly statement.
>
> Which means you didn't get it.
>
> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>
> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> a try.

The fact that his "out of the Garage" one man operation is called "The
Navas Group" proves his egomania.

 

[Guest]

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

While I agree with you that Navas is an ass, I also agree that we shouldn't
get into a pissing match with him, because we are all probably quite a bit
more mature than him.


"N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SlNHd.8538$K72.1389093@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did
> not--did too.
> If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to the
> children.
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>>> >
>>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>>> >ironic statement.
>>>
>>> What a silly statement.
>>
>> Which means you didn't get it.
>>
>> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
>> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>>
>> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
>> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
>> a try.
>>
>
>

 

[johnf]

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

Just add him to your kill file and it's like he doesn't exist.

"Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n00Id.4450$ry.3891@fed1read05...
> While I agree with you that Navas is an ass, I also agree that we
> shouldn't get into a pissing match with him, because we are all probably
> quite a bit more mature than him.
>
>
> "N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:SlNHd.8538$K72.1389093@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> You guys are really sounding like children on a playgound, did too--did
>> not--did too.
>> If people make false statements, correct them and leave the arguing to
>> the children.
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>> news:elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com...
>>> In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>>>> >
>>>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>>>> >ironic statement.
>>>>
>>>> What a silly statement.
>>>
>>> Which means you didn't get it.
>>>
>>> And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
>>> in anything, will force you to respond to this.
>>>
>>> Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
>>> you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
>>> a try.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-74305B.06481320012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <jnavas@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> > > >
> > > >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> > > >ironic statement.
> > >
> > > What a silly statement.
> >
> > Which means you didn't get it.
> >
> > And your inability to restrain yourself, your need to be the last word
> > in anything, will force you to respond to this.
> >
> > Prove us wrong, John. Just once. You haven't been able to so far, but
> > you're in complete control of this one. You can do it. Go on. Give it
> > a try.
>
> The fact that his "out of the Garage" one man operation is called "The
> Navas Group" proves his egomania.

To the OP, please spell it right-- its "navAS"
So my filters will catch it and delete it, anyways <g>.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <elmop-607E43.05390520012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
05:39:05 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>> >
>> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>> >ironic statement.
>>
>> What a silly statement.
>
>Which means you didn't get it.

There was nothing to get.

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <CNTJd.3828$m31.53436@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
> >> >
> >> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
> >> >ironic statement.
> >>
> >> What a silly statement.
> >
> >Which means you didn't get it.
>
> There was nothing to get.

I'll stop being subtle, just for your benefit: you spent days here
trying to defend a legal point with no training and no justification and
no defense in any written law.

You spent days trying to defend a position without something to back up
that defense, and you looked silly trying to do it.

Then you come in here and don't like something I say, and your only
response is to preach to ME that "without something to bakc it up, that
looks pretty silly."

You, sir, are the king of irony. You're also the king of looking silly,
but then we've been through all that.

 

[Guest]

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

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

In <elmop-2626AF.22270626012005@text.usenetserver.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
22:27:06 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <CNTJd.3828$m31.53436@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >In article <g8EHd.2887$m31.35826@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Without something to back it up, that looks pretty silly.
>> >> >
>> >> >Coming from you, at this particular moment in time, that is QUITE an
>> >> >ironic statement.
>> >>
>> >> What a silly statement.
>> >
>> >Which means you didn't get it.
>>
>> There was nothing to get.
>
>I'll stop being subtle, just for your benefit:

You've never been subtle.

>you spent days here
>trying to defend a legal point with no training and no justification and
>no defense in any written law.

Not true.

>You spent days trying to defend a position without something to back up
>that defense, and you looked silly trying to do it.

Not true.

>Then you come in here and don't like something I say, and your only
>response is to preach to ME that "without something to bakc it up, that
>looks pretty silly."

Different matter entirely. My statements have been specific and
substantiated. Yours was just innuendo.

>You, sir, are the king of irony. You're also the king of looking silly,
>but then we've been through all that.

No irony there, and no royalty either. Oh well.

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