On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:05:07 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A48D67C9A013bob@216.196.97.136>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:a0kkr3p854170eu39dole0ul5s62f94lst@4ax.com:
>
>> There was only one article, based on spin from Verizon, repeated over
>> and over by Verizon apologists.
>
>Really?

Really.

>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
>http://online.wsj.com/public/article...euxzmjNFZTZhA_
>2z8OBtD6GK900_20070224.html
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=13019
>
>http://www.iphonematters.com/article...pulls_a_verizo
>n_with_apple_over_the_iphone_392/
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01...d_down_iphone/
>
>Want me to keep going? Got anything to refute it besides your own
>uninformed opinion?

Those are all the same single source. Key phrases there are:
* "According to Verizon"
* "Verizon Communications president and chief operating officer
Denny Strigl said"
* "Verizon vice president Jim Gerace (one of many veeps at the company)
said"
* "We can only assume"
* "It seems"
* "Verizon Wireless apparently"
* "according to Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president"
They actually support what I'm saying.
Read more carefully before posting.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>