"Cavity Search" <nothingvalidforyou@thistime.com> wrote in
news:12ibl52m02q122e@corp.supernews.com:

> "Your name" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:N9mdnRV-V44sU7jYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> "Cavity Search" <nothingvalidforyou@thistime.com> wrote in
>> news:12ibbupsabjar8a@corp.supernews.com:
>>

>>
>> You should be concerned if you pay them for service every month.
>
> I fail to see how Cingular moving money around and putting different
> names on paper is going to affect how I make a call. When I can't use
> the service I pay for, then I get interested.

What about paying less for that service, or potentially paying more due
to mismanagement of the company?


>
>>> However, even if that is the case, how do you know he wasn't himself
>>> misled, and how has it harmed Elmo?
>>
>> Read his posts- he posts conjecture, opinion and bad guesses as
>> factual information. When he gets caught spouting misinformation he
>> is never man enough to admit it.
>
> You've described his posts as "conjecture, opinion and bad guesses."
>
> Sounds a lot like the mainstream media, whether discussing actual
> 'news' or the weather. It's most flagrant when they cover political
> issues.


But unlike the mainstream media, I have provided the facts in those
instances where he got it wrong.

>

>>
>>
>> Nobody expectes ESP, but why comment on something he has absolutely
>> no knowledge of over and over and over again?
>
> Why do you, and others, read his posts, over, and over, and over
> again?

I don't read everything he posts and only reply in instances where he is
dead wrong. That would represent less than 20% of his total posts.


>
> It's really easy to block messages from those you don't like.
> However, you, and others, choose to read his posts, then complain
> about them. This puzzles me.


I could take that kind of selfish approach, but have decided that some
of the information could actually allow someone to make an uninformed
decision about carriers.

>

>>>
>>> The only cure for this is to call these lizards out, see if they can
>>> match the good the subjects of their taunts have done.
>>
>> And how is your post is any better than what abhors you?
>
> Abhor is a strong word, much more so than "annoy", which is what I
> wrote.
>
> This is interesting. You claim Navas posts are inaccurate, but in
> just four lines you decided to go from mere annoyance to abhor.
> Either you tried to paraphrase, and got it wrong, or you exaggerated,
> and still got it wrong.


OK.

>
> I'm not trying to attack you. If we weren't discussing inaccurate
> information, I wouldn't even comment on it. However, as you can see,
> anybody can make a mistake. Do you expect to be hounded around on
> newsgroups?
>

I would if I purposely misrepresented opinion as fact and was unable to
admit error.