Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.

What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
these are not so easy to filter out.

So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
more.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
> us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>
> What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
> these are not so easy to filter out.
>
> So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
> attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
> more.
>

Damn- I thought my dad died a few years ago. I say this because he is the
only person I would listen to such an attitude from.

Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-EC976B.12100605122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

> In article <4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS éz‰�ï∂• ⃠<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most
>> of us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>>
>> What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him,
>> and these are not so easy to filter out.
>>
>> So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
>> attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam
>> even more.
>
> Has anyone noticed that Oxford and Navas never speak at the same time,
> and that Oxford is always silent when Navas drinks a glass of water?
>
>

Yeah, I wondered about that, but I think the Oxtard lives up the road from
me in Boulder.

At 05 Dec 2007 11:12:37 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> Yeah, I wondered about that, but I think the Oxtard lives up the road
from
> me in Boulder.


I think he's playing you with that map, since you've said you were in
Colorado. His headers seem to indicate he posts from Qwest in Minneapolis.
I assume the only connection he has to Boulder was the one that hit him in
the head when he was young.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> I think he's playing you with that map, since you've said you were in
> Colorado. His headers seem to indicate he posts from Qwest in Minneapolis.

Or maybe he's using his 1,800 mile range *FREE* WiFi (that Apple
pioneered first).

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:fj6nev$1di$2@aioe.org:

> At 05 Dec 2007 11:12:37 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I wondered about that, but I think the Oxtard lives up the road
> from
>> me in Boulder.
>
>
> I think he's playing you with that map, since you've said you were in
> Colorado. His headers seem to indicate he posts from Qwest in
> Minneapolis.
> I assume the only connection he has to Boulder was the one that hit
> him in
> the head when he was young.
>
>
>

Yeah- you're probably right. I never found him amusing enough to trace the
headers. Although he does sound like he'd fit right in at the Peoples
Republic of Boulder.

Navas is a troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of us
>don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>
> What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
> these are not so easy to filter out.
>
> So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
> attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
> more.

At 05 Dec 2007 18:05:24 +0000 DTC wrote:
> > I think he's playing you with that map, since you've said you were in
> > Colorado. His headers seem to indicate he posts from Qwest in
> > Minneapolis.
>
> Or maybe he's using his 1,800 mile range *FREE* WiFi (that Apple
> pioneered first).


Oh, THAT'S what a "wireless mesh" is! ;-)

At 05 Dec 2007 12:50:05 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:

> Although he does sound like he'd fit right in at the Peoples
> Republic of Boulder.

As a Bleeding Heart Liberal (tm) myself, I expect I would as well.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:fj7140$2dv$1
@aioe.org:

> At 05 Dec 2007 12:50:05 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> Although he does sound like he'd fit right in at the Peoples
>> Republic of Boulder.
>
> As a Bleeding Heart Liberal (tm) myself, I expect I would as well.
>
>
>

It's a whole different level there, Todd.

In article <OaD5j.461$Rf5.262@newsfe13.phx>, Jar-Jar Binks
<jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:

> Navas is a troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.

That's the problem. He keeps coming back no matter what. And lately,
he's been posting some mediocre pictures in the photography newsgroups,
giving photographic advice, and telling everyone how great his mediocre
camera is. The guy is a bona-fide pain in the ass.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:53:13 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
<4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
>us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>
>What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
>these are not so easy to filter out.
>
>So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
>attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
>more.

Anything to save yourself the embarrassment of being shown to be full of
hot air, right Steven? How sad. The real troll here is of course you.

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:chgel31f7tvsgpc3ui6glnhethvlde7gcs@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:53:13 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
> <4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
>>us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>>
>>What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
>>these are not so easy to filter out.
>>
>>So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
>>attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
>>more.
>
> Anything to save yourself the embarrassment of being shown to be full of
> hot air, right Steven? How sad. The real troll here is of course you.
>

Oh, please. You are just slightly below our new moron, Oxtard, in the
degree of you cluelessness.

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <OaD5j.461$Rf5.262@newsfe13.phx>, Jar-Jar Binks
> <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Navas is a troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.
>
> That's the problem. He keeps coming back no matter what. And lately,
> he's been posting some mediocre pictures in the photography newsgroups,
> giving photographic advice, and telling everyone how great his mediocre
> camera is. The guy is a bona-fide pain in the ass.

His behavior in r.p.d. echoes his old behavior in the alt.cellular
groups. He never provides references for any of his amazing
fabrications, every product he has purchased, no matter how poor, is the
best, and he's using his same collection of content-free one-line
responses when he can't respond with anything useful. Fortunately, it
didn't take long for everyone to realize how clueless he is, but in the
beginning there were people trying to engage him in rational discussion,
which is something you can't do with Navas.

At least he's not changing his identity several times a day like the
other troll in rec.photo.digital, so he's easy to filter. What's not
easy to filter is all the people that for some reason feel compelled to
correct ever mis-statement he makes, or that actually respond to his
one-liners with their own insults.

I guess we should feel fortunate that he apparently no longer is
spending his time shilling for Cingular/AT&T and is content to post
charters that don't apply, and incorrect information about phone chargers.

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

Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core
information is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.

"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:9HK5j.30644$Pv2.19404@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>
> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
>

So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:9HK5j.30644$Pv2.19404@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
>> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
>> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
>>
>
> So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)

Plagiarized might be too strong of a word.

If a student "buys" a term paper and copies it, then passes it off as
his original work; that's plagiarism.

If a seminary student writing a comprehensive study of the New Testament
and quotes almost 100% of it as an essential part of his work; that's
not plagiarism.

If an MBA student writes a discussion about economic theory and uses the
information of previous economists (with appropriate use of quotations);
that's not plagiarism.

If a scientist promotes his own original work and uses references to
previous scientific studies to support his work; that's not plagiarism.

For the most part, WiKi articles are edited compilations of previous
works, and we see that in the long list of references at the bottom of
most WiKi pages.

John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

When confronted with facts that conflict with what we may post, we
either make a clarification to eliminate ambiguousness or offer
citations to back up what we offer. This is not to be confused with
"back-peddling" or "moving the goal posts".

In article <eiT5j.4286$Dt4.853@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, DTC
<me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
> industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
> cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

I think we all know where his "hands on" experience lies.

Scott wrote:

> Damn- I thought my dad died a few years ago. I say this because he is the
> only person I would listen to such an attitude from.

Your dad was right.

> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.

The people that respond to obnoxious trolls like Navas make lower the
signal to noise ratio of Usenet.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47588d93$0$84241$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Damn- I thought my dad died a few years ago. I say this because he
>> is the only person I would listen to such an attitude from.
>
> Your dad was right.
>
>> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use
>> it.
>
> The people that respond to obnoxious trolls like Navas make lower the
> signal to noise ratio of Usenet.
>

But not as significantly as those with nothing better to do then comment on
it.

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:TI-dnSKeBKs2RsvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.

Given the anonymous nature of the net, it's assholes like you that make it
such a mess.

Bill Kearney wrote:
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:TI-dnSKeBKs2RsvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use it.
>
> Given the anonymous nature of the net, it's assholes like you that make it
> such a mess.

IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is not the trolls like
Navas, or the spammers trying to sell crap, but those that believe that
every post by a troll or spammer necessitates a response. The spammers
that are trying to sell crap don't care as they don't read any of the
groups they post to. The trolls, crave the attention that they get when
they post. Believe it or not, the weekly post of the Cingular charter
onto alt.cellular.attws (where it has no relevance) and the weekly post
regarding the current put out by a Motorola charger, do not require any
response at all, not even a "YAWN" or other non-witty comeback.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:4758c9fa$0$84242$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Bill Kearney wrote:
>> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>> news:TI-dnSKeBKs2RsvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Go play in the traffic. This is Usenet. Don't like it, don't use
>>> it.
>>
>> Given the anonymous nature of the net, it's assholes like you that
>> make it such a mess.
>
> IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is not the trolls like
> Navas, or the spammers trying to sell crap, but those that believe
> that every post by a troll or spammer necessitates a response. The
> spammers that are trying to sell crap don't care as they don't read
> any of the groups they post to. The trolls, crave the attention that
> they get when they post. Believe it or not, the weekly post of the
> Cingular charter onto alt.cellular.attws (where it has no relevance)
> and the weekly post regarding the current put out by a Motorola
> charger, do not require any response at all, not even a "YAWN" or
> other non-witty comeback.
>

IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number of
sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this is their
obvious inability to use a kill filter. They bitch and whine about
unnecessary noise through the use of unnecessary noise. Usenet is dying
not because of trolls and those that respond to them- it is dying due to
the volume of posts coming from people who take themselves way too
seriously and have an insatiable need to have their ego stroked. The
volume of "useful" information available on any Usenet newsgroup is
microscopic compared to the volume of posts and harder to find than using
Google. The volume of misinformation, OTOH, represents the greater part of
the volume of posting in most groups.

You choose to ignore it, I don't. Please don't tell me I have to become an
uncaring wimp like yourself to pass some standard that you think should
apply to all posters. My standards are much higher than that, and if I
choose to bait troll from time to time..... oh well.

Scott wrote:

> IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number of
> sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this is their
> obvious inability to use a kill filter.

The problem is not using a kill-file for Navas, I think that he's
probably present in more kill-files than any other poster on Usenet. The
problem is the people that feel compelled to respond to his posts with
"Yawn" or other such expression of disgust. , Filtering them would
presumably mean losing their useful contributions as well, though from
looking at your recent posts, this would not be a problem with you.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:475986e7$0$84197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> IMVAIO, one of the biggest problems with Usenet is the large number
>> of sanctimonious idiots whose only contribution to a thread like this
>> is their obvious inability to use a kill filter.
>
> The problem is not using a kill-file for Navas, I think that he's
> probably present in more kill-files than any other poster on Usenet.
> The problem is the people that feel compelled to respond to his posts
> with "Yawn" or other such expression of disgust. , Filtering them
> would presumably mean losing their useful contributions as well,
> though from looking at your recent posts, this would not be a problem
> with you.
>

Yeah- I don't deny that my views as of late don't conform to your high
standards. Oh well- it's happened before and it will happen again, as I
don't subscribe to your opinions on many things as well. You can choose to
filter me or not- I'll lose no sleep either way. I'm not here to impress
you or anyone else. As I said earlier, if my feeding the trolls upsets you
to the point of mentioning it, killfile me if you believe that you can live
without the other information I provide here.

Another thing- your habit of filtering Navas and then responding to his
posts when you see a reply from someone else is no better than those of us
that don't filter him. Actually, it makes you somewhat hypocritical in
mentioning your disdain for those of us that eliminate the middle man.

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <eiT5j.4286$Dt4.853@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, DTC
> <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
>> industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
>> cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.
>
> I think we all know where his "hands on" experience lies.
I think we all know that Cingular changed the name to at&t, John Navas
jewsgroup is obsolete...

On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article 4iK5j.13457$XA6.1832@newsfe09.phx, "Jar-Jar
Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:

>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>
>
>
Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
You didn't know?

When did he work with Faraday? I didn't find any references to Navas in the
documents that were published by Faraday. Nevertheless, Faraday should have
left Navas in the "Faraday Cage". :-)


"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C384141B.44E74%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article 4iK5j.13457$XA6.1832@newsfe09.phx, "Jar-Jar
> Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>>
>>
>>
> Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
> You didn't know?
>

"Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Qtk8j.23728$Wt7.3688@newsfe14.phx...
> When did he work with Faraday? I didn't find any references to Navas in
> the documents that were published by Faraday. Nevertheless, Faraday should
> have left Navas in the "Faraday Cage". :-)
>
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C384141B.44E74%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/07 9:48 PM, in article 4iK5j.13457$XA6.1832@newsfe09.phx,
>> "Jar-Jar
>> Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas
>>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>>
>>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah. He also worked with Faraday on electromagnetic induction.
>> You didn't know?
>>
>
>

It's a joke. Get it ?