Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>
> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old "AT&T
> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old ATTWS
> in it's advertising.)
>
> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."
What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
On April 20, 2006 I wrote:
"Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
Navas originally proposed."
What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old
>> "AT&T
>> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old
>> ATTWS
>> in it's advertising.)
>>
>> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
>> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
>> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."
>
>
> What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
> Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
> group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
> originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>
>
> On April 20, 2006 I wrote:
>
> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>
> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
> Navas originally proposed."
>
>
>
> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
Not limited to wireless. Check his obnoxious behavior and attempts to
divert ibm.ibmpc.thinkpad to his "chosen" comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad.
>
>
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> At 05 Feb 2008 05:45:38 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please explain how this newsgroup, which pertains to the new defunct
>>>> AT&T Wireless Service, merged into Cingular Wireless, now renamed as
>>>> AT&T Wireless (no Service),
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, it's now actually just "AT&T" to differentiate it from the old
>>> "AT&T
>>> Wireless" (rarely was the word "Service" actually appended to the old
>>> ATTWS
>>> in it's advertising.)
>>>
>>> "The New AT&T"'s wireless offering is generally referred to as "Wireless
>>> Service from AT&T" (which makes .attws pretty darn close!) or internally
>>> (to AT&T) as "AT&T Mobility."
>>
>>
>> What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>> Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>> group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>> originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>>
>>
>> On April 20, 2006 I wrote:
>>
>> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>>
>> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
>> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
>> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
>> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
>> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
>> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
>> Navas originally proposed."
>>
>>
>>
>> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
>> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
>> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
>> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
>
>
> Not limited to wireless. Check his obnoxious behavior and attempts to
> divert ibm.ibmpc.thinkpad to his "chosen" comp.sys.laptops.thinkpad.
You need to sample his 'expertise' over on the digital photography groups.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a877b1$0$84203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
Not true. No proof. As usual.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
> You need to sample his 'expertise' over on the digital photography groups.
>
> What a HOOT!
Yeah, before I figured out how to do global kill files in Thunderbird, I
had the unfortunate experience of seeing some examples of the other
areas of mis-information that he's expanded into.
In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Can anyone figure out why Navas is so upset about alt.cellular.t-mobile?
>
> It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular, but why was he so
> adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile? The only plausible reason that
> I could come up with, is that he doesn't want new newsgroups when a
> carrier changes names because if the AT&T acquisition of BellSouth goes
> through, then Cingular will become AT&T Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws
> will take the place of alt.cellular.cingular, which is a group that
> Navas originally proposed."
>
>
>
> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be anticipated is
> that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a claim to
> alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular charter
> applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his obnoxiousness!
>
At one time in the ancient past when everybody used a regular modem over POTS
to connect to the Internet, Mr. Navas had a minor contribution and considered
himself relevant. Later in life, broadband has eclipsed his relavancy to
history. No big deal. However, along comes his little control message and
charter to create alt.cellular.cingular. Wow! He feels relevant again [by
the way, I sent control messages to create alt.cellular.t-mobile as it made
sense in context and he resisted with a mighty heave]. Well, Cingular has
betrayed him and bought up AT&T and assumed its name. Now, his beloved
newsgroup, that validated is relevancy is now going defunct. He can't
recreate his lost relevancy because alt.cellular.attws already exists! And it
was not created by him and, in fact, does not appear to have a charter at all!
In an attempt to seem relevant in spite of his odds, he posts the
alt.cellular.cingular newsgroup charter in the alt.cellular.attws newsgroup as
if it applied; but he knows better, it is really just to justify his ego and
maintain his illusion of relelvancy.
Now, his contributions to Wikipedia and answer questions and honest debate,
these can be good things, but his idiosyncrasy with the charter is plain
annoying, at least to me. If he wants a charter, then it should be proposed
and negotiated here and put up for a vote and ammended via another control
message (just another NEWGROUP?) as is the traditional method of adopting a
charter post creation on USENET. Of course, a charter is pretty much
irrelavent for an alt group anyway. He should just cease and desist and get
over himself ... he just isn't that relevant [and either am I or anybody else
in this group].
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <47a877b1$0$84203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>What's amusing is back when they changed the name from Cingular to AT&T,
>>Navas was insistent that alt.cellular.attws was not going become the
>>group for discussion of AT&T's wireless product, because it was
>>originally a group for a totally different company, AT&T Wireless.
>
> Not true. No proof. As usual.
>
Is that a bot responding? Your answer is not really in context to what he
said. Proof of what?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
> Now, his contributions to Wikipedia and answer questions and honest debate,
> these can be good things, but his idiosyncrasy with the charter is plain
> annoying, at least to me. If he wants a charter, then it should be proposed
> and negotiated here and put up for a vote and ammended via another control
> message (just another NEWGROUP?) as is the traditional method of adopting a
> charter post creation on USENET. Of course, a charter is pretty much
> irrelavent for an alt group anyway. He should just cease and desist and get
> over himself ... he just isn't that relevant [and either am I or anybody else
> in this group].
The solution is for him to propose a new newsgroup with the charter that
he wants. There is no way to recharter an existing newsgroup.
It could be "alt.cellular.att" Unfortunately for him (and us), I think
he realizes that "alt.cellular.attws" has become the de-facto group for
discussions of wirless from AT&T, and the chance for alt.cellular.att
has passed. So he's just going to keep posting an inapplicable charter
(as others have as well), and people will keep asking him to stop.
The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
doesn't apply. How pathetic.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:13:20 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a8d0c9$0$84198$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>doesn't apply. How pathetic.
What I actually proposed was civility to all, but it seems I'm just
wasting my time. That you're unwilling to go that route speaks volumes
about your conduct here.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
> doesn't apply. How pathetic.
Wow ... he did that?
Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
one out and put it on my office board ;-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be
> anticipated is that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a
> claim to alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular
> charter applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his
> obnoxiousness!
To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"
Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:38:13 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <foamta$97p$1@aioe.org>:
>At 05 Feb 2008 06:53:12 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> What I posted in 2006 has come to pass. What could not be
>> anticipated is that he'd be obnoxious enough to try to stake a
>> claim to alt.cellular.attws by claiming that the alt.cellular.cingular
>> charter applied to a different group. Clearly we underestimated his
>> obnoxiousness!
>
>To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
>crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
>desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
>AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"
>
>Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
>just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
>would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.
To be clear to you (aw, do I HAVE to?), the charter of
alt.cellular.cingular is posted simply for informational purposes,
cross-posted to alt.cellular.attws because it's the same carrier.
I don't care what newsgroup people use. You can use alt.cellular.bash
for all I care.
My only concern is for complete and accurate information, particularly
for average folks dropping by either newsgroup for the first time and
confronted with all the noise.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>> doesn't apply. How pathetic.
>
> Wow ... he did that?
>
> Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
> one out and put it on my office board ;-)
>
Note that to Navas, whenever someone takes him to task for off-topic
posting, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, posting without citations
or references (he almost never provides a cite or reference for
anything), he views it as someone insulting him or bashing him.
So I don't think we're going to see the fake charter he posts disappear
anytime soon.
> To be fair to John (aw, do I HAVE to?) I don't interpret his charter
> crosspost as a claim that it applies to a.c.attws. It's more like a
> desperate "flare" designed to get our attention and tell us "hey, the REAL
> AT&T group is over here at a.c.cingular- see, the charter says so!"
>
> Obviously John cares about his little creation. I don't understand why he
> just doesn't go create an "alt.cellular.att" group to lord over, which
> would make more sense than using eith the Cingular or ATTWS groups.
Yes, I suggested the same thing, since "alt.cellular.att" is in keeping
with the structure of the names of the cellular groups. He can post his
charter all he wants then, and no one will complain about it (maybe
that's why he doesn't do it--he can't play the victim then!).
Obviously he realizes that alt.cellular.att would be unlikely to become
widely used, since alt.cellular.attws is sufficient, even if logically
it belonged to the old AT&T Wireless. It's a long process to get users
to move groups even when the group name becomes totally irrelevant. It
took nearly a year for the alt.cellular.t-mobile to become widely used
and for the voicestream group to fade away.
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:57:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a8e94f$0$84233$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> The most hilarious thing is the "deal" he proposed, where if everyone
>>> will stop pointing out his errors then he'll stop posting a charter that
>>> doesn't apply. How pathetic.
>>
>> Wow ... he did that?
>>
>> Do you happen to have the message ID for that ... I would LOVE to print that
>> one out and put it on my office board ;-)
>
>"http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/cfceca8e9ddf4589"
>
>Note that to Navas, whenever someone takes him to task for off-topic
>posting, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, posting without citations
>or references (he almost never provides a cite or reference for
>anything), he views it as someone insulting him or bashing him.
No, just insults, of which you are the master; e.g.,
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/948a0701044c4ad2>
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/d9de6aef23301429>
<http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/msg/b6277b27616f25ca>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=navas+(lying+OR+lies+OR+lied)+author%3ASM S>
>So I don't think we're going to see the fake charter he posts disappear
>anytime soon.
1. Real, not fake.
2. You don't seem to really want it to go away. You'd rather troll.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:40:46 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-821F92.17404605022008@nntp3.usenetserver.com>:
>In article <a6lhq35nl05dfd8255hmjnag7gbnbfa8t7@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> What I actually proposed was civility to all
>
>Deal. You start.
Not you? I did start. So far it's gone nowhere.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> "http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/cfceca8e9ddf4589"
>
> Note that to Navas, whenever someone takes him to task for off-topic
> posting, posting to inappropriate newsgroups, posting without citations
> or references (he almost never provides a cite or reference for
> anything), he views it as someone insulting him or bashing him.
>
> So I don't think we're going to see the fake charter he posts disappear
> anytime soon.
OK, so he realizes that the Charter is invalid in alt.cellular.attws and yet
posts it anyway so that he can use it as a bargaining chip to moderate the
group.
Now that is wisdom. My Dog is full of it. In fact, there is wisdom all over
my backyard, buried in the snow.
BTW ... I see no reason why this should be cross-posted to the cingular group,
so going forward, I at least won't post it there [unless by accident] and will
redirect follow-ups.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Real, not fake.
Real? yes. For this group, alt.cellular.attws, absolutely NOT. Perhaps you
would like me to start posting the alt.cellular.verizon Charter her each and
every week, assuming there is a charter for that group.
> 2. You don't seem to really want it to go away. You'd rather troll.
>
Your posting it HERE clearly makes YOU a TROLL.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> To be clear to you (aw, do I HAVE to?), the charter of
> alt.cellular.cingular is posted simply for informational purposes,
> cross-posted to alt.cellular.attws because it's the same carrier.
>
It is not a CHARTER for Cingular. It is a CHARTER for a USENET newsgroup.
That CHARTER has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with alt.cellular.attws. NOTHING.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 1. Real, not fake.
>
> Real? yes. For this group, alt.cellular.attws, absolutely NOT. Perhaps you
> would like me to start posting the alt.cellular.verizon Charter her each and
> every week, assuming there is a charter for that group.
There is a charter, but please don't lower yourself to his level and
start spamming yet another inapplicable charter to this poor group.
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:54:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47a9d796$0$84197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Real, not fake.
>>
>> Real? yes. For this group, alt.cellular.attws, absolutely NOT. Perhaps you
>> would like me to start posting the alt.cellular.verizon Charter her each and
>> every week, assuming there is a charter for that group.
>
>There is a charter, but please don't lower yourself to his level and
>start spamming yet another inapplicable charter to this poor group.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Usenet.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> There is a charter, but please don't lower yourself to his level and
> start spamming yet another inapplicable charter to this poor group.
Of course, I wouldn't do that ... but John obviously would.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait.
-- Frank Tyger
Re: CHARTER of alt.cellular.cingular 
Linear Mode
