On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:18:57 UTC, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
> Hell and High Water wrote:
> > I thought alt.cellular.cingular was going away, to be replaced by
> > alt.cellular.attws.
>
> It takes time. It took months for alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream
> to wither.
>
> For the time being, it's best to post to both groups.
Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
press release.
I guess we can wait until they rename the www.cingular.com web site.
If we are directed to attws.com, then we can reuse the old group. If
you are directed to att.com, then maybe not.
> Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
> they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
> press release.
Technically, the alt.cellular.attws group was for AT&T Wireless, while
the old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
(according to AT&T).
So maybe there should be a group alt.cellular.wsatt, but in reality
alt.cellular.attws is a better name. I don't think that anyone could get
a vote through to create alt.cellular.att or alt.cellular.wsatt.
Look at how upset the chief Cingular shill was about the creation of
alt.cellular.t-mobile, which was a logical creation given the old group
of alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. Of course the reason he fought
it was because he didn't want the alt.cellular.cingular group to suffer
the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
On Feb 26, 4:07 pm, "Kevin K" <kevi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
> they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
> press release.
I haven't heard any references to the term "AT&T Wireless" either.
I'm going to make a prediction that within 5 years down the road, it's
going to change again anyways. Maybe they'll spin it off into another
entity... called The New Cingular. =p
Bucky wrote:
> On Feb 26, 4:07 pm, "Kevin K" <kevi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
>> they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
>> press release.
>
> I haven't heard any references to the term "AT&T Wireless" either.
The old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
(according to AT&T), so alt.cellular.attws is appropriate. Maybe it
should be alt.cellular.wsatt, but the former group already exists and it
makes more sense to have att before ws anyway.
In article <elmop-7A1C27.21593927022007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <45e4db76$0$27183$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
> > (according to AT&T), so alt.cellular.attws is appropriate.
>
> Nah. alt.cellular.att.wireless, maybe.
Of course, aside from the 4 people who regularly post here, the thought
of setting up any other group is laughable.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:38:15 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45e37d79$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Kevin K wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't a new alt.cellular.att be created? I haven't seen yet that
>> they plan to call themself ATT Wireless, though maybe I missed that
>> press release.
>
>Technically, the alt.cellular.attws group was for AT&T Wireless, while
>the old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
>(according to AT&T).
>
>So maybe there should be a group alt.cellular.wsatt, but in reality
>alt.cellular.attws is a better name. I don't think that anyone could get
>a vote through to create alt.cellular.att or alt.cellular.wsatt.
There is no voting on alt newsgroups. Do your homework.
>Look at how upset the chief Cingular shill was about the creation of
>alt.cellular.t-mobile, which was a logical creation given the old group
>of alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream. Of course the reason he fought
>it was because he didn't want the alt.cellular.cingular group to suffer
>the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
More nonsense. Grow up.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:10:06 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-AEC80F.19100627022007@news.giganews.com>:
>In article <elmop-7A1C27.21593927022007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <45e4db76$0$27183$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
>> > (according to AT&T), so alt.cellular.attws is appropriate.
>>
>> Nah. alt.cellular.att.wireless, maybe.
>
>Of course, aside from the 4 people who regularly post here, the thought
>of setting up any other group is laughable.
Not only that, but the stupid crossposting by them has made a partial
thread mess of the attws newsgroup, discouraging people from using it.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Mr Navas has done a very good job as the leader of the cingular and attws
newsgroups. Why would anyone want ot believe that they need to create a new
group? Mr Navas has both of these groups well under control and I am sure
that he knew of the name change many months in advance. Everyone should be
able to understand why it is and was appropriate for Mr Navas to post the
charter to both of these newsgroups.
>Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in message
>news:akQGh.9864$p44.7918@newsfe10.phx...
> Mr Navas has done a very good job as the leader of the cingular and attws
> newsgroups. Why would anyone want ot believe that they need to create a
> new group? Mr Navas has both of these groups well under control and I am
> sure that he knew of the name change many months in advance. Everyone
> should be able to understand why it is and was appropriate for Mr Navas to
> post the charter to both of these newsgroups.
>
The charter is NOT enforced.
If it were, there's be no spam, no cross posts, etc.
As it is, the "charter" has not been posted in the last two months.
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW VX8100 AC II
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:10:06 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-AEC80F.19100627022007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>>In article <elmop-7A1C27.21593927022007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <45e4db76$0$27183$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The old Cingular will be marketed as "wireless service from AT&T
>>> > (according to AT&T), so alt.cellular.attws is appropriate.
>>>
>>> Nah. alt.cellular.att.wireless, maybe.
>>
>>Of course, aside from the 4 people who regularly post here, the thought
>>of setting up any other group is laughable.
>>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:behnu2t33j1sv4vghssmdq8v9oj47jb22q@4ax.com.. .
> Not only that, but the stupid crossposting by them has made a partial
> thread mess of the attws newsgroup, discouraging people from using it.
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
The thread mess is because posters add the alt.cellular.attws or
alt.cingular,
Besides, John, you should be the lst to talk on that subject. :-0
--
Andrew D. Sisson
VZW VX8100 AC II
SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006
> The charter is NOT enforced.
> If it were, there's be no spam, no cross posts, etc.
> As it is, the "charter" has not been posted in the last two months.
Still, I think that most posters to abide by the charter, even if they
aren't aware that it even exists. It's mostly just good manners.
Ironically, Navas is one of the worst violators of newsgroup charters,
both in alt.cellular.cingular and in other newsgroups.
I went back to the beginning of the alt.cellular.attws group, and could
never find a charter posted. If it existed, the creator of the
alt.cellular.attws group was pretty mellow, and not so full of himself.
As to why Navas posts the alt.cellular.cingular charter into the
alt.cellular.attws newsgroup, I would guess that it's just to annoy
people that haven't kill-filed him. The charter certainly doesn't apply
to any other group than the one it was written for.
Is there a reason why both you and navas are using tempons same time
each month?
In article <akQGh.9864$p44.7918@newsfe10.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> Mr Navas has done a very good job as the leader of the cingular and attws
> newsgroups. Why would anyone want ot believe that they need to create a new
> group? Mr Navas has both of these groups well under control and I am sure
> that he knew of the name change many months in advance. Everyone should be
> able to understand why it is and was appropriate for Mr Navas to post the
> charter to both of these newsgroups.
>
>
In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
>
> More nonsense. Grow up.
>
You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
based on some inner conviction on your part.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Not only that, but the stupid crossposting by them has made a partial
> thread mess of the attws newsgroup, discouraging people from using it.
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
>
YOU are the one cross-posting the damn alt.cellular.cingular charter into
alt.cellular.attws! YOU ARE THE OFFENDER HERE.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Not only that, but the stupid crossposting by them has made a partial
>> thread mess of the attws newsgroup, discouraging people from using it.
>> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
>>
>
> YOU are the one cross-posting the damn alt.cellular.cingular charter into
> alt.cellular.attws! YOU ARE THE OFFENDER HERE.
I wonder why he is doing that too. Using the attws group for AT&T's
wireless service makes perfect sense, no need to create a new group when
one exists that suits the purpose, but why would he post the charter
into a group that it has no relation to?
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:39:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<KdwKh.5696$Yy1.3822@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
>>
>> More nonsense. Grow up.
>
>You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
>based on some inner conviction on your part.
I never expressed any "opposition". I suggest you re-read what I wrote
more carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
>> More nonsense. Grow up.
>>
>
> You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
> based on some inner conviction on your part.
It was very strange. Not only was the old name unwieldy, with two more
levels of hierarchy than was necessary, it didn't match the carrier name
so newcomers would never find it.
The only explanation is that he was worried about the precedent of
creating new groups when a company changes names or is acquired by
another company and the existing name is eliminated. This would mean
that alt.cellular.cingular would fade away, and alt.cellular.attws would
take its place, and he had no role in creating the latter. This may
explain why he spams the alt.cellular.cingular charter into the
alt.cellular.attws group, despite numerous requests for him to stop
spamming. Some people just enjoy being obnoxious, and Navas is one of them.
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:44:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<NiwKh.5699$Yy1.3501@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed -- the rebranding is expected to take quite a while.
>
>Even when the rebranding is complete, they will still forward www.cingular.com
>over to whatever the new URL is.
I'm guessing it will be forwarded for some period of time, but will
eventually be dropped. Time will tell.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:39:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<KdwKh.5696$Yy1.3822@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>the same fate as the alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream group.
>>
>> More nonsense. Grow up.
>
>You never made the reasons for you opposition clear John. It appeared to be
>based on some inner conviction on your part.
As you know -- this was beaten to death long ago -- what I actually
wrote was encouragement and advice:
3. Why not just keep trying to get it started yourself? The best
way to do that is to get one or more major news carriers on your
side.
You're apparently just still pissed that I didn't think it was really
necessary. ("If you're not fer me, you're again' me!")
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
alt.cellular.attws??? 
Linear Mode
