> Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to do to
> see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem if his
> misinformation goes unchallenged.
Those responses claiming to believe him are almost certainly from
sock-puppets, like "Mij Adyaw," and not from actual separate people.
> And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
> pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away with the
> wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their decisions. You
> may be fine with that- I'm not.
I don't believe that anyone is clueless enough to believe anything Navas
says. Maybe I have more faith than you in my fellow man!
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:469fae12$0$27225$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Gee Steve, many people do believe some of his posts- all you need to
>> do to see that is look at some of the responses. That is a problem
>> if his misinformation goes unchallenged.
>
> Those responses claiming to believe him are almost certainly from
> sock-puppets, like "Mij Adyaw," and not from actual separate people.
Actually, they are almost certainly not. Now add another layer to the
equation- how mamy people are lurking, simply looking for information? How
many of them would believe every word that came out his mouth if it wasn't
challenged?
>
>> And the problem with sticking your head in the sand as you do and
>> pretending that the problem doesn't exist is that people walk away
>> with the wrong information, which could an adverse effect on their
>> decisions. You may be fine with that- I'm not.
>
> I don't believe that anyone is clueless enough to believe anything
> Navas says.
Even the first time non-techie reader, if Johnny's claims are left out
there without dispute?
> Maybe I have more faith than you in my fellow man!
I have faith that people will see the facts when they are presented, but
not enough faith for them to recognize crap when no facts are presented to
make the crap obvious. Your blind faith is simply a mechanism of
individual convenience- no need to take the time to point out the errors
because your "faith" in people will prevail.
>
> BTW, does the iPhone support Extended GSM?
>
BTW- how many people would believe it existed if nobody has cried foul when
he posted his first claim? The average consumer would have no idea thatr
it's crap.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-02F5B2.17234919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
> In article <3oCdnZ-q9uNPFQPbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:23uni.23250 $Rw1.14734@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>> > What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>> >
>> > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>> > news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>> >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> >> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>> >>
>> >> Now shut up and go away.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs.
>> My post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy
>> (one of many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture
>> of the situation.
>
> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
>
>
You missed the Navas response. They are Verizon shills.
In article <elmop-8A8F81.17230819072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >
> > > John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> > > news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
> > >
> > > > No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
> > >
> > > Now shut up and go away.
> >
> >
> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>
> It'll never happen.
>
> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> One can only hope.
until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
repeatedly .... he has lost all credibility.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:50 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
><reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
><reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>
>>In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>> first.
>>
>>Yes we do:
>>
>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
>That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>
Navas always disputes anything that doesn't fit his strange world
view.
Apple is getting $100 per user from AT&T and 10% of monthly service
charges of iPhone users. In exchange for such an unusual cut of
revenue, Apple exchanged exclusivity.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-4BC017.18251519072007@individual.net>:
>In article <elmop-8A8F81.17230819072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
>> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>>
>> It'll never happen.
True. Nothing to apologize for.
>> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
Utter nonsense.
>> One can only hope.
>
>until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
>who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
>seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
>repeatedly ....
More utter nonsense.
>he has lost all credibility.
Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:23:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-02F5B2.17234919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>In article <3oCdnZ-q9uNPFQPbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:23uni.23250
>> $Rw1.14734@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>> > What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>> >
>> > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>> > news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>> >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> >> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>> >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>> >>
>> >> Now shut up and go away.
>>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>> situation.
>
>Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:22:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-145C22.17220919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>In article <Nyyni.22565$RX.485@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>
>> > That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>> >
>> > "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>>
>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not fact?
>
>It's Verizon spin because Navas says it's Verizon spin.
It's actually Verizon spin because it's Verizon spin.
>It could NEVER be Navas spin, or whatever it is he spews. Navas would
>NEVER lie in any way. Why, he's as much as told us that. Therefore it
>must be true.
Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
In article <vdsv93pc83s1qcdh7lldnn0461hltevir2@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-4BC017.18251519072007@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <elmop-8A8F81.17230819072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >>
> >> It'll never happen.
>
> True. Nothing to apologize for.
>
> >> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> >> One can only hope.
> >
> >until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
> >who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
> >seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
> >repeatedly ....
>
> More utter nonsense.
your whimpering response didn't refute a single fact.
> >he has lost all credibility.
>
> Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.
i am not surprised that you are used to people noting that you have
no credibility.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:09:47 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <469f626a$0$27214$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DTC wrote:
>
>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
>> fact? Citations please.
Lack of confirmation from credible sources, like NYT, WP, WSJ.
>LOL, right....citations from Navas. I've got a bridge to sell you.
That would actually be you.
>> Verizon reportedly balked, because they wanted a degree of distribution
>> control over the device that Apple was not willing to cede. And Apple's
>> stance left Verizon very concerned about how such control would effect
>> the carrier's stance with multi-device retail distribution partners such
>> as Wal-Mart and Best Buy.
>
>This is a big deal. Look at Radio Shack. Already reeling from the loss
>of wireless business caused by their dropping of Verizon in favor of
>Cingular, now they're locked out of selling the iPhone, at least initially.
Radio Shack actually reeled from a big drop in Verizon sales and its own
incompetence, and is slowly recovering thanks to better management and
AT&T/Cingular.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:43:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <469f5c5a$0$27192$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one of
>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>> situation.
>
>Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
>anyway? ...
Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:10:25 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<6orv93tfb9lunldlpulcd1agot666trres@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:50 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
>><reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
>><reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>>
>>>In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>> first.
>>>
>>>Yes we do:
>>>
>>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>
>>That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>
>Navas always disputes anything that doesn't fit his strange world
>view.
I actually dispute baloney.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newsrtv93ltun78638nvcmfqfqsocnpmq7l3u@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:43:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <469f5c5a$0$27192$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs. My
>>> post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link handy (one
>>> of
>>> many) for the next time he tries to paint a different picture of the
>>> situation.
>>
>>Gee Scott, do you think anyone actually believes anything he posts
>>anyway? ...
>
> Pretty clear that they do, which I know really upsets you.
>
WHO ?
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:dosv931cuhrcg7rk2medvpg0bkcv74lfqi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:22:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
> <elmop-145C22.17220919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>
>>In article <Nyyni.22565$RX.485@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>>
>>> > That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>> >
>>> > "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>>>
>>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its not
>>> fact?
>>
>>It's Verizon spin because Navas says it's Verizon spin.
>
> It's actually Verizon spin because it's Verizon spin.
>
>>It could NEVER be Navas spin, or whatever it is he spews. Navas would
>>NEVER lie in any way. Why, he's as much as told us that. Therefore it
>>must be true.
>
> Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
I knew he would (Try to) dispute the fact.
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>> Now shut up and go away.
>>
>> actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
>
> It'll never happen.
>
> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
turned down the iPhone. He should be thrilled that Cingular was able to
snag it for themselves, as it should really help them with new additions.
In article <46a00fd7$0$27206$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> >> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> >>> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
> >>>
> >>> Now shut up and go away.
> >>
> >> actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >
> > It'll never happen.
> >
> > Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
> tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
> misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
> lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
>
> I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
> turned down the iPhone. He should be thrilled that Cingular was able to
> snag it for themselves, as it should really help them with new additions.
he still hasn't acknowledged his lie. in fact, he is still in the
denial stage, which is both fascinating and disturbing.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
In article <vdsv93pc83s1qcdh7lldnn0461hltevir2@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:25:15 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-4BC017.18251519072007@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <elmop-8A8F81.17230819072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jgkeegan-B5FAAA.18032118072007@individual.net>,
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > actually john, you owe the groups an apology.
> >>
> >> It'll never happen.
>
> True. Nothing to apologize for.
>
> >> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> >> One can only hope.
> >
> >until this incident, i thought he was just one of those limited types
> >who held dearly to beliefs and rejected facts. but now that i have
> >seen him intentionally lie .... not just misrepresent, but lie
> >repeatedly ....
>
> More utter nonsense.
>
> >he has lost all credibility.
>
> Actually just fine, but thanks for your concern.
John Navas wrote:
>> Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
[Cough}
> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin from
> Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed by
> credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
Actually New York Times did cover it, but it required a subscription and I
didn't pursue the article enough to quote it.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:cruv93p1smissj7k262g6nlji92vqdkl7m@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:10:25 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> <6orv93tfb9lunldlpulcd1agot666trres@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:48:50 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:37:28 -0700, Tim Smith
>>><reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
>>><reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>:
>>>
>>>>In article <280620072203091974%fort@his.com.remove.invalid> ,
>>>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> You keep saying that but you don't know if Apple approached Verizon
>>>>> first.
>>>>
>>>>Yes we do:
>>>>
>>>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>>
>>>That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>>
>>Navas always disputes anything that doesn't fit his strange world
>>view.
>
> I actually dispute baloney.
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:4lsv93p194u4auvl73n46ie8d2mrovfv6u@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:23:49 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
> <elmop-02F5B2.17234919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>
>>In article <3oCdnZ-q9uNPFQPbnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>> news:23uni.23250 $Rw1.14734@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>>>
>>> > What he will say is "Rubbish" I'm sure.
>>> >
>>> > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>>> > news:f9OdnTTtmsN0_APbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@adelphia.com ...
>>> >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> >> news:2vns93d0ljbn5h68e1qb5c67cr5mlvtfe4@4ax.com:
>>> >>
>>> >>> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>>> >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> Now shut up and go away.
>>>
>>> Actually, he won't say anything. He avoids the truth at all costs.
>>> My post was a thread killer for him. I'll simply keep the link
>>> handy (one of many) for the next time he tries to paint a different
>>> picture of the situation.
>>
>>Plainly, USA Today are nothing but socialist liars.
>
> USA Today is crappy "journalism", in this case just repeating spin
> from Verizon. Not terribly surprising that this hasn't been confirmed
> by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
>
Crap- I should have bet somebody that he would say this.
Okay, Johnny, I'll find a few more for ya'- there are hundreds of articles.
Maybe I'll go back and find some fo the rags, blogs and forwign websites
you've used in the past. I'm sure all of them have weighed in on the
subject. Maybe a WSJ article is in order as well.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:dosv931cuhrcg7rk2medvpg0bkcv74lfqi@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:22:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
> <elmop-145C22.17220919072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:
>
>>In article <Nyyni.22565$RX.485@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
>> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote:
>>
>>> > That's just Verizon spin, not fact.
>>> >
>>> > "Move along, folks, nothing new here."
>>>
>>> Is it just a Verizon spin (your observation)? How do you know its
>>> not fact?
>>
>>It's Verizon spin because Navas says it's Verizon spin.
>
> It's actually Verizon spin because it's Verizon spin.
>
>>It could NEVER be Navas spin, or whatever it is he spews. Navas would
>>NEVER lie in any way. Why, he's as much as told us that. Therefore
>>it must be true.
>
> Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
>
In article <46a0b74e$0$27222$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > he still hasn't acknowledged his lie. in fact, he is still in the
> > denial stage, which is both fascinating and disturbing.
>
> I could easily list 100 of his lies, so I don't think it's too
> fascinating. At to disturbing, don't let Usenet trolls and spammers
> disturb you.
that's probably good advice.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:29:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46a00fd7$0$27206$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Last time he was outed like this, he left for a couple or three months.
>
>Yes, even though I've had him kill-filed for a long time, I can always
>tell when he disappears for a long time, as the responses to his
>misinformation also disappear. It seems that whenever he gets caught
>lying in such a clear way, he lays low for a while.
Hardly. LOL! It's just that (unlike you) I have a life, and this is a
busy time of year for me -- we're prepping for the Big Boat Series.
>I wonder what he hopes to achieve by lying about why and when Verizon
>turned down the iPhone. ...
The lie is yours (and you know it).
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:01:53 -0500, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <lCVni.2898$Dx2.713@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Not confirmed by credible sources like NYT, WP, and/or WSJ.
>
>We gave you other sources that in fact quoted the president of Verizon.
Nope.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Why iPhone for Cingular Only? 
rtv93ltun78638nvcmfqfqsocnpmq7l3u@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
