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.
"Move along, folks, nothing new here."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:15:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4693944f$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mitchell Regenbogen wrote:
>> Charles <fort@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in news:080720070800099983%
>> fort@his.com.remove.invalid:
>>
>>> In article <reply_in_group-12EDD9.22372807072007@news.supernews.com>,
>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 is not proof that they approached Verizon first. It is likely
>>> they negotiated with both Cingular and Verizon, playing both against
>>> each other.
>>
>> Definitely a possibility, if you live under a rock.
>
>There is a lot more evidence that Apple approached Verizon first, and
>actually rushed out the GSM design when it didn't work out with Verizon.
>Someone in ba.internet was analyzing the FCC applications as well, which
>showed the same thing, Cingular was essentially a last-minute switch for
>Apple.
Nope. Just speculation unsupported by any real evidence, as I pointed
out in my rebuttal.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
><Mousta...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>
>Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
>of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
>requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
>accepted.
That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
lost, a big downer for Verizon.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>
>>On Jun 23, 8:21 pm, "Moustaffa Moustamegwomfa"
>><Mousta...@Moustamegwomfa.com> wrote:
>>> Why is the iphone going to be offered by Cingular only? I understand that
>>> Verizon is the number-one cell phone service provider both for superb
>>> coverage and high-speed data. Why would Steve Jobs choose Cingular? If I
>>> were Steve Jobs, I would want to release my iphone an the best network and
>>> according to all reviews, that is undeniably Verizon.
>>
>>Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
>>of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
>>requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
>>accepted.
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
Nope.
>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
Hence, no facts.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com. ..
>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>
> Nope.
Yep- well documented and available to anyone operating at higher than a
five year old menatality. This would obviously disqualify you.
>
>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>
> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
> Hence, no facts.
>
As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
The FACTS stay the same.
Going 'round and 'round with you is absolutely pointless also.
What is WELL documented is the FACT that you do not seen to ever
see the actual truth on many, if not most occasions - at least in discussions
I've seen.
So, whatever.... twist and spin John - it proves nothing. Other than what
most here know - you ain't got a frickin' clue.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>
>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>
> Nope.
>
>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>
> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
> Hence, no facts.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>
>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>
> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>
>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>
> Wrong on all counts.
Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
dibs on the iPhone were correct.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
----------------------------------------------------
In article <0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:28:02 -0000, earththing <earththing@gmail.com>
> wrote in <1183926482.197496.105850@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>:
>
> >Apple originally offered it to Verizon but Apple wanted a large amount
> >of money per person who had the iPhone and Verizon didn't like the
> >requirements Apple put on the contract, so Apple moved on and Cingular
> >accepted.
>
> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
john, when you post blatant lies like that, people disrespect you
even more.
that apple offered the iphone to verizon first has been well
documented.
please, don't lie in the cellular groups. people read here for
information.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
yet).
>> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
>> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
>> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
>> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
>> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
>
>Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
>I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
>concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
>
>I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
>have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
>chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
>at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
>function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
>sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
>February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
>yet).
Indeed -- makes no sense at all. Apple was almost certainly heading for
the _worldwide_ GSM market from the beginning.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:41:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <469dc40a$0$27215$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That's Verizon spin not fact.
>>
>> Untrue- Apple has even admitted that they went to Verizon first. Don't
>> believe it? Google it, Spanky.
>>
>>> What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>> Wrong on all counts.
>
>Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
>that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
>appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
>So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
>dibs on the iPhone were correct.
Not true. That was just speculation based on little actual evidence.
What undoubtedly actually happened is that Apple held a beauty contest
that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon lost, a big downer for Verizon.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDbnZ2dnUVZ_ru3nZ2d@giganews.com>:
>As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
>You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
>
>The FACTS stay the same.
>
>Going 'round and 'round with you is absolutely pointless also.
>What is WELL documented is the FACT that you do not seen to ever
>see the actual truth on many, if not most occasions - at least in discussions
>I've seen.
>
>So, whatever.... twist and spin John - it proves nothing. Other than what
>most here know - you ain't got a frickin' clue.
>
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:dn5r939j4l1984g3pch4ar4h3ils791etg@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:46:10 -0700, "Ness_net"
>> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>> <mPidnWHn396dEADbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:0qkq93pr2mer3ianeo4ri54h893dlc75r5@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> That's Verizon spin not fact. What undoubtedly actually happened is
>>>> that Apple held a beauty contest that AT&T/Cingular won and Verizon
>>>> lost, a big downer for Verizon.
>>
>>>It is absolute, very well documented FACT that VZW passed - first.
>>>Many, multiple (unbiased, unlike you) reliable sources.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>>Certainly, YOU can believe what you want. Larry sure does.
>>>But, it doesn't make it FACT - just a (flawed) belief.
>>
>> Facts can only be established with evidence, of which you have none.
>> Hence, no facts.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
"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.
John Navas wrote:
> No matter what you may claim, there are no such facts.
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:18:12 -0700, "Ness_net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <5q-dnVuHpIoPPwDbnZ2dnUVZ_ru3nZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> As I and others have stated - "documented" fact.
>> You can certainly deny all you want. But, it doesn't change a thing
>>
>> The FACTS stay the same.
> Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
> I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
> concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
The post about it was in ba.internet.
See "http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en&"
"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.
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.
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
In article <kums93pp8p1p64n1ifk20d421fv1fdpqrg@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:25:05 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
> <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <slrnf9smo1.86.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
> >On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, someone went and looked at all the FCC applications and found
> >> that the switch to GSM occurred very late in the iPhone project. It
> >> appeared as if Apple were sure that Verizon would come to an agreement.
> >> So it looks like all the news reports that said that Verizon had first
> >> dibs on the iPhone were correct.
> >
> >Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
> >I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
> >concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
> >
> >I find it odd that Apple, at a stage in a CDMA project advanced enough to
> >have a prototype requiring any sort of FCC approval, would have changed
> >chipset vendors to get GSM. Qualcomm sells GSM/UMTS chipsets which are
> >at least basically compatible with their CDMA2000 products in size and
> >function; Infineon's chipsets are quite different in function, and they
> >sell no CDMA2000 chips (they also announced UMTS products only last
> >February or so, which is probably why the iPhone doesn't support it
> >yet).
>
> Indeed -- makes no sense at all. Apple was almost certainly heading for
> the _worldwide_ GSM market from the beginning.
On 2007-07-18, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Do you have a reference to the FCC applications you are referring to?
>> I saw you mention this before but was unable to find any Apple application
>> concerning a mobile phone made prior to the announcement of the iPhone.
>
> The post about it was in ba.internet.
>
> See "http://groups.google.com/group/ba.internet/msg/b108ac12b3c04bc0?hl=en&"
Got it. I'm not sure I buy his theory, however, given what is now
known about where they got the radio chips from.
The reason one might use Infineon as the vendor is that their
chipsets, both the UMTS and the older GSM versions, are physically
quite small compared to their competition. If you are tight on
space Infineon would be an advantage. The UMTS chipset also
has full band coverage (4-band GSM, 3-band UMTS), so you could
sell one product in all current markets.
The reason Apple couldn't have shipped HSDPA with Infineon as
the vendor is that Infineon's UMTS chipset was late, much later
than they were promising a couple of years ago. This is always
the risk if you design a product around vaporware vendor chips.
If there was any design scramble at all it may have been to get
the board with the older chipset in shape for FCC certification.
As for the FCC note that EGPRS is the worst case for meeting
Part 15 even if HSDPA is present; it is GSM pulsed transmission
at a high signalling rate, which is nasty for interference.
My guess would be that the reason the rumors put Asian availability
in 2008 is that in the two richest markets there 2100 MHz UMTS
is a requirement.
That's my theory, anyway. I believe Apple might have once considered
doing a CDMA phone, but the decision about that was made well before
they got around to building hardware. We'd need to hear Apple's version
of the story to know for sure, however, and that may never happen.
> 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? Arguing with him only encourages him.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
----------------------------------------------------
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news: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? Arguing with him only encourages him.
>
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. And you say I'm arguing with him, which
is impossible- he stopped responding directly to me some time ago. He
can't handle the truth. And if you think I'm looking for a response, I'm
not. By challenging him, it may cause some to do question his "expertise"
and research on their own before making a decision.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that
> onlookers will have trouble telling which is the nut
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
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.
> 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.
Re: Why iPhone for Cingular Only? 
Linear Mode
