Skype wifi phone $159

In article <jgkeegan-D77CAB.15443325112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan jr. wrote:

>> Bullshit. It's off-topic, and you know it.
>
> no steven, it is not off-topic at all. it is quite relevant.

No, it's not relevant. I believe there are already other fora for VoIP,
including at least one Usenet newsgroup. The only Skype stuff that has
any relationship to cellular, at least out of what's posted here, is Larry's
constant whining about the way the wireless providers do business. He says
they all suck, and to some extent, they DO all suck. Fine... I'm not
going to argue that, it's true. So what's the point of posting that there's
some sale on XYZ Inc's newest Skype handset?

> larry is easy enough to attack and put down if that is your intent.
> this isn't the place to do it.

Give me a break. That argument is as tired as the argument that I'm a
VZ shill. I've publically agreed with Larry before. If I was only out to
attack him, that's what I'd be doing every time he posted, even when he was
not spamming.

Sorry James, there *are* guidelines for posting to Usenet, and most ISP's
even codify those guidelines into their Acceptable Use policies, like Larry's
cable company does. Why don't I just ignore all the crap? Because, as I've
said before, I've seen newsgroups get overrun by the off-topic BS, and those
newsgroups have become unusable. Alt.cellular.* hasn't yet.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article <slrnemhgl9.gtg.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In article <jgkeegan-D77CAB.15443325112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan
> jr. wrote:
>
> >> Bullshit. It's off-topic, and you know it.
> >
> > no steven, it is not off-topic at all. it is quite relevant.
>
> No, it's not relevant.

nonsense. a number of people have already told you that it was.

much as you might like to control the behavior of others, you're
off-base on this one, i believe. the topic is interesting to
newsgroup readers.

> I believe there are already other fora for VoIP,
> including at least one Usenet newsgroup. The only Skype stuff that has
> any relationship to cellular, at least out of what's posted here, is Larry's
> constant whining about the way the wireless providers do business. He says
> they all suck, and to some extent, they DO all suck. Fine... I'm not
> going to argue that, it's true. So what's the point of posting that there's
> some sale on XYZ Inc's newest Skype handset?

i won't dispute that there is a common foundation of whining about
the industry in larry's posts. i do argue that the evolution of
alternatives to today's cellular industry is most relevant.
>
> > larry is easy enough to attack and put down if that is your intent.
> > this isn't the place to do it.
>
> Give me a break. That argument is as tired as the argument that I'm a
> VZ shill. I've publically agreed with Larry before. If I was only out to
> attack him, that's what I'd be doing every time he posted, even when he was
> not spamming.

he was not spamming with his posts about skype; certainly no more
than you are.

> Sorry James, there *are* guidelines for posting to Usenet, and most ISP's
> even codify those guidelines into their Acceptable Use policies, like Larry's
> cable company does. Why don't I just ignore all the crap? Because, as I've
> said before, I've seen newsgroups get overrun by the off-topic BS, and those
> newsgroups have become unusable. Alt.cellular.* hasn't yet.

there is a historical reason for moderated and non-moderated
newsgroups, steven. i though you had been around long enough to
recognize that. i doubt that there are two usenet isp admin, however
usenet-illiterate they might be, who would categorize larry's skype
posts as spam.

In article <jgkeegan-1D70CF.18514125112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> there is a historical reason for moderated and non-moderated
> newsgroups, steven. i though you had been around long enough to
> recognize that.

Yes, I do, I've been on Usenet since 1989. I also recognize that most
newsgroups have guidelines for posting. Even unmoderated alt groups.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article <slrnemho1p.uot.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In article <jgkeegan-1D70CF.18514125112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan
> jr. wrote:
>
> > there is a historical reason for moderated and non-moderated
> > newsgroups, steven. i though you had been around long enough to
> > recognize that.
>
> Yes, I do, I've been on Usenet since 1989. I also recognize that most
> newsgroups have guidelines for posting. Even unmoderated alt groups.


that they do, and those guidelines evolve with usage and the will of
the group's participants.

your opinion on whether or not larry's post was relevant is clearly a
minority view. several people have explained that to you, perhaps
more than you have seen given your childish effort to redirect
follow-ups.

put your ego aside now do what you normally do which is post relevant
information.

In article <slrnemhsse.45e.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In article <jgkeegan-C42B7C.20215425112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan
> jr. wrote:
>
> > your opinion on whether or not larry's post was relevant is clearly a
> > minority view. several people have explained that to you, perhaps
> > more than you have seen given your childish effort to redirect
> > follow-ups.
>
> > put your ego aside now do what you normally do which is post relevant
> > information.
>
> Yes, a few people have disagreed with me. Since you either ignored
> or completely missed my main point, I don't suppose there's any
> point in arguing further.

there was never any point in your continuing to defend your error.
even you knew that as evidenced by your childish effort to redirect
followups so that fewer posts critical of your failed arguments would
appear in the same groups to which you thought it appropriate to
post. that was hypocritical as well as intellectually dishonest of
you.

In article <jgkeegan-C42B7C.20215425112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> your opinion on whether or not larry's post was relevant is clearly a
> minority view. several people have explained that to you, perhaps
> more than you have seen given your childish effort to redirect
> follow-ups.

> put your ego aside now do what you normally do which is post relevant
> information.

Yes, a few people have disagreed with me. Since you either ignored or completely missed my
main point, I don't suppose there's any point in arguing further.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article <jgkeegan-7EC3A4.21171225112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> there was never any point in your continuing to defend your error.
> even you knew that as evidenced by your childish effort to redirect
> followups so that fewer posts critical of your failed arguments would
> appear in the same groups to which you thought it appropriate to
> post. that was hypocritical as well as intellectually dishonest of
> you.

I didn't do that intentionally. My newsreader (SLRN on Linux), by default,
doesn't follow up to all groups, just the first in the original list, and
I wasn't paying very close attention. I apologize and will have to see if
there's a config change I can make to default to following up to all groups.

At any rate, as I said, you missed the original point, so what's the use of
me continuing to argue?


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article <slrnemi9rp.l62.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> In article <jgkeegan-7EC3A4.21171225112006@individual.net>, james g. keegan
> jr. wrote:
>
> > there was never any point in your continuing to defend your error.
> > even you knew that as evidenced by your childish effort to redirect
> > followups so that fewer posts critical of your failed arguments would
> > appear in the same groups to which you thought it appropriate to
> > post. that was hypocritical as well as intellectually dishonest of
> > you.
>
> I didn't do that intentionally. My newsreader (SLRN on Linux), by default,
> doesn't follow up to all groups, just the first in the original list, and
> I wasn't paying very close attention. I apologize and will have to see if
> there's a config change I can make to default to following up to all groups.

i have used slrn but do not remember how to set the follow-ups to the
same groups as the original post. thanks for addressing that point.
you demonstrated a lot of closs.

> At any rate, as I said, you missed the original point,

yes, that was both inaccurate and defensive since i responded to your
point several times.

> so what's the use of me continuing to argue?

none. as i said above: "there was never any point in your continuing
to defend your error."

"Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:slrnemh6s2.tqv.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net.. .
> In article <Xns988691B13BEC3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Angelo. Those trying to stop any postings about VoIP, that
>> may interest other cellphone users, must have either some vested interest
>> in the cellular phone business, which is threatened by VoIP services like
>> Skype....or are some kind of control freaks.
>
> Or we've seen other newsgroups get taken over by spammers to the point
> that
> they're unusable. Saw it with cle.* many years ago, have seen it time and
> again with news.admin.net-abuse.email... just to name a few.

You must be kidding. First of all he's not a spammer. Spam is junk email,
usually commercial in nature. Larry is not selling anything, and is not
indiscriminately posting to 1000s of newsgroups. And...Do you really think
he gets paid to write about his VOIP fantasies? Sheesh.

I've been as critical of Larry's exhuberence as anyone. But when all is said
and done, Larry's posts are more interesting than 75% of the posts in this
forum. And that is no reflection on other posters, who provide tremendous
information (especially for us newbies).

VOIP should be an extremely interesting subject to anyone who uses a mobile
phone. Some day it will capture, in some form or other, most if not all of
the calls carried by the major cell carriers. When that happens Larry will
probably be rich for investing in those companies, and we'll all be
regretting having missed that particular boat.

Lighten up, guys. And Larry, keep posting.

"Ange1o DePa1ma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in news:ob-
cnd_r1pUq-PfYUSdV9g@ptd.net:

> When that happens Larry will
> probably be rich for investing in those companies, and we'll all be
> regretting having missed that particular boa

Where I screwed up was not buying Microsoft back in 1976.....dammit....(c;

Up on my wall is a picture a teacher took of two boys in a little school
room through that screen-wired door window they all had. They were pouring
over an old teletype terminal the school rented hooked to a mainframe
somewhere. One kid was standing next to the machine, reading the paper
printing out of it. Another kid was sitting at the keyboard typing.

The kid standing was Bill Gates.
The kid sitting was his buddy, Paul Allen.

Looking through that window is the digital version of looking into a little
viewing port in a hydrogen bomb....just seconds before it is triggered.

Bill's quote about the mainframe was: "We told it to do something and it
just did it."

Who'da guessed.....