Please Stop with the Attack Follow-Ups on Navas's Posts

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:fj7140$2dv$1
@aioe.org:

> At 05 Dec 2007 12:50:05 -0600 CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>> Although he does sound like he'd fit right in at the Peoples
>> Republic of Boulder.
>
> As a Bleeding Heart Liberal (tm) myself, I expect I would as well.
>
>
>

It's a whole different level there, Todd.

In article <OaD5j.461$Rf5.262@newsfe13.phx>, Jar-Jar Binks
<jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:

> Navas is a troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.

That's the problem. He keeps coming back no matter what. And lately,
he's been posting some mediocre pictures in the photography newsgroups,
giving photographic advice, and telling everyone how great his mediocre
camera is. The guy is a bona-fide pain in the ass.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:53:13 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
<4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
>us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>
>What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
>these are not so easy to filter out.
>
>So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
>attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
>more.

Anything to save yourself the embarrassment of being shown to be full of
hot air, right Steven? How sad. The real troll here is of course you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:chgel31f7tvsgpc3ui6glnhethvlde7gcs@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:53:13 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
> <4756d700$0$84158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>I know that we all find his behavior annoying and obnoxious, but most of
>>us don't even see his posts due to our kill-files.
>>
>>What we _do_ see are all the follow-up posts complaining about him, and
>>these are not so easy to filter out.
>>
>>So _please_ exercise restraint and don't respond. Trolls _thrive_ on
>>attention, and responding to his posts just encourages him to spam even
>>more.
>
> Anything to save yourself the embarrassment of being shown to be full of
> hot air, right Steven? How sad. The real troll here is of course you.
>

Oh, please. You are just slightly below our new moron, Oxtard, in the
degree of you cluelessness.

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article <OaD5j.461$Rf5.262@newsfe13.phx>, Jar-Jar Binks
> <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Navas is a troll. Don't feed it and it will go away.
>
> That's the problem. He keeps coming back no matter what. And lately,
> he's been posting some mediocre pictures in the photography newsgroups,
> giving photographic advice, and telling everyone how great his mediocre
> camera is. The guy is a bona-fide pain in the ass.

His behavior in r.p.d. echoes his old behavior in the alt.cellular
groups. He never provides references for any of his amazing
fabrications, every product he has purchased, no matter how poor, is the
best, and he's using his same collection of content-free one-line
responses when he can't respond with anything useful. Fortunately, it
didn't take long for everyone to realize how clueless he is, but in the
beginning there were people trying to engage him in rational discussion,
which is something you can't do with Navas.

At least he's not changing his identity several times a day like the
other troll in rec.photo.digital, so he's easy to filter. What's not
easy to filter is all the people that for some reason feel compelled to
correct ever mis-statement he makes, or that actually respond to his
one-liners with their own insults.

I guess we should feel fortunate that he apparently no longer is
spending his time shilling for Cingular/AT&T and is content to post
charters that don't apply, and incorrect information about phone chargers.

> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?

Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core
information is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.

"DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:9HK5j.30644$Pv2.19404@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>> --
>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>
> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
>

So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> "DTC" <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
> news:9HK5j.30644$Pv2.19404@newssvr23.news.prodigy. net...
>> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>> Did you guys see this? Did Navas really write this wikibook?
>> Aside from the editorial composition and WiKi format, the core information
>> is "googled" from knowledgeable sources.
>>
>
> So basically Navas plagiarized it? I should have known! :-)

Plagiarized might be too strong of a word.

If a student "buys" a term paper and copies it, then passes it off as
his original work; that's plagiarism.

If a seminary student writing a comprehensive study of the New Testament
and quotes almost 100% of it as an essential part of his work; that's
not plagiarism.

If an MBA student writes a discussion about economic theory and uses the
information of previous economists (with appropriate use of quotations);
that's not plagiarism.

If a scientist promotes his own original work and uses references to
previous scientific studies to support his work; that's not plagiarism.

For the most part, WiKi articles are edited compilations of previous
works, and we see that in the long list of references at the bottom of
most WiKi pages.

John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

When confronted with facts that conflict with what we may post, we
either make a clarification to eliminate ambiguousness or offer
citations to back up what we offer. This is not to be confused with
"back-peddling" or "moving the goal posts".

In article <eiT5j.4286$Dt4.853@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, DTC
<me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> John has clearly demonstrated he is not a professional in the cellular
> industry - as some of us are by virtue of the fact we have worked on
> cellular systems and thus have "hands on" experience.

I think we all know where his "hands on" experience lies.