Consumer Reports survey on Customer Service

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.

Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
and changed his ways.

jgkeegan@gmail.com (james g. keegan jr.) wrote in
news:jgkeegan-AC55C6.18560007122006@individual.net:

> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> considered false claims.

Generally, they're simply considered unsupported, at least at first.

If the claimant refuses to support his assertions, that likely will
change.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
>> considered false claims.
>
>Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
>do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
>someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
>often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
>he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
>community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
>history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
>and changed his ways.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

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

In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>

You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
Is that correct Tommy T?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eSheh.3450$Yy1.3298@textfe.usenetserver.com.. .
> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
>> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>>
>
> You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
> alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
>
>

This piece of shit anus navas has started cross posting from cingular
all the way to t-mobile. WHAT the ****? All anus navas does is to copy
and paste. Take a look at some of the shit that he recommend :
http://navasgrp.home.att.net/rec_hdwe.htm It is laughable. Also, this
ugly SOB has a photo on this link > http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/techtv.htm
That is probably the reason why his girlfriend insists on letting me
blew loads on her face.

In article <be3jn2d9924ma5sfndhikk0qthcgie4fkn@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:47:06 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <457988fb$0$82601$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
> >james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> >
> >> even you must be aware on usenet that unsupported claims are
> >> considered false claims.
> >
> >Actually, whether statements are considered true or false has a lot to
> >do with the reputation of who is posting them. If they are posted by
> >someone with a history of lying and off-topic posting then they are
> >often written off as false. This is the problem with Navas, I think that
> >he may on occasion post something useful and correct, but the Usenet
> >community now automatically discounts anything he writes because of his
> >history. No one would think any worse of him if he admitted his errors
> >and changed his ways.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

What the heck you need to dangle navas' gonad everywhere you fart? If
you prefer to suck navas' cock, please keep it to yourself.

In article <sDjeh.134533$4Z1.87943@newsfe09.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com> wrote:

> I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
> Is that correct Tommy T?
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eSheh.3450$Yy1.3298@textfe.usenetserver.com.. .
> > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> >> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
> >>
> >
> > You begin to stutter ... that must explain why you can't quit posting the
> > alt.cellular.cingular charter to the wrong newsgroup [alt.cellular.attws].
> >
> > --
> > Thomas T. Veldhouse
> > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
> >
> >
>
>

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
>> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
>> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
>
>
> can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
> here or elsewhere?

I have no grudge against any carrier.

A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
(her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
Silicon Valley.

I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.

As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
in the U.S..

I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.

In alt.cellular.cingular Mij Adyaw <mij@thebitbucket.com> wrote:
> I don't believe that there is anymore attws as it was purchased by Cingular.
> Is that correct Tommy T?
>

It is irrellavent whether Cingular is affiliated with AT&T Wireless or not.
He is posting a newsgroup charter for one group into a different group.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

In article <4579e8a7$0$82591$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article <3u6hn2577n0de3npfu0cvuc1nnpvmoq855@4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Steven has an admitted grudge against Cingular (because of poor
> >> coverage at his wife's workplace), and flames it (and GSM) incessantly,
> >> much of the time with things he simply makes up, as he did here.
> >
> >
> > can you provide any evidence whatsoever that he made anything up,
> > here or elsewhere?
>
> I have no grudge against any carrier.
>
> A long time ago (around 1999 or 2000), I signed up for Pacific Bell
> Wireless, then when my wife changed offices, she had no coverage in the
> (her office is at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Silicon
> Valley), and we had no coverage in our house, also in the heart of
> Silicon Valley.
>
> I wasn't angry, and Cingular (Pacific Bell Wireless morphed into
> Cingular) freely admitted that their coverage was not as good as AT&T
> Wireless or Verizon Wireless, and explained why (hoping that we'd wait
> out their network build-out. When our contracts ended, we changed
> carriers. No hard feelings. I didn't demand that they let me out of my
> contracts, or that they rush out and build more towers.
>
> As to GSM, the whole reason I went with Cingular in the first place was
> because I wanted GSM due to frequent travels to Taiwan and China, which
> at the time had no CDMA networks. A lot of co-workers also went the
> Cingular route, and ended up with fine service in Asia, but poor service
> in the U.S..
>
> I now have several GSM phones, and service on an MVNO that uses
> Cingular's network. Coverage is much improved since 2000, but still not
> nearly as good as Verizon coverage. Basically my experience mirrors what
> Consumer Reports, JD Power, Yankee Group, and Bay Area Consumer
> Checkbook all report. Contrast this to what Navas posts, which _never_
> has any references or corroboration. Then decide who to believe.

i knew who to believe in this case from the beginning. that is why i
asked john for evidence that i knew would not be forthcoming.

a man with character would have apologized. has john done that yet?