Newbie on phone unlocking

sw wrote:

<snip>

> Oh yeah! When are you going to stop posting your childish charter into
> other group?

The charter itself is not childish, though it's rather ironic that one
of the biggest violators of the charter is the person that continually
posts it.

What _is_ childish is posting it to a group that it doesn't apply to.
It's bad enough to repost it constantly to the group it _does_ apply to,
but at least it's relevant. Why he posts the charter of one group to a
group that the charter was never intended to apply to is a mystery. It
seems to fit with his goal of being as obnoxious as humanly possible.

The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that
makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense to
continue to have a Usenet group for something that doesn't exist
anymore. It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.
voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile.



[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away,
and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's
Wireless Service.]

At 22 Apr 2007 20:27:32 -0700 SMS wrote:

> The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that
> makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense
> to continue to have a Usenet group for something that doesn't exist
> anymore.

Except that the Cingular-to-AT&T name transition is still in it's early
stages. Every ad I've seen so far is co-branded, and the stores still
say "Cingular" on the sign.


> It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.
> voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile.


Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo
group was in use.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:13:06 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<462c2d67$0$6303$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>At 22 Apr 2007 20:27:32 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> The gradual transition to alt.cellular.attws is just something that
>> makes sense. The Cingular name is disappearing, so it makes no sense
>> to continue to have a Usenet group for something that doesn't exist
>> anymore.
>
>Except that the Cingular-to-AT&T name transition is still in it's early
>stages. Every ad I've seen so far is co-branded, and the stores still
>say "Cingular" on the sign.

Yep. He's just got a big personal grudge that gets in the way of simple
facts and common courtesy.

>> It's similar to the transition from alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.
>> voicestream to alt.cellular.t-mobile.
>
>Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo
>group was in use.

Ditto.

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

I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this
group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give.
Thanks.

When is the official transition?

>
> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular posts
> to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away, and
> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless
> Service.]

That isn't good advice, and there is no official transition,

Steven just has big grudges against Cingular the company, because his
wife got poor coverage, and against me personally, fueled by envy,
because I keep setting the record straight on his bashing of GSM in
general and Cingular in particular, and because I created the Cingular
newsgroup and the Cingular FAQ. He's now doing his best to damage the
Cingular newsgroup, in part because of Cingular, in part because I
created it. It's all very childish.

Always consider the source before taking advice. Use the newsgroup
that's most appropriate to your needs, which is still (for now at least)
the Cingular newsgroup. And since cross-posting thread fragments to the
ATTWS newsgroup only serves to pointlessly damage it with noise, please
don't that.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:28:28 GMT, "Joe" <jdj@nospam.com> wrote in
<JGyDIK.Ar9@news.boeing.com>:

>I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this
>group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give.
>Thanks.
>
>When is the official transition?
>
>> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular posts
>> to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away, and
>> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless
>> Service.]

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

Joe wrote:
> I'll be sure to follow this advice. As I indicated, I'm a newbie on this
> group and I appreciate all of the proper netiquettte advice one can give.
> Thanks.
>
> When is the official transition?
>
>> [Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular posts
>> to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going away, and
>> alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding AT&T's Wireless
>> Service.]

Nothing is official here.

"AT&T has done a good job of reintroducing its brand. Cingular will take
a while to get rid of. They're at the middle of transition that just has
to be done, and it's like pulling off the Band-Aid--you just have to do
it," he says."

Here's the post where I suggested a transition schedule.

With the decision of AT&T to eliminate the Cingular branding in favor of
calling its wireless service "AT&T" it's time to phase out usage of the
alt.cellular.cingular Usenet group in favor of the alt.cellular.attws group.

I suggest the following transition strategy:

1. New threads should be posted to both alt.cellular.cingular and
alt.cellular.attws, until June 30th 2007.

2. Follow-up posts to threads that are only posted on
alt.cellular.cingular should add alt.cellular.attws, but keep
alt.cellular.cingular until June 30th 2007.

3. Beginning July 1st 2007, new threads should be posted only to
alt.cellular.attws.

4. Beginning July 1st 2007, follow-up posts to threads that are only
posted on alt.cellular.cingular, should remove alt.cellular.cingular,
and add alt.cellular.attws.

I think that this will work well. Look at how quickly
alt.cellular.t-mobile replaced alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream.
The latter group now has very, very, few postings.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo
> group was in use.

It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change
of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the
alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:40:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <462ce19e$0$27250$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the T-Mo
>> group was in use.
>
>It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change
>of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the
>alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created.

Not true.

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

At 23 Apr 2007 09:40:58 -0700 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Not really- the T-Mobile namewas in use for several years before the
T-Mo
> > group was in use.
>
> It was in use outside the U.S. for several years before the U.S. change
of Voicestream to T-Mobile, but not for that long in the U.S. before the
alt.cellular.t-mobile group was created.

IIRC, only in the last year has the T-Mo group "replaced" the VStream
group- prior to that the VS group had far more activity. The T-Mo name
has been in use here for at least three years.

While I understand your desire to get things moving faster WRT the AT&T
group, I feel we should probably wait and see what AT&Tingular actually
intends to call "the wireless service formerly known as Cingular" before
we use the incorrect, but "close" ATTWS group.

As you correctly pointed out, the T-Mobile group was CREATED after the
service changed names- T-Mo users didn't just take over an old group with
a similar name! ;-)

Unless AT&T calls Cingular "AT&T Wireless" the attws group has the wrong
name! A situation at least as confusing as using the Cingular group.

In short, what's the hurry, unless your ONLY motive is to get under a
certain person's skin? (Which, if the case, is fine as long as you're up
front about it, and those who wish to play along, can.)






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:03:07 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<462ce994$0$16267$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>In short, what's the hurry, unless your ONLY motive is to get under a
>certain person's skin? (Which, if the case, is fine as long as you're up
>front about it, and those who wish to play along, can.)

Actually not fine -- that's abuse of Usenet.

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