New iPhones to use 3G network

In article
<3cc13aae-fe7c-4959-aff2-1f6aec7c8c3e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > Really? MY shortcomings? YOU accuse others of being "anonymous
> > cowards," then when told to put up or shut up, you come back with,
> > "Search for it!" rather than put your money where your mouth is.
>
>
> So much for the "You First".
>
> Here's a hint for you: my last name is the same as the domain name
> I'm posting from: Huntzinger

Wheeeeeee! now THAT'S not being an anonymous coward, is it. Yeah, right.

You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.

On Dec 3, 5:53 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article
> <3cc13aae-fe7c-4959-aff2-1f6aec7c8...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > Really? MY shortcomings? YOU accuse others of being "anonymous
> > > cowards," then when told to put up or shut up, you come back with,
> > > "Search for it!" rather than put your money where your mouth is.
>
> > So much for the "You First".
>
> > Here's a hint for you: my last name is the same as the domain name
> > I'm posting from: Huntzinger
>
> Wheeeeeee! now THAT'S not being an anonymous coward, is it. Yeah, right.
>
> You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
> and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.


And there's the dodge, as predicted.


What you don't realize "Elmo" is that I never needed to play your
tune: this is USENET, where it is run by the Court of Public
Opinion. And as per Dennis Ferguson's public comment (thanks BTW), my
response was already found to have been sufficient by the audience,
despite your pathetic whining to the contrary.


And FWIW, if you were actually good at Googling, you would have found
the whole story behind my short .sig, including the amount of IRL
money that was involved.


-hh

Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13l0vvveo2hn337@news.supernews.com...
>> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No
>>> thanks. By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is
>>> sad. But send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that
>>> $$ rolling in.
>>
>> If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to
>> sue. And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so
>> thoughtfully wrote.
>>
>> Now go away AssHat
> Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$
> Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd)

You do realize that all companies must make money or they fail. And I'm
hardly an Apple fanboi. I bought mine when the price of the phone dropped to
be = < the cost of a new iPod + the cost of a new phone. Both of which I
needed.

I'm also noone's sock puppet. Which just the very least research would show.

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> Provide me with a link to a phone I can purchase that is a copycat
> of he iPhone.

The LG VX10000 probably qualifies as a 'copycat' for most reasonable
people, and back in late September, it was leaked that Verizon was
going to roll it out:

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/0...ger-get-outed/

Since then, Verizon has (as the leak claimed) released the VX10000.
It is now listed on their website for sale: $349.99 upon a 2 year
contract, before applying a -$50 online order discount (net: $250
minus a penny).

With the way that VZW manages their website, I don't know if their URL
will work properly, but here it is anyway:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/s...edPhoneId=3299

or: http://tinyurl.com/239d6o


In any event, if the above doesn't work for you, I took a screenshot:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/copycat.jpg


Granted, it is proof of only one player out with a real-world copycat,
but I only looked for one; there very well may be others.

FWIW, I have seen images online of a couple of rip-offs (including a
Russian one that included a bad 'Apple' silhouette icon), but I
haven't bothered to track down if they're released products,
prototypes or just Photoshop magic vaporware, primarily because it
doesn't affect me because I don't ever intend to buy one of them. By
the same token, while I know that I can go buy a fake Rolex on a
street corner in New York City if I wanted to, I have no clue as to
which Rolex models they are rip-offs of, or the asking prices for
these fakes.


-hh

In article
<7d7b92cf-f3c0-4962-aef4-e9cba009f6f7@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
> > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.
>
>
> And there's the dodge, as predicted.

No dodge at all.

You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.

In article
<7d7b92cf-f3c0-4962-aef4-e9cba009f6f7@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> And FWIW, if you were actually good at Googling, you would have found
> the whole story behind my short .sig, including the amount of IRL
> money that was involved.

YOU made the accusation, therefore it's up to YOU to step up to the
plate. It's not up to the rest of the world to "just Google it!"

You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> <7d7b92cf-f3c0-4962-aef4-e9cba009f6f7@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their
>>> names and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information
>>> first.
>>
>>
>> And there's the dodge, as predicted.
>
> No dodge at all.
>
> You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
> and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.

He did what you asked; you dodged. It's time to pull up your pants, since
it's already too late to save your shoes. You got pwned, no question about
it.

And for the record you don't even seem to "get" what this little sub-thread
was about. To a casual observer it seems -hh thought it was a bit odd to
have your own posts deliberately set to not archive while simultaneously
making this remark: "You DO know your words are recorded for posterity,
don't you?"

Then you called claimed he--and others--were in fact Oxford. This when the
writing styles were not even remotely similar.

No cookie for you, Elmo...


--
Mike


--
Mike

"Tinman" <a...@for.it> wrote:
>
> He did what you asked; you dodged. It's time to pull up your pants, since
> it's already too late to save your shoes. You got pwned, no question about
> it.

Thus speaks the Court of Public Opinion...again!


> And for the record you don't even seem to "get" what this little sub-thread
> was about. To a casual observer it seems -hh thought it was a bit odd to
> have your own posts deliberately set to not archive while simultaneously
> making this remark: "You DO know your words are recorded for posterity,
> don't you?"

Thanks for reading with comprehension :-) Overall, Elmo's remark
was worth pointing out because it was clearly one of a hypocrite.

A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite :-)


> Then you called claimed he--and others--were in fact Oxford. This when
> the writing styles were not even remotely similar.
>
> No cookie for you, Elmo...

Speaking of "cookies", does the IP address of 66.121.14.82 happen to
have any particular significance to anybody? Its in southern
California, near LA.


-hh

In article
<618c8573-aa2a-4566-85b5-9075d3cfb8f1@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> A cowardly, anonymous hypocrite :-)

You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.

In article <5rivtiF12f009U1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:

> > You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
> > and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.
>
> He did what you asked;

No, he didn't.

You want to go calling others cowards for not spelling out their names
and addresses, you'd better pony up your own information first.