Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710 - Page 6

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <re2essezxi4m$.www1ft7hluir$.dlg@40tude.net>,
CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

> 1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.

There are degrees of hot. (In both senses of the expression.) If
McDonalds had heated the coffee in a pressure cooker so it was more than
212 degrees F, would it still just be "hot"?

> 2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

But not 3rd degree burns.

> Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was
> near her body? Yes.

She wasn't playing with the lid; she was removing it. Did you ever try
to put lightener or sweetener in a cup of coffee while the lid was on?
For that matter, did you ever try to remove the lid from a cup while the
cup was not near your body? I'd hazard a guess that it was within arms
length.

> Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.
>
> Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for
> satisfaction?

Did you ever get third degree burns from the spilled coffee?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <3EHLd.4773$m31.64012@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Nothing misleading about that -- the V710 can in fact do both voice
> and data over Bluetooth.

Voice *and* data? I thought you said that voice is data. Make up your
mind.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <3Zudnd0wfpdEpGXcRVn-gw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 26 Jan 2005
17:46:49 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:eDTJd.3821$m31.53117@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> In <C-ednbymaYOPxG3cRVn-rA@adelphia.com> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
18:22:16 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Wait- I may have answered my own question. You were called as an
expert to
> >> >compare computer code and only to compare computer code. 1986? SEA
and
> >> >PKWARE? ...
> >>
> >> Nice start (and good for you for actually doing some homework rather
than just
> >> the usual wild mud slinging), but far from the only time I've been
qualified
> >> as an expert. Keep digging.
> >
> >Two things- first, I haven't been mud slinging.
>
> Baloney.

Says you.

>
> >I have posted in response
> >to your own words.
>
> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.

Call it what you will.

>
> >And I have not stooped to the level of being totally
> >non-responsive to posts- something which you seem to have resorted to in
> >other threads.
>
> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.

Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.

>
> >Second, you have yet to post any credentials to back up your
> >claim that your status as an expert witness was based on anything in play
> >here.
>
> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless
challenges,
> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.

Its only pointless to you. I believe that is probably due to the absolute
void of expertise you can provide.

>
> >I've cited the only publicly documented association of your name with
> >any legal action,
>
> No, you're just cited the only one you've been able to find

>
> >... How about citing the cases where you were
> >called as an expert witness specifically in the areas of contract law,
> >copyright protection and truth in advertising? ...
>
> I'm not going to play your game.

Of course not- you have nothing to play with.

>
> >Of course, I can save you the trouble if you'd like. You see, I have an
old
> >high school buddy that is a Princeton professor and has access to their
Law
> >Library. We plugged your name in and found no instance where you were
> >called as an expert in any of the three areas mentioned above. I'll even
> >translate that for you- you have no recognizable knowledge, expertise or
> >experience in the areas of contract law, copyright protection and truth
in
> >advertising. I'd say that my digging is complete.
>
> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up,
all
> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified
in
> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both
somehow
> missed that. ;-)

Again, you don't read very well. There is no public record of you
testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law. You have been called
in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in other
areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas. For
you to continue the charade is actually really funny now. I should take
your attitude- I can fill my gas tank, so that makes me an expert at
automotive repair.

>
> >Feel free to refute, although you'll need to cite specific instances that
> >can be verified independently.
>
> I'm not going to play your game.

Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.

>
> >My money is on the fact that you will never
> >do it (because there is nothing to cite) and simply resort to evasion,
name
> >calling or out of context replies- all things you seem to be excelling at
> >these days.
>
> Pot ... kettle ... ;-)

Oooo- that hurt. Not really, but I guess that was the response you were
looking for.

>
> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>
> --

How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned here?
You have totally lost your mind- and with a statement like that any
credibility you had left. Is it really your assertion that your testimony
in that case as a computer code expert makes you an expert on any of the
legal areas mentioned above?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53 GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com>
wrote:


>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.

It was hot enough to cause serious burns that put her in the hospital
for 2 weeks and required skin grafts.

>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

It is NOT common knowledge that spilling coffee will lead to severe
burns, weeks of hospitalization, and skin grafts.

>3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.
>
>Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.

No "probably" about it. They did it intentionally, knowing that it
was injuring people, knowing it was too hot to safely drink. They had
800 prior burn claims before this case, they knew that their coffee
was causing serious burns and they did nothing to make their product
safe.

>Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
>body? Yes.
>
>Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Hot enough to cause serious burns, hospitalization, skin grafts???

>Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?

She didn't run to the courts, she filed a claim with McDonalds asking
ONLY for reimbursement of her medical bills. Only after McDs ignored
their liability by serving dangerously hot (defective) coffee did she
sue.

>No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.

If the coffee was much hotter than you expected, and it caused burns
that were much more serious than prior burns (those caused by spilling
"normal" hot coffee), you might be singing a different tune.

jc

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <36ac2qF4ufqsfU1@individual.net> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter
Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?>>
>
>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>

Next time read *before* ranting.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <re2essezxi4m$.www1ft7hluir$.dlg@40tude.net> on Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53
GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:35:46 GMT, JC Dill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:53:27 -0800, "Peter Pan"
>> <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE --- What Are The Facts?
>>>
>>>Sign of the times.. If you do something stupid, blame someone else and
>>>sue... never take responsibility for your own actions... <sigh>
>>
>> Sign of the times... why bother to read the material and understand it
>> when you can just sneer that someone didn't take responsibility for
>> "their actions" when they were injured by a defective product and had
>> to sue to be compensated because the manufacturer of the product
>> refused to be responsible for THEIR actions. <sigh> indeed.
>
>The bottom line is:
>
>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot.

There are greatly different degrees of hot. Read the article.

>It wasn't defective, just hot.

It was excessively hot.

>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.

Not when the temperature is appropriate. You can't drink coffee so hot that
it will burn.

>3. Don't spill coffee on yourself. Common sense.

Accidents happen.

>Did McDonalds err in making the coffee very hot? Probably.
>
>Did the lady err in playing with the coffee lid while the cup was near her
>body? Yes.

Nonsense -- she was just trying to take the lid off.

>Did I ever spill hot coffee on myself? Yes.

Me too. But I don't make it so hot as to get third degree burns, and I don't
buy coffee at McDonalds, so it's never been a big deal.

>Did I run to the courts or the store where I bought it for satisfaction?
>No. I wrote it off as stupidity on my part.

When I'm injured by the act of someone else, I expect that someone else to be
responsible for my injury.

Are you equally laid back when electrocuted by an insufficiently grounded
product? Do you fully live by the Law of the Jungle?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <U_SdneCMW5WSqp3fRVn-tQ@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:12:49 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> Baloney.
>
>Says you.

I do, but then it's patently obvious that you've been mud slinging.

>> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
>
>Call it what you will.

I call it what it is.

>> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud slinging.
>
>Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.

No justification for mud slinging.

>> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless challenges,
>> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
>
>Its only pointless to you.

That's all that matters to me.

>I believe that is probably due to the absolute
>void of expertise you can provide.

Believe what you will, true or false.

>> I'm not going to play your game.
>
>Of course not- you have nothing to play with.

How childish.

>> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up, all
>> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand the
>> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter of
>> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I testified in
>> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both somehow
>> missed that. ;-)
>
>Again, you don't read very well.

You have that backwards.

>There is no public record of you
>testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
>copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law.

Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.

>You have been called
>in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in other
>areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas.

Not true.

>For
>you to continue the charade is actually really funny now.

Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.

>> I'm not going to play your game.
>
>Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.

Wrong on both counts.

>> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to give
>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant experience,
>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the right
>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.

>How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned here?

I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself more
embarrassment.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:xlYLd.4920$m31.64886@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <U_SdneCMW5WSqp3fRVn-tQ@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
19:12:49 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:X1ILd.4780$m31.63900@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> Baloney.
> >
> >Says you.
>
> I do, but then it's patently obvious that you've been mud slinging.
>
> >> That doesn't make it any less mud slinging.
> >
> >Call it what you will.
>
> I call it what it is.
>
> >> That's hardly a sin, and certainly nothing compared to your mud
slinging.
> >
> >Not a sin, but a pretty good measure of credibility.
>
> No justification for mud slinging.

And still a good measurement of credibility.

>
> >> So be skeptical. I'm not interested in responding to pointless
challenges,
> >> since it's now clear that you'll simply dismiss whatever I say.
> >
> >Its only pointless to you.
>
> That's all that matters to me.
>
> >I believe that is probably due to the absolute
> >void of expertise you can provide.
>
> Believe what you will, true or false.
>
> >> I'm not going to play your game.
> >
> >Of course not- you have nothing to play with.
>
> How childish.
>
> >> ROTFL. Even if you've actually done that, rather than just make it up,
all
> >> you've proved is neither you nor your Princeton professor understand
the
> >> serious limitations of that kind of research. My testimony is a matter
of
> >> public record, and can be found, but that's not how to do it. I
testified in
> >> one of the biggest and most important anti-trust cases, yet you both
somehow
> >> missed that. ;-)
> >
> >Again, you don't read very well.
>
> You have that backwards.
>
> >There is no public record of you
> >testifying in any case where you were called as an expert in the areas of
> >copyright law, truth in advertising or contract law.
>
> Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.

I stand by my words. You saying different is no good without hard facts.
And the lack of hard facts is very interesting- it almost smacks of the
truth.

>
> >You have been called
> >in cases where these topics were discussed, but your testimony was in
other
> >areas and you were not called as an expert in any of these three areas.
>
> Not true.

Why? Because you say so? You need to do better than that.

>
> >For
> >you to continue the charade is actually really funny now.
>
> Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.

I think others would seriously disagree.

>
> >> I'm not going to play your game.
> >
> >Again- you can't. You have nothing to play with.
>
> Wrong on both counts.

Again- prove me wrong.

>
> >> You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought
to give
> >> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> >> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> >> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic.
>
> >How is the comparison of computer code relevent to anything mentioned
here?
>
> I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself
more
> embarrassment.
>
> --

I read it just fine. Your exact words are that this single case "makes it
clear that I have actual relevant experience." There is no connection
between reading computer code and being an expert in any of the areas
mentioned above. I noticed that you did a selective snip of my response to
that- almost like you are ashamed.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <5PCdnamlF_P1y53fRVn-ug@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:26:35 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:xlYLd.4920$m31.64886@typhoon.sonic.net...

>> No justification for mud slinging.
>
>And still a good measurement of credibility.

No justification for mud slinging.

>> Not true. That you can't find it simply means that you can't find it.
>
>I stand by my words. ...

Which are meaningless, as I've shown.

>> Not true.
>
>Why? Because you say so?

Because it's not true.

>> Laugh away. I'm not the one acting silly.
>
>I think others would seriously disagree.

There's more than one of you? You mean Jack the Zwick? LOL

>> Wrong on both counts.
>
>Again- prove me wrong.

Since you are the one making the accusations, the burden of proof is on you,
not me.

>> I didn't say that. Read what I wrote more carefully, and save yourself more
>> embarrassment.

>I read it just fine.

Obviously not.

>Your exact words are that this single case "makes it
>clear that I have actual relevant experience."

The key work there is "relevant." Read more carefully. And pipe down unless
and until you can show any expertise at all in IP.

>There is no connection
>between reading computer code and being an expert in any of the areas
>mentioned above.

Wrong again.

>I noticed that you did a selective snip of my response to
>that- almost like you are ashamed.

LOL! I'm not the one without any expertise at all.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <QfYLd.4919$m31.64371@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> Perhaps the concern is that Bluetooth could be used
> >> phone-to-phone, thus facilitating "casual sharing" (copying),
> >> unlike a USB cable.
> >
> >Bluetooth doesn't copy files; people copy files.
>
> Bluetooth facilitates copying of files.

Automobiles facilitate getting away from bank robberies.

Baseball bats facilitate assault and battery.

Radios facilitate electrocution in bathtubs.

Kitchen knives facilitate murder.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <slrnd021n2.er4.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> JC Dill wrote on [Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:43:00 GMT]:
> > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53 GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.
> >
> > It was hot enough to cause serious burns that put her in the hospital
> > for 2 weeks and required skin grafts.
> >
> >>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.
> >
> > It is NOT common knowledge that spilling coffee will lead to severe
> > burns, weeks of hospitalization, and skin grafts.
>
> Yes it is, or it should be. Coffee is made with boiling water, the
> coffee was only 87 degrees Celcius, water boils at 100. How is this NOT
> common knowledge?

That McDonalds, unique to that McDonalds, and against company policy
sold coffee at 190 degrees F, as opposed to 170 degrees F that it should
have been.

Then the McDonalds manager on the stand was a poor witness to put it
politely and did the company no good.

That said, the judgement was way out of line, and lowered on appeal.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <slrnd0265u.er4.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> and 190 degrees F is still only 87 deg C. Well below the boiling
> point that coffee should be made at.

The temperature it should be made at and the temperature it should be
served at are not identical.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:59:19 GMT, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>JC Dill wrote on [Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:43:00 GMT]:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:46:53 GMT, CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1. Coffee is supposed to be hot. It wasn't defective, just hot.
>>
>> It was hot enough to cause serious burns that put her in the hospital
>> for 2 weeks and required skin grafts.
>>
>>>2. Spilled coffee can burn. Common knowledge.
>>
>> It is NOT common knowledge that spilling coffee will lead to severe
>> burns, weeks of hospitalization, and skin grafts.
>
>Yes it is, or it should be. Coffee is made with boiling water, the
>coffee was only 87 degrees Celcius, water boils at 100. How is this NOT
>common knowledge?

Lots of things are "made with boiling water" but are not served at a
boiling temperature. Hot coffee is one of them.

It was *proven* that McDs held/served their coffee at a much higher
temperature than other restaurants and that this temperature
difference made their coffee hot enough to cause much more serious
burns. Most people know that coffee is "hot" but most people do not
know that it might cause serious burns requiring a 2 week
hospitalization and skin grafts, and that's because most coffee is NOT
served that hot.

Go out on the street, stop 100 strangers at random and ask "if you
spill coffee on yourself, will it cause serious burns that could
require weeks of hospitalization and skin grafts?" and I think you
will find that "most people" do not believe this is likely or even
possible. Certainly the jury thought that way.

jc

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <michelle-EB87C4.11242002022005@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

: In article <020220050757062204%jcostom@duhhhhh.hi.spammers.jasons.org>,
: A Transfinite Number of Monkeys
: <jcostom@duhhhhh.hi.spammers.jasons.org> wrote:
:
: > VZW has its users brainwashed into believing that if they go with any
: > other carrier, they wil be hopelessly lost in a sea of no signal and
: > dropped calls.
:
: Then there are those of us who know from experience that Verizon is the
: only service that provides a usable signal at our homes or offices. In
: my case, it's at my home.

Just like there are those of us who get good signal at our homes or
offices from only Cingular, Sprint, T-Mobile or Nextel.

You're generalizing a specific example (i.e. just because it's the only
thing that works at YOUR house, doesn't mean it's the only service that
works at all). Have you had all 5 major carriers phones?

My personal experience with VZW? Heavier phones, because you have to
accomodate a bigger battery, since CDMA takes more power than GSM.
When I was a VZW user (circa 2000-2001), right here in NJ, the home of
Bell Atlantic Mobile, we had constant dropped calls, and the voice
quality sounded roughly like you were holding a bucket over your head
while talking.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-EB87C4.11242002022005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 02 Feb 2005
11:24:20 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <020220050757062204%jcostom@duhhhhh.hi.spammers.jasons.org>,
> A Transfinite Number of Monkeys
> <jcostom@duhhhhh.hi.spammers.jasons.org> wrote:
>
>> VZW has its users brainwashed into believing that if they go with any
>> other carrier, they wil be hopelessly lost in a sea of no signal and
>> dropped calls.
>
>Then there are those of us who know from experience that Verizon is the
>only service that provides a usable signal at our homes or offices. In
>my case, it's at my home.

Unfortunate, but no basis for a lawsuit.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1105irdihi0hf7b@news.supernews.com>, John
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

: And with people like you Verizon will continue to get away with deceptive
: use of the word "Bluetooth". NOTHING was made available in the store I
: bought it out that explained Bluetooth was crippled. I didn't even know it
: was until I tried to tranfer picture 3 WEEKS after I bought the phone.
: NOBODY but Verizon has the gall to peddle crippled Bluetooth capabilities.

So you decided to wait 3 weeks to try out what you consider to be core
functionality? 3 hours I could understand. 3 days even if you needed
to run out to the store and get a Bluetooth adapter. But 3 weeks?

I happen to agree with you that the device is crippled.

I happen to think the practice of crippling the phone is not sound
business as well.

I also happen to believe that there is some measure of fault that lies
in the court of the consumer for not doing their research. If you can
use Usenet, clearly you should be capable of operating a web browser as
well.

Honestly? I think you're just mad because you didn't check out your
purchase thoroughly. Even if you didn't bother to do your research
first, since you are clearly quite upset about this lack of
functionality, you should have come across this problem long before you
had the device for 3 weeks.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:HdZLd.4929$m31.64931@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Ef-dnQ6HxPaEyp3fRVn-sg@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
21:29:32 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
19:16:20 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> >But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that
testimony
> >> >alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the law. ...
> >>
> >> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching at
straws.
>
> >Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
> >responsible for posting the following:
> >
> >"You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which ought to
give
> >>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
experience,
> >>> unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone that I'm not the
right
> >>> kind of expert witness to suit you is pretty pathetic."
> >
> >That sounds like you made exactly such a claim.
>
> Nope. Read more carefully.

I read it just fine. You got caught.

>
> >You're the one clutching at
> >straws.
>
> Hardly. LOL
>
> You've got zero expertise, yet you presume to challenge those that do.
Funny
> that.
>
> --
Pretty confident statement for someone who doesn't have the facts. Care to
back up your words? Or are you simply lashing out in an attempt to deflect
attention from your own lack of expertise.

And know this, John- in the last five years alone I've amassed more
experience and expertise in a couple of these areas than you'll ever care to
know. The fact that I have not had to testify about this expertise does not
make it any less valuable than yours. In fact, my expertise is probably
more valuable than yours in many ways.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Scott Stephenson wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:HdZLd.4929$m31.64931@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <Ef-dnQ6HxPaEyp3fRVn-sg@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
> 21:29:32 -0700,
>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hmYLd.4921$m31.64880@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>>
>>>> In <oJmdnfnjl-p_qp3fRVn-pw@adelphia.com> on Tue, 1 Feb 2005
> 19:16:20 -0700,
>>>> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But you are the one with the true problem, claiming that that
>>>>> testimony alone qualifies you as an expert in other areas of the
>>>>> law. ...
>>>>
>>>> I never made such a claim, and you know it. You're just clutching
>>>> at straws.
>>
>>> Really? Hmmmmm.......look up a couple of posts- I think you are
>>> responsible for posting the following:
>>>
>>> "You managed to find a case where I was an expert witness, which
>>> ought to
> give
>>>>> you pause, since that makes it clear that I have actual relevant
>>>>> experience, unlike you. Trying now to claim based on that alone
>>>>> that I'm not the right kind of expert witness to suit you is
>>>>> pretty pathetic."
>>>
>>> That sounds like you made exactly such a claim.
>>
>> Nope. Read more carefully.
>
> I read it just fine. You got caught.
>
>>
>>> You're the one clutching at
>>> straws.
>>
>> Hardly. LOL
>>
>> You've got zero expertise, yet you presume to challenge those that
>> do. Funny that.
>>
>> --
> Pretty confident statement for someone who doesn't have the facts.
> Care to back up your words? Or are you simply lashing out in an
> attempt to deflect attention from your own lack of expertise.
>
> And know this, John- in the last five years alone I've amassed more
> experience and expertise in a couple of these areas than you'll ever
> care to know. The fact that I have not had to testify about this
> expertise does not make it any less valuable than yours. In fact, my
> expertise is probably more valuable than yours in many ways.



Navas has demonstrated his know it all attitude on many newsgroups over the
years - starting out with comp.dcom.modems. His stupidity has been
demonstrated over and over.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <1108o7t52e93769@news.supernews.com>, John
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:


: The word BLUETOOTH was used by Verizon. No further checking was necessary.

My Bluetooth mouse does not implement the handsfree profile. Should I
be mad?

Just because something uses Bluetooth technology doesn't mean it
necessarily implements the precise Bluetooth profiles you want it to.

My final thought on this subject? You messed up - twice. You could
have overcome your lack of research before your purchase by simply
using your product within 15 days and making sure it does what you
want. The fact that you waited 3 weeks before bothering to explore
your phone's Bluetooth capabilities shows me you didn't really care all
that much about the level of function the device provided. Since you
messed up first by not researching your purchase, and second by not
testing your purchase after acquisition, specifically INSIDE the
"Buyer's Remorse" period, you're upset by your own failure. Like many
Americans, you fail to see that you are responsible in some measure for
your situation and refuse to accept responsibility for your own
actions, or lack thereof. You want to blame someone else, since you
really seem to believe that your situation is in no way your own fault.
Keep shouting at the brick wall. Good luck with that.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Bluetooth facilitates a wireless connection between two components

--

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:50:56 -0500, Boron Elgar wrote
(in article <rq2lu0hg22vvad4uubk267e1h70haq6uut@4ax.com> ):

> This isn't used
> car buying.

But you must treat it as such. (Unfortunately.)

I've experienced this with the majority of VZW reps that I've had the
pleasure of dealing with. (Both independent, and corporate.)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:45:57 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
(in article <3505kpF4gcptsU1@individual.net> ):

>
> Seems to me that it wasn't Verizon that lied to you, but the rep at the
> store trying to make a sale. Hate to tell you, but in some cases Used car
> salesman are way more honest than verizon reps trying to make a sale. (some
> reps are very honest, but some are worse than dogs)

My sister signed a contract for a phone from BellSouth a number of years
ago. (Pre-cingular). It turns out that one of the papers that she signed was
to co-sponsor a loan for the man's car. (She didn't read what she was
signing). She didn't realize it until she went to close on her mortgage 3
years ago. This is where she found out that the guy defaulted on his car and
it hit her credit report.

Once she alerted Bellsouth she found out he no longer worked for them (big
surprise!) I can't remember show she fixed her credit issues. (If she did!)

Partly her fault ... never sign without reading what you are signing .... but
this does demonstrate how shady some folks are ... yes, even cell phone
salesmen employed by very large companies.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

David M. Moore wrote:
> This would be, in my
> opinion, like Nissan fixing their new cars so the gas tank can only be
> filled at a Nissan dealership by a Nissan employee for an additional
> charge, but they never bother to clearly state that anywhere before they
> make the sale. The average consumer who is knowledgeable about cars is
> going to assume that you can use any brand of gasoline and can use self-
> serve because that is what is common in the industry.

Except in Oregon and New Jersey, where self-serve is outlawed.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:47:25 -0500, CharlesH wrote
(in article <xvVGd.2744$8Z1.2053@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> ):

>
> If the universal industry practice was to include the file transfer
> profile in Bluetooth-enabled phones, and Verizon's was the only
> exception, I can see where a court could say that there was a problem
> with their advertising, unless the advertising said right up front that
> use as a modem was the only data transfer profile supported. (And not
> buried in the fine print or a FAQ somewhere.) Sure, Bluetooth devices
> don't support all profiles, but if industry practice leads the consumer
> to assume certain profiles when mobile<->PC connectivity is mentioned,
> then I can see the issue.

Excellent question!

What other Bluetooth phones do *NOT* support the file transfer profile?
(I have no idea ....)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <3505kpF4gcptsU1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that it wasn't Verizon that lied to you, but the rep at
>> the store trying to make a sale.
>
> If it is a Verizon store, and the salesperson is paid by Verizon, it
> was Verizon who lied to him.

Ummm, what country do you live in? If an employee lies, *HE'S* responsible
for lying, not the company...