ba.cellular?
Sam Habash
help slightly to at least put Bay Area-themed cellular phone
discussion into a more proper location if we insist on using
a ba.* group for it. I thought of calling it "ba.wireless",
but there would be some overlap with ba.internet, insofar
ba.internet is used for the intended purpose as described
in the newgroup cmsg, which many would argue is obsolete
now.
Ah well, it's just a thought, but hopefully, it's a bit less
pointless than the nutty ba.technology.misc suggestion from
last year. That still makes me shudder, and I proposed it!
--Sam
rone
Sam Habash <use...@llama.sf.ca.us> wrote:
>Maybe the whole of ba.* needs a reorganization, but it might
>help slightly to at least put Bay Area-themed cellular phone
>discussion into a more proper location if we insist on using
>a ba.* group for it. I thought of calling it "ba.wireless",
>but there would be some overlap with ba.internet, insofar
>ba.internet is used for the intended purpose as described
>in the newgroup cmsg, which many would argue is obsolete
>now.
How about ba.mobile-devices, so it includes discussion of
not-exactly-cell-phones such as the Sidekick II? Also, it'll
forestall pedantry over what exactly constitutes a cell phone.
rone
and, hey, fourteen characters!
--
Remember
Remember
It's tilted
John Navas
In <rone.crdj8b$1sr5$1...@ennui.org> on 4 Jan 2005 00:14:03 -0800, "rone"
<^*&#$@ennui.org> wrote:
How about ba.internet.mobile? Except there's no longer enough traffic in
ba.internet to justify splitting it.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
Sam Habash
> How about ba.mobile-devices, so it includes discussion of
> not-exactly-cell-phones such as the Sidekick II? Also, it'll
> forestall pedantry over what exactly constitutes a cell phone.
>
> rone
> and, hey, fourteen characters!
I like it.
Other suggestions:
Or what about ba.wireless? If wireless services such as EDGE or WiMax
take off, it may be worth having something in ba.* space targeted towards
the technologies, rather than to particular gadgets.. Plus it has a ring
(heh) to it that the longer name doesn't.
--Sam
rone
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>How about ba.internet.mobile?
Mobile phone traffic doesn't travel over the Internet, last i
checked. And please don't take ba.config out of the newsgroups, since
that is where this discussion should take place.
rone
John Navas
In <rone.crfdqs$2oti$1...@ennui.org> on 4 Jan 2005 16:53:48 -0800, "rone"
<^*&#$@ennui.org> wrote:
>In article <DEsCd.16405$_3.19...@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>How about ba.internet.mobile?
>
>Mobile phone traffic doesn't travel over the Internet, last i
>checked.
Actually much of it does. And mobile is increasingly used for Internet
access.
Sam Habash
(posting/followup directed to ba.config)
> From: "rone" <^*&#$@ennui.org>
> Newsgroups: ba.config,ba.internet,ba.general
> Followup-To: ba.config
> Message-ID: <rone.crdj8b$1sr5$1...@ennui.org>
> References: <slrncth0b...@wopr.bestii.com>
>
> From: John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
> Newsgroups: ba.config
> Followup-To: ba.internet
> References: <slrncth0b...@wopr.bestii.com>
><rone.crdj8b$1sr5$1...@ennui.org>
> Message-ID: <DEsCd.16405$_3.19...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>>Which begs the question why you saw fit to direct replies away from ba.config?
>
> My post appeared only in ba.config because my newsreader honored the
> follow-up; i.e., the real problem is that "rone" removed ba.internet and
> ba.general. My Followup-To (which I set long ago to keep ba.internet from
> being cross-posted to non-ba newsgroups) directed traffic back to ba.internet,
> where I was reading and posting, something you failed to notice.
Well, why did your Followup-To: redirect to ba.internet, given that the reply
was being posted to a ba.* group? Perhaps you should fix that, since inserting
it in that instance seems improper, whether you care or not.
> I'm surprised you missed this, Sam The Man, er Llama -- guess you got careless
> in your haste to attack me.
How am I supposed to know how you configure you software? I just (blindly) honored
your Followup-To:, and then went ahead and did something else, not noticing that
you had (whether intentional or not) chosen to change Followup-To: again.
--Sam
John Navas
In <slrnctndp...@wopr.bestII.com> on Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:44:12 -0000,
Sam Habash <use...@llama.sf.ca.us> wrote:
>On 2005-01-05, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>(posting/followup directed to ba.config)
>
>> From: "rone" <^*&#$@ennui.org>
>> Newsgroups: ba.config,ba.internet,ba.general
>> Followup-To: ba.config
>> Message-ID: <rone.crdj8b$1sr5$1...@ennui.org>
>> References: <slrncth0b...@wopr.bestii.com>
>>
>> From: John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
>> Newsgroups: ba.config
>> Followup-To: ba.internet
>> References: <slrncth0b...@wopr.bestii.com>
>><rone.crdj8b$1sr5$1...@ennui.org>
>> Message-ID: <DEsCd.16405$_3.19...@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>
>>>Which begs the question why you saw fit to direct replies away from ba.config?
>>
>> My post appeared only in ba.config because my newsreader honored the
>> follow-up; i.e., the real problem is that "rone" removed ba.internet and
>> ba.general. My Followup-To (which I set long ago to keep ba.internet from
>> being cross-posted to non-ba newsgroups) directed traffic back to ba.internet,
>> where I was reading and posting, something you failed to notice.
>
>Well, why did your Followup-To: redirect to ba.internet, given that the reply
>was being posted to a ba.* group? Perhaps you should fix that, since inserting
>it in that instance seems improper, whether you care or not.
I disagree.
>> I'm surprised you missed this, Sam The Man, er Llama -- guess you got careless
>> in your haste to attack me.
>
>How am I supposed to know how you configure you software?
That wasn't the issue, and you know it. Not even a decent try.
>I just (blindly) honored
>your Followup-To:, and then went ahead and did something else, not noticing that
>you had (whether intentional or not) chosen to change Followup-To: again.
In other words, you did the same thing, and are now trying to blame me. How
childish.
rone
Sam Habash <use...@llama.sf.ca.us> wrote:
>On 2005-01-05, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>(posting/followup directed to ba.config)
>>>Which begs the question why you saw fit to direct replies away from
>>>ba.config?
It _raises_ the question. Begging the question is something else
(which Mr. Navas may well do on occasion, but my memory is fuzzy).
>> My post appeared only in ba.config because my newsreader honored
>> the follow-up; i.e., the real problem is that "rone" removed
>> ba.internet and ba.general. My Followup-To (which I set long ago
>> to keep ba.internet from being cross-posted to non-ba newsgroups)
>> directed traffic back to ba.internet, where I was reading and
>> posting, something you failed to notice.
"MY SOFTWARE IS COMPLICATED LOL I'M TOO LAZY ANYWAY :D"
Sam Habash
> It _raises_ the question. Begging the question is something else
> (which Mr. Navas may well do on occasion, but my memory is fuzzy).
Yeah, I made that common error.
>>> My post appeared only in ba.config because my newsreader honored
>>> the follow-up; i.e., the real problem is that "rone" removed
>>> ba.internet and ba.general. My Followup-To (which I set long ago
>>> to keep ba.internet from being cross-posted to non-ba newsgroups)
>>> directed traffic back to ba.internet, where I was reading and
>>> posting, something you failed to notice.
>
> "MY SOFTWARE IS COMPLICATED LOL I'M TOO LAZY ANYWAY :D"
No, that's not why, but you knew that.
--Sam