sms wrote:

> On Saturday, my niece was over and we did 4G versus 5G speed tests.
>
> I got 306 Mb/s on 4G LTE on an iPhone Xr on a Verizon-owned prepaid
> service (Total Wireless). My niece got 403 Mb/s on 5G on an iPhone 12
> Pro on Verizon postpaid. For all intents and purposes, that speed
> difference, on a phone would not be noticeable to the user.

Steve is a liar.

Steve lied about the FCC coverage maps for years and years.
And now Steve is lying about the comparison speeds.

Steve always makes up these numbers to suit his narrative.
Takes only 30 seconds for Steve to type in any number he wants to say.

It's what politicians like Steve do all day, every day.

What's insulting is Steve thinks we believe his brazen lies.
That means Steve considers us to stupid to realize he typed them in.

Why can't Steve spend the 30 seconds to post a screenshot of his results?
Like this: <https://i.postimg.cc/qR4BcjfM/speedtest19.jpg>

Those are my last 17 Ookla 5G & LTE T-Mobile speedtest results run
on the dates shown in that Ookla log which Steve has never shown us.

I hope I'm not the only one that is not as stupid as Steve thinks we are.
If so, I would ask others to ask Steve to simply post his Ookla logs.

Takes only 30 seconds.
--
The problem with consumate liars like Steve is that they lost their
credibililty by fabricating their test results for years on end.

Andy Burnelli wrote:

>sms wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, my niece was over and we did 4G versus 5G speed tests.
>>
>>I got 306 Mb/s on 4G LTE on an iPhone Xr on a Verizon-owned prepaid
>>service (Total Wireless). My niece got 403 Mb/s on 5G on an iPhone
>>12 Pro on Verizon postpaid. For all intents and purposes, that
>>speed difference, on a phone would not be noticeable to the user.
>
>Steve is a liar.
>
>Steve lied about the FCC coverage maps for years and years.
>And now Steve is lying about the comparison speeds.
>
>Steve always makes up these numbers to suit his narrative.
>Takes only 30 seconds for Steve to type in any number he wants to say.
>
>It's what politicians like Steve do all day, every day.
>
>What's insulting is Steve thinks we believe his brazen lies.
>That means Steve considers us to stupid to realize he typed them in.
>
>Why can't Steve spend the 30 seconds to post a screenshot of his
>results? Like this: <https://i.postimg.cc/qR4BcjfM/speedtest19.jpg>
>Those are my last 17 Ookla 5G & LTE T-Mobile speedtest results run
>on the dates shown in that Ookla log which Steve has never shown us.
>
>I hope I'm not the only one that is not as stupid as Steve thinks we
>are. If so, I would ask others to ask Steve to simply post his Ookla
>logs.
>
>Takes only 30 seconds.

I would have to agree with you.

badgolferman wrote:

>>Takes only 30 seconds.
>
> I would have to agree with you.

What's revealing is that it's rare for either you or me to call someone a
liar (since we reserve those words for someone who does so repeatedly).

I know you, badgolferman, conscientiously posted your T-Mobile 5G test
results multiple times - both good and bad - as did I - so I know that you
know what I know which is often summarized on Usenet as the age-old saying:
"*pics or it didn't happen*"

You posted multiple pics of your speeds on your new iPhone.
I too posted mine (very many in fact - because speeds vary by a lot)
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg> *125Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg> *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps* & -88dBM
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg> *254Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/GhZKX0vZ/speedtest09.jpg> *130Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps* to *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5y063Jsq/speedtest12.jpg> *96Mbps* to *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/fbNyPmHb/speedtest13.jpg> *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tSyWyGS/speedtest14.jpg> *88Mbps* to *102Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps* to *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *54Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> *60Mbps* & -85dBm

Notice I don't post just _one_ speed like Steve does, to prove a point.
I post many speeds, which vary by a lot, like it or not.

That's what they do.
All those speeds were taken at the same spot - and yet they vary.

By a lot.
With Steve, he types one number and claims that's all the time.

With Steve, the pics he posts are cherry-picked unattributed maps.
They don't even have a date on them (they could be ten years old).

And whenever he claims his T-Mobile vs Verizon speeds, it's always text.
While it takes 30 seconds to post text, it takes 30 seconds to post proof.

Here, for example, is a screenshot I made moments ago for another thread.
<https://i.postimg.cc/66L724vh/speedtest20.jpg> Meteor test log results

You can trust me because I'm not only credible (I don't care if T-Mobile or
Verizon or AT&T is "better" at any one spot - I just want to post the
facts), but also because I prove more than almost anyone, what I claim.
<https://i.postimg.cc/qR4BcjfM/speedtest19.jpg> Ookla test log results

Steve never does.
Steve is the consummate politician.

For years Steve lied about the FCC maps (which didn't show what he said).
Now he's lying about his differential speeds (which he simply typed up).

Takes 30 seconds for Steve to lie.
Takes 30 seconds for Steve to tell the truth.

It doesn't cost Steve any more effort to tell the truth than for him to lie.
And yet, lie he does.

That's fine, by the way.
He's allowed to lie to all of us all of the time.

But we don't have to believe him when he does.

Me? I don't care if T-Mobile is faster or slower than Verizon.
Nobody pays me to shill for either one of them.

I just care what is.
--
The problem with people like Steve who is a politician and a consummate
liar, is they forget not everyone is so stupid as to believe their lies.

On 4/4/2022 4:04 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I would have to agree with you.
LOL, are you that invested in your carrier that you are compelled to
agree with our pathological liar nymshifting troll? Very sad.

Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2: <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4: <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>

Please stick to facts.

In article <t2g0q9$m9t$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> LOL, are you that invested in your carrier

major projection from the resident verizon shill.

sms wrote:

> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2: <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4: <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>

At least we were able to force Steve to act like an adult and post his
reports instead of just typing them in - which I consider a success.

nospam wrote:

>> LOL, are you that invested in your carrier
>
> major projection from the resident verizon shill.

I agree with nospam that nobody other than Steve _cares_ which carrier comes
out on top on any one metric, whether that's Lewis, nospam, me, or
badgolferman.

We aren't paid by any of the carriers to shill for them.
But Steve, the consummate politician, can't conceive of that kind of
impartial attitude.

Steve thinks that if we post T-Mobile results, we _must_ be "invested" in
that carrier.

Why?
I know why. So does nospam.

It's _Steve_ who is indelibly invested in his carrier.
I don't remember the details, but he garners money from his Verizon shills.

I don't know how (nor do I care), but for Steve to even think we're
"invested" in our carrier and therefore we'd stoop so low as to fabricate
the results (which is what Steve endlessly does), then that's just telling
us how _he_ thinks. Not us.

We didn't lie for years about the FCC maps.
Steve did.

Not us.

On 2022-04-04 5:15 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2: <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4: <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>
>
> At least we were able to force Steve to act like an adult and post his
> reports instead of just typing them in - which I consider a success.

Just not moved enough to apologize for calling him a liar...

On 4/4/2022 5:20 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-04 5:15 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2: <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4: <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>
>>
>> At least we were able to force Steve to act like an adult and post his
>> reports instead of just typing them in - which I consider a success.
>
> Just not moved enough to apologize for calling him a liar...

Whatever. I understand how some people get very upset when confronted
with facts that they don't like.

In article <t2g292$d8g$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I understand how some people get very upset when confronted
> with facts that they don't like.

that's because it keeps happening to you.

sms wrote:

>>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2: <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
>>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4: <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>
>>>
>>> At least we were able to force Steve to act like an adult and post his
>>> reports instead of just typing them in - which I consider a success.
>>
>> Just not moved enough to apologize for calling him a liar...
>
> Whatever. I understand how some people get very upset when confronted
> with facts that they don't like.

Steve,
I do not apologize for calling you a liar on the FCC coverage maps.

But I do openly apologize to you for saying you made up these figures:
306 Mbps down, upload 23.7 Mbps, Ping 13ms, Jitter 1.5ms
245 Mbps down, upload 35.1 Mbps, Ping 38ms, Jitter 1.6ms

I'll believe those figures (I didn't check if they're what you typed).
I don't really care about Verizon, T-Mobile or AT&T.

Why would I care about any carrier?
Nobody cares. Except you.

I am not beholden to _any_ narrative when it comes to the carriers.
I don't think anyone (other than you) is either.

If you prove your statements, I'm fine with them no matter what they are.
Simple.

Just prove what you say.
How hard is that?

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>>>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/2:
>>>>> <https://i.imgur.com/qnPy2ss.png>
>>>>> Here's an Ookla screenshot from 4/4:
>>>>> <https://i.imgur.com/ecWtkOC.png>
>>>>
>>>> At least we were able to force Steve to act like an adult and
>>>> post his
>>>> reports instead of just typing them in - which I consider a
>>>> success.
>>>
>>> Just not moved enough to apologize for calling him a liar...
>>
>> Whatever. I understand how some people get very upset when
>> confronted with facts that they don't like.
>
> Steve,
> I do not apologize for calling you a liar on the FCC coverage maps.
>
> But I do openly apologize to you for saying you made up these figures:
> 306 Mbps down, upload 23.7 Mbps, Ping 13ms, Jitter 1.5ms
> 245 Mbps down, upload 35.1 Mbps, Ping 38ms, Jitter 1.6ms
>
> I'll believe those figures (I didn't check if they're what you typed).
> I don't really care about Verizon, T-Mobile or AT&T.
> Why would I care about any carrier?
> Nobody cares. Except you.
>
> I am not beholden to _any_ narrative when it comes to the carriers.
> I don't think anyone (other than you) is either.
>
> If you prove your statements, I'm fine with them no matter what
> they are.
> Simple.
>
> Just prove what you say. How hard is that?
>

Do you plan on providing proof along with everything you post in
the future?

That would go a long way to convince people you are an intelligent
adult. I look forward to it.

Hank Rogers wrote:

> Do you plan on providing proof along with everything you post in
> the future?
>
> That would go a long way to convince people you are an intelligent
> adult. I look forward to it.

Did you buy too many kindergarten arguments "Hank Rogers" this week?
What about these figures, "Hank Rogers" are you intimating isn't proof?

<https://i.postimg.cc/4dDhFK5F/speedtest01.jpg> *125Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/vT68k3BW/speedtest02.jpg> *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdXF4Mtz/speedtest03.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/gcsyc4Vn/speedtest04.jpg> *82Mbps* & -88dBM
<https://i.postimg.cc/mggy315q/speedtest05.jpg> *254Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/43KvqkZQ/speedtest06.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/Bb3xjjFm/speedtest08.jpg> *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/GhZKX0vZ/speedtest09.jpg> *130Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/28yZdQJR/speedtest10.jpg> *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/ydnDcxy8/speedtest11.jpg> *79Mbps* to *81Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5y063Jsq/speedtest12.jpg> *96Mbps* to *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/fbNyPmHb/speedtest13.jpg> *109Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/5tSyWyGS/speedtest14.jpg> *88Mbps* to *102Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5vgmtRd/speedtest15.jpg> *130Mbps* to *255Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/W3GgYJtZ/speedtest16.jpg> *125Mbps* to *181Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/nVs0Smw8/speedtest17.jpg> *54Mbps*
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0fx62rz/speedtest18.jpg> *60Mbps* & -85dBm
<https://i.postimg.cc/qR4BcjfM/speedtest19.jpg> Ookla test log results
<https://i.postimg.cc/66L724vh/speedtest20.jpg> Meteor test log results

People like this idiot "Hank Rogers" own the brain of kindergarten kids.
This "Hank" can't comprehend a word of what is listed above as proof.

On 4/4/2022 7:38 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:

> That would go a long way to convince people you are an intelligent
> adult. I look forward to it.

Andy Burnelli/Arlen Holder/Dean Hoffman/more is wrong of course™.

We all hope that he can be educated and then convince people that he is
an intelligent adult. We are all looking forward to that eventuality.

The reality is that the choice of carrier matters a lot to most people.

In the early days of cellular too many people were naive about the
differences between carriers in terms of coverage and reliability and
often made their decision based solely on price and on what kind of free
or discounted phones the carrier was offering. Now consumers are wiser.
Many have experienced the big differences between carriers and are smart
enough to look at more than just price and free phones, and are less
likely to fall for false claims in marketing.

It's nice that the NAD has stepped in to try to get carriers to stop
false advertising, i.e.:
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/t-mobile-5g-home-internet-misleading-advertising_id139134>,
<https://bbbprograms.org/media-center/news/tmobile-most-reliable-5g-umlaut-claims>,
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/national-advertising-division-challenges-t-mobile-s-network-claims-siding-verizon>,
<https://www.nexttv.com/news/t-mobile-pulls-brady-stefani-ads>.

As we all know, the three U.S. networks were not created equal. AT&T and
Verizon, the two top-tier networks, evolved from legacy networks and
built out large networks, acquiring smaller regional and rural carriers
along the way. T-Mobile, the second tier network, was a PCS (1900 MHz
only) network with mainly urban coverage. AT&T and Verizon have
leveraged their coverage advantage of being in the game early before
cities and counties began regulating the placement of cell towers.

All three networks work acceptably in flat urban areas. While no carrier
has 100% geographic coverage if you plan to travel to more remote areas,
like National and State Parks, or if you’re going to drive through rural
areas, or if you’re visiting the outskirts of urban areas (often called
the “greenbelt” or “exurban”), then you’ll want the coverage of AT&T or
Verizon.

A PC Magazine article from 2021
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021> summed it up
well: "And if you’re out in the countryside and don’t often head to the
city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you. The carrier is
doing great in the nation’s biggest metro areas, but when we look at
small cities and areas away from interstate highways, especially in the
western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more work to get better
coverage."

You can see the vast differences in nationwide coverage here:
<https://i.imgur.com/irqFqyP.png (data is from
https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map>). While these
are 4G maps, based on cell tower locations, 5G is a subset of 4G
coverage (except in the case of mmWave 5G-only small cells intended for
home broadband (AT&T and Verizon are putting in networks of streetlight
powered 5G cells).

You can also use the interactive map at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>. These are the
maps for each networks’ native coverage, and you can distinguish between
4G and 5G with the check boxes. If you look solely at 5G coverage,
T-Mobile has much more 5G coverage than AT&T or Verizon. If you look at
4G+5G coverage, T-Mobile has much less total coverage than AT&T or Verizon.

As I like to say, "Data Not Dogma." Helping people make good decisions
about which carrier to choose is reliant on independent data, not
marketing blurbs from a carrier.

Andy Burnelli/Arlen Holder/Dean Hoffman/more can learn more by studying
the following documents:
1. Prepaid Phone Service for Foreign Visitors to the United States
<https://tinyurl.com/us-prepaid-foreign>.
2. Coverage Differences Between AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons/>

In message <t2g0q9$m9t$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/2022 4:04 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> <snip>

>> I would have to agree with you.
> LOL, are you that invested in your carrier that you are compelled to
> agree with our pathological liar nymshifting troll? Very sad.

Coming from the fawning shill for Veriscum that is you, that is quite
rich. Has there ever been a discussion on any facet of cellular service
where you have not sucked VEriscums cock in appreciation for how
wonderful they are?

No, there is not. You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
to shill your favored company.

> Please stick to facts.

You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.

--
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support
rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

In message <t2g292$d8g$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Whatever. I understand how some people get very upset when confronted
> with facts that they don't like.

Well of course you do, at it takes is looking in the mirror.

Although different people react differently, and not everyone is as
infantile as your method of ignoring all facts and making shit up
constantly like a 4yo.

--
Are you a lucky little lady in the city of light Or just another lost
angel?

In article <t2hl31$erf$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The reality is that the choice of carrier matters a lot to most people.

actually, it doesn't, other than price. coverage is generally the same
for all three, except in remote areas few people visit.

> As we all know, the three U.S. networks were not created equal.

there you go being disingenuous again. the issue is not how they were
created 30+ years ago, but what they offer *today*.

>
> All three networks work acceptably in flat urban areas.

as well as not so flat areas.

> As I like to say, "Data Not Dogma."

you might say that but all you spew is dogma.

> Helping people make good decisions
> about which carrier to choose is reliant on independent data, not
> marketing blurbs from a carrier.

and not easily refuted claims from well known shills.

Lewis wrote:

> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
> to shill your favored company.

The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
>> Please stick to facts.
>
> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.

Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
And yet they don't.

The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)

Either way:
A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.

Which is it?
Facts or dogma?

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
>> to shill your favored company.
>
> The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
>
>>> Please stick to facts.
>>
>> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.
>
> Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
> And yet they don't.
>
> The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
> a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
> b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)
>
> Either way:
> A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
> B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.
>
> Which is it?
> Facts or dogma?
>

It’s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
took sms to make this possible!

On 4/5/2022 10:33 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> It’s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoleon
Bonaparte

It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being
unable to dispute any referenced facts!

Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ is wrong of course™.

I never claimed that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage. What I did say is
that 5G coverage is virtually always a subset of 4G coverage, at least
for mobile phones. 5G equipment is added to existing 4G cells to provide
more capacity and higher speeds. The exception are mmWave 5G cells used
to provide home broadband service.

I also pointed out the the Whistleout coverage map included the
capability to show 5G only, 4G only, and 5G + 4G coverage, which is very
useful if you want to see the difference between 4G and 5G coverage.

You can see one example of the difference in 5G and 4G service at
<https://i.imgur.com/dEuUkuJ.jpeg>. You can see that 5G coverage is a
subset of 4G coverage.

It's unclear what prompts Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ to
misstate the facts. It's likely that the cause is the marketing campaign
by one carrier that correctly claims that they have more 5G coverage
than their competitors. But what that carrier leaves out is that their
_total_ coverage, is far less, and for most users what matters most is
total coverage, not the difference between 200 Mb/s 4G and 400 Mb/s 5G,
even if they're using home broadband service from their carrier.
Arlen/Andy Burnelli/Dean Hoffman/whatever/ likely feels bad about making
a poor purchasing decision, and rather than helping others to avoid the
same mistake, he wants others to follow him down the wrong path.

A 2021 PC Magazine article
<https://www.pcmag.com/news/fastest-mobile-networks-2021> summed it up
well: "And if you’re out in the countryside and don’t often head to the
city, T-Mobile might not be the best carrier for you. The carrier is
doing great in the nation’s biggest metro areas, but when we look at
small cities and areas away from interstate highways, especially in the
western US, it's clear that T-Mobile has to do more work to get better
coverage."

You can see a comparison of nationwide 4G+5G at
<https://i.imgur.com/vPcBgF5.png>. But it's also helpful to zoom into
the areas that you're most interested in. You can see a compendium of
4G+5G coverage comparisons for areas I’ve experienced at
<https://tinyurl.com/ATVCoverageComparisons>.

In article <t2hugt$6tm$1@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> You constantly lie about cellular coverage and speeds
> >> to shill your favored company.
> >
> > The fact is that Lewis is correct that Steve shills incessantly.
> >
> >>> Please stick to facts.
> >>
> >> You are devoid of the ability to even recognize facts.
> >
> > Bear in mind Steve claimed for _years_ that the FCC maps showed 5G coverage.
> > And yet they don't.
> >
> > The only conclusion one can make from that is one of two options below:
> > a. Steve was _ignorant_ that FCC maps can't possibly show what he claimed
> > b. Steve _knew_ the FCC maps didn't show _any_ 5G coverage (nor 3G)
> >
> > Either way:
> > A. Steve is either rather stupid if it's (a) above.
> > B. Steve is a brazen pathological liar if it's (b) above.
> >
> > Which is it?
> > Facts or dogma?
> >
>
> It¹s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

always looking at the bright side :)

In article <t2i1hm$cth$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being
> unable to dispute any referenced facts!

more bullshit. those whom you are calling trolls are *not* lying and
they have repeatedly disputed your bullshit many times over, with
multiple references, not that any were needed since it's clear your
'facts' were fabricated and/or cherry-picked to further your shilling.

nospam wrote:

>> It�s nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
>> took sms to make this possible!
>
> always looking at the bright side :)

Most of the time I don't even LOOK at who is posting.
I respond to the data.

If what the person says is sensible, I will agree with it.
If what the person says is idiotic, I'll let him know he's an idiot.

Hence, the only reason you don't see me congratulating Jolly Roger or Lewis
a lot for acting like adults, is that they don't do it all that much.

Nothing more complex than that.

nospam wrote:

>> It's great to have three trolls all lying at the same time and being
>> unable to dispute any referenced facts!
>
> more bullshit. those whom you are calling trolls are *not* lying and
> they have repeatedly disputed your bullshit many times over, with
> multiple references, not that any were needed since it's clear your
> 'facts' were fabricated and/or cherry-picked to further your shilling.

I have to agree with nospam that Steve has been spewing dogma and not facts
for _years_ now, where the result is always that he claims Verizon has
coverage in all the cherry picked places he claims nobody else has.

Steve even claimed at one point that Verizon had coverage where _nobody_ had
that coverage (as the tower in that location by his own admission wasn't
owned or leased by _any_ of the three major carriers in the USA).

Essentially, Steve is always spewing dogma and not facts where his dogma we
can predict years in advance is that Verizon is great and T-Mobile sucks.

BTW, none of us except Steve even _care_ about any given carrier.
The carriers don't pay us to shill for them.

badgolferman wrote:

> It's nice to see Arlen, nospam, Lewis agreeing on something for once. It
> took sms to make this possible!

I respond to what people say.
*Hence I agree with _anyone_ who has a valid point which is based on facts.*

Hell, if Snit, Alan Baker or Alan Browne or even Jolly Roger or Lewis or
nospam or Joerg or Your Name wrote a valid point, I'd agree with them.

I'm a mirror of your posts.
a. If you say stupid things, I'll let you know you said stupid things.
b. If you have an adult viewpoint, I will treat you as an adult.

My responses aren't as complicated as you seem to be thinking they are.
Say something sensible and I'll agree with it.
--
So far the only ones I plonk are those like Alan Baker, Snit & Rod Speed who
_never_ have any viewpoint that is worth an adult wasting their time upon.