Andy Burnelli wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>> Everyone who knows anything knows the story of what happened.
>>
>> Nope, wrong again. There are plenty of woodland stories that I know of,
>> that lots of people in my area also know about, but which you never
>> heard.
>
> Everyone knew _that_ story if they weren't completely ignorant of news.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

You are not everyone. Get over yourself.

> all I ask _you_ to do is tell us all how Mayayana's story does _not_ fit (only in outline) this:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

I already said that I don't know from where Mayayana recalled the story
he cited. He didn't provide a URL to cite a reference. Neither did you
until pressed.

As yet, there is no basis to mandate Mayayana's and your story are the
same story. Mayayana should cite a reference, but perhaps he isn't
monitoring your posts, or my replies to you.

> I think only a _stupid_ person wouldn't have seen exactly what I saw.

Only a stupid person thinks their experience must match on everyone
else's, or that everyone just must read every tidbit of news (whether
news or not) that you do. Since I'm not your clone (who, by the way,
would still have different experiences than you), gee, I must be stupid
because you know something (or found it later after pressed) that I
don't. Let's see you cite a reference for the story about the hunter
that was left on the opposite shore of an island while the hunting party
flew to the opposite side, drove the moose to the other side, got there,
asked why he saw no moose, and said "All I saw was a bunch of crazy
looking horses go swimming across the lake".

> These people are _incredibly_ stupid, Vanguard.

Read your own citation in Wikipedia of the Kim incident. That's a story
about incredibly stupid people. They're everywhere.

> Don't be one of them.

Sorry, participating in flames about [perceived] trolls makes the flamer
a troll. That's why you won't see me assisting in the flame. In my
filters, I plonk both the trolls (based on my criteria) and the flamers
of trolls. I don't want to see the trolls. I also don't want to see
the flamers of trolls.

> No adult disagrees with facts; facts are funny that way.

Yes, they do. Obviously you are too young to have that experience.
Never been in a debate, either, where both sides cite facts to argue
different views.

> If they disagree with facts, they're fools (fools are funny that way).

No, if they disagree with you then they are fools.

> You're allowed any opinion you want to have,

Not according to you.

> as long as you don't claim it
> as a fact,

You simply claim my differing information is not fact, so it agrees with
you as Usenet God.

> My challenge stands that you are (a) stupid or, you (b) you simply lied.

See, thar yoo go. Someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid or
lying. I'm seeing a resemblance of you to the Alan Connor kook. Same
behavior.

nospam wrote:

>> You, nor anyone else, knows the reference of Mayayana's statement. He
>> never cited a reference, like a news story (which is NOT a blog in the
>> guise of news).
>
> *many* people know the reference since it was major news at the time
> and mayayana often mentions it to 'prove' that gps is bad.

I agree with nospam that the story was widely circulated at the time.

In my assessment, you'd have to have been hiding under a rock to miss it.
a. And yet, Vanguard missed it.
b. And Mayayana distorted the fact to create his own racist narrative
RACISM: "Stupid geek went camping unprepared & died as a result"

In addition I commend nospam for adding a fact that I was not aware of.
I didn't know Mayayana often mentions this particular story to prove that
GPS is bad, gps wasn't mentioned even _once_ in the wikipedia cite I gave.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>

Just like Snit changed the facts to fit his narrative in this iKook video:
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>

And just like Steve changes the FCC facts to fit his Verizon narrative...
It's _insulting_ that they think we're too stupid to notice their bias.

Some people are stupid; others are intelligent (most are in between).
Mayayana is stupid.
In addition ...
Mayayana is racist

But what's worse than that is Mayayana _expects us to be stupid_ too!
That's insulting.

Instead of Vanguard defending Mayayana by telling me and nospam that the
story that Mayayana refers to is "some other camping story", what Vanguard
should be doing is asking Mayayana to provide a cite to the story himself.

Did Vanguard do that?
Nope.

Do you know why Vanguard did not do ask Mayayana to back up his story?

I do.
--
What's irksome isn't that people are stupid, nor even that they're racist,
but that people like Vanguard (who are also stupid) back them up every time.

VanguardLH wrote:

> You, nor anyone else, knows the reference of Mayayana's statement. He
> never cited a reference, like a news story (which is NOT a blog in the
> guise of news). You also do not cite your reference.

Jesus Christ Vanguard.
I've never met, in the flesh, a person as stupid as you are.

Do you even realize how stupid you are?
a. You claimed I didn't cite the reference I based my statements on
b. And yet I did cite the reference in the very post you say I didn't.

> You claim Mayayana was wrong or lying yet you don't
> cite a reference to prove your story is the correct one.

Holy shit Vanguard.

How can I defend myself against people as _stupid_ as you are, Vanguard?
It's impossible.
You're no different than the iKooks.

You don't even _see_ the references which you claim don't exist.
*Who on earth is _that_ stupid?*

> Your folklore mentions only the guy driving. Although there is
> a bit of similarity, there are significant differences indicating you
> two are citing different stories.

You are denying that facts exist in the very cite that I already cited.
That's what fools do, Vanguard.

You are a fool.

Nobody but a fool will dispute facts that are as clear as day, Vanguard.
1. I cited the reference
2. It states the entire story in that reference

> So far, this is a case of "I recall" versus "You recall", and the
> recollections differ. We don't know your recollection is any more
> correct or incorrect than Mayayana's. This is like a parent asking 2
> kids who broke the vase, and the two kids point at each other. Uh huh.

This is a case of you brazenly denying the facts that exist.
It's childish of you Vanguard.

It makes you look like a fool.
It is one of the ways that I know you are incredibly stupid.

The _only_ person who doesn't know you are a moron, is you, yourself.
Who else would repeatedly deny that I cited the facts, when I did?
--
The problem with people who are as low of an IQ as Vanguard clearly is,
isn't that they're stupid (lots of people are morons), but that they don't
even realize how stupid they are (which makes them dangerous to society).

On 3/5/2022 9:20 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> Only a stupid person thinks their experience must match on everyone
> else's, or that everyone just must read every tidbit of news (whether
> news or not) that you do. Since I'm not your clone (who, by the way,
> would still have different experiences than you), gee, I must be stupid
> because you know something (or found it later after pressed) that I
> don't. Let's see you cite a reference for the story about the hunter
> that was left on the opposite shore of an island while the hunting party
> flew to the opposite side, drove the moose to the other side, got there,
> asked why he saw no moose, and said "All I saw was a bunch of crazy
> looking horses go swimming across the lake".

Apparently the Kim tragedy was exacerbated by them taking a road that
was supposed to be gated closed but the gate had been left open in case
there were people coming out of that area "government officials
confirmed that a gate blocking access to the road on which the Kims were
stranded should have been locked."

Last September we were on a back road in rural Vermont and there was a
big sign "Your GPS is Wrong" see <https://i.imgur.com/szghXLq.jpeg>.

Actually the GPS was not wrong, and the road was open and went through
the mountains to the next town, but in the winter the road doesn't go
through.

On 3/5/2022 9:20 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

<snip>

> See, thar yoo go. Someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid or
> lying. I'm seeing a resemblance of you to the Alan Connor kook. Same
> behavior.

Please just filter out the trolls rather than responding to them.

VanguardLH wrote:

>> Everyone knew _that_ story if they weren't completely ignorant of news.
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kim>
>
> You are not everyone. Get over yourself.

You'd have to have been hiding under a rock to miss that story, Vanguard.
a. You repeatedly demanded I quote my source
b. And yet, my source was there in the very posts which you demanded it!
c. Apart from that proving you're a moron - why don't you ask Mayayana?

Vanguard.
Usenet is water under the bridge.
If you act like an adult, I treat you like an adult.

If you are an actual adult, you'll demand the cite from Mayayana.
Ask Mayayana for a cite backing up what he based his statements upon.

Since I already gave you the cite that I based my statements upon.

> He didn't provide a URL to cite a reference.
> Neither did you until pressed.

Jesus Christ Vanguard.
The very article you asked me for a cite _contained_ that cite, you moron.

This is how I know your IQ can't be greater than about 70 or 80 Vanguard.
You are so very confident in being so very wrong.

I've never met in the flesh people as _stupid_ as you are.

No adult denies facts. That's what makes them adults.
Kids do that. Not adults.

Stop acting like a kid.
You're no different than the iKooks.

Apologize to me as an adult, that you said I didn't provide the cite "until
pressed" when the cite is in the article that you claim it isn't in.

Apologize.
If...
If...
If...

If you are an adult.

PS: I do NOT expect an apology from you, as I don't think you are an adult.
> As yet, there is no basis to mandate Mayayana's and your story are the
> same story. Mayayana should cite a reference, but perhaps he isn't
> monitoring your posts, or my replies to you.

No. He's reading it all (IMHO).
Every single word of it.
He is not only racist, and stupid, but also a coward.
He won't answer (IMHO).

Ask _him_ to cite his reference instead of telling me I didn't cite mine
(when I clearly did).

>> I think only a _stupid_ person wouldn't have seen exactly what I saw.
>
> Only a stupid person thinks their experience must match on everyone
> else's, or that everyone just must read every tidbit of news (whether
> news or not) that you do.

You'd have to have been hiding under a rock to _not_ know that story.
Even the article I cited said it was widely circulated.
It was a big deal at the time.

You think me knowing that story makes _me_ stupid, which is kind of funny.
I think it just shows me again how _ignorant_ you are Vanguard.

And I do not mean that as an insult.
It's just an assessment of the facts.

>> No adult disagrees with facts; facts are funny that way.
>
> Yes, they do. Obviously you are too young to have that experience.
> Never been in a debate, either, where both sides cite facts to argue
> different views.

Vanguard, are you aware that I have higher degrees in difficult topics?
No?
Well accept _that_ as a fact.

I know certain scientific topic rather well and even am a co author on peer
reviewed material deep in the sciences (where we noted a purported
biological fact which has since been overwhelmingly supported by newer
facts).

You have no education (IMHO).
You confuse opinion (aka assessment) with fact.

Stop that.
It's difficult for me to lower myself to your level.
It really is.

You're at the same level as the iKooks:
a. Low IQ
b. No education
c. Low self esteem
d. Such that you react like a child to any discussion about facts.

Child: Santa exists.
Adult: No it doesn't.
Child: But I saw him at the mall.
Adult: That was just a man dressed as Santa.
Child: No. It _was_ Santa.
Adult: Unfortunately, Santa is just a marketing gimmick.
Child: Liar! Liar... Liar... Pants on fire!

You, Vanguard... You.

You...

You are that child.

>> If they disagree with facts, they're fools (fools are funny that way).
>
> No, if they disagree with you then they are fools.

No. You are the fool.
a. I stated a fact.
b. You stated that I didn't state that fact.
c. And yet, that fact was in the very article where you stated it wasn't.

That is the definition of a fool.

>> You're allowed any opinion you want to have,
>
> Not according to you.

You can have the "opinion" that I didn't state the reference.
And yet, the "fact" is that I _did_ state the reference.

You can have the "opinion" I only provided the reference after being asked.
And yet, the "fact" is that I supplied it in my original response to
Mayayana.

It is _you_ who doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Not me.

It's what makes you a moron, Vanguard.
You're not an adult.

Adults never disagree on facts (facts are funny that way).
But adults can logical disagree on opinions (adults are funny that way).

>
>> as long as you don't claim it
>> as a fact,
>
> You simply claim my differing information is not fact, so it agrees with
> you as Usenet God.

I don't mind you elevating me to "Usenet God" but I will have to
respectfully disagree with your opinion since I'm just a person, like you.

1. You have a low IQ, I don't (this is an assessment).
2. You got the fact wrong about my cite (this is a fact).

It's _you_ who confuses an assessment from a fact.
Not me.

You're the moron.
Not me.
>> My challenge stands that you are (a) stupid or, you (b) you simply lied.
>
> See, thar yoo go. Someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid or
> lying. I'm seeing a resemblance of you to the Alan Connor kook. Same
> behavior.

Aye, aye, aye.

This is a fact:
*The fact is I supplied the fact in the article that you said I didn't.*

This is an assessment of that fact:
*That means you are either stupid, or you lied.*

No _adult_ would disagree with the fact (facts are funny that way).
But adults can logically disagree with the assessment (adults are funny).

So, if you are an adult, then you agree with the fact, right?
OK.

So what is your assessment of that fact?
Q: Why did you claim I didn't supply the cite when, clearly, I did?

You tell us why, Vanguard.
Why?
--
The problem with low IQ peole like Vanguard isn't that they're incredibly
stupid, but that they change the narrative to fit their particular bias.

sms wrote:

> Apparently the Kim tragedy was exacerbated by them taking a road that
> was supposed to be gated closed but the gate had been left open in case
> there were people coming out of that area "government officials
> confirmed that a gate blocking access to the road on which the Kims were
> stranded should have been locked."

Steve is correct, where it's my assessment that Mayayana was talking about
that Kim tragedy, but, Mayayana being the racist he is, Mayayana distorted
the story (which started with a wrong turn) to fit a pre-defined agenda
biased against 'geek unprepared campers'.

However, I'm not afraid of facts.
Only people who base their belief systems _not_ in facts are afraid of them.

IMHO, Vanguard should be demanding a cite from Mayayana before he demands a
cite from me *that was already very clearly in the very post that Vanguard
replied to when making that demand of me but not of Mayayana as he defends
Mayayana to the death at all costs).
--
Sound familiar? It's _exactly_ what politicians do, and what iKooks do.

sms wrote:

> Please just filter out the trolls rather than responding to them.

Stop that troll crap Steve.
Just stop it.

It means you're a child.

I stated facts in my response to Mayayana.
Vanguard disputed every one of those facts.

In fact, Vanguard demanded I _cite_ the facts when that cite he repeatedly
demanded of me was in the very article in which he was responding to.

Citing facts does not make me a troll, Steve.

You calling that a troll is more evidence that you _hate_ when facts are
presented, and that's fine because you're a consummate paid politician.

Since what you decry is the fact that I reference my facts, here it is:
<https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28201/637326644281870000>
Name: StevenScharfBiography.pdf
Size: 90653 bytes (88 KiB)
SHA256: B6ADCB89B3FABDEFA35CFCBD7B479C2E7B5CD08191A32A5B1407021075291AC6

I told you to stop claiming all facts are trolls Steve.
Just stop it.

Act like an adult for once in your life.

Ken Blake wrote:

> Nymshifting is the mark of a troll. Trolls do it to get out of the
> killfiles they are in. But it works for only a couple of days.

Let's look at Ken Blake's _entire_ argument... as an actual adult would.

FACT:
a. The technical value of a gift isn't in the wrapping paper
b. If it takes seconds to figure out my posts, you are likely a moron

FACT:
1. I've said many times why the headers change over the years (privacy).
2. Ken Blake claims that anyone wanting privacy must be a troll, right?
3. Yet, Ken Blake has never cited even a _single_ troll from me (ever!).

Not even one.
How can I be a troll in Ken Blake's mind, when he can't find even one troll?

An example of [2] above is that Ken Blake would say:
"Wearing a bandana over your face is the mark of a bank robber"
"Bankrobbers do it to get out of being identified by the police"

And yet, Ken Blake did _exactly_ what Mayayana did, due to his low IQ:
a. Mayayana noted some blacks are criminals so he claimed all are.
b. Mayayana noted some jews are greedy so he claimed all are.
c. Mayayana noted some latinos are drugg dealers so he claimed all are.

Clearly Ken Blake's _entire_ belief system is based on exactly zero facts.
Ken Blake's entire argument is that of a child.
Child: Santa exists.
Adult: No it doesn't.

Child: But I saw him at the mall.
Adult: That was just a man dressed as Santa.

Child: No. It _was_ Santa.
Adult: Unfortunately, Santa is just a marketing gimmick.

Child: Liar! Liar... Liar... Pants on fire!

Ken Blake _is_ that child.
--
If you tell a kindergarten kid the fact that Santa doesn't actually exist...
*He'll respond exactly as Ken Blake just did*

sms wrote:

> A lot of the 64 filters for this group, in my regular Usenet
> provider didn't do anything anymore because trolls had either
> nym-shifted or disappeared completely, or a subject-specific filter was
> no longer needed.

Steve,

I have given you plenty of warning just as NATO did with Putin.
And yet, warnings don't deter people like you who are bent on lies.

FACT:
Every fact I claim I back up.
For example, I claim you are (were) a paid politician.

You claim that I lie.
You claim that all facts are trolls.

Well, here's the cite for the fact which I base my claim upon.
<https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28201/637326644281870000>
Name: StevenScharfBiography.pdf
Size: 90653 bytes (88 KiB)
SHA256: B6ADCB89B3FABDEFA35CFCBD7B479C2E7B5CD08191A32A5B1407021075291AC6

For all the facts I present, you _still_ claim that they are lies, right?
Well, here is the _text_ of that fact that I claimed which proves that my
claim that you are (were) a paid politician is indeed, a fact.

"Steven Scharf (he/him/his) has lived in Cupertino since 1999.
Steven was elected to the City Council in 2016 and served as mayor in 2019
and 2020. He is Cupertino�s representative on ABAG (Association of Bay Area
Governments) and on the Santa Clara County Cities Association. In the past
he represented Cupertino on the Santa Clara County Library District
and on the Santa Clara County Water District."

That fact proves what I claim where you keep saying even despite my many
warnings to you that all facts from me are lies - and yet they're not.

It is _you_ who lie.
Why?

I don't know why.
I simply note the fact you are a consummate politician.

My facts are never wrong, and if they are, I apologize and learn from it.
Are yours, and do you?

VanguardLH wrote:

> Do you know the source of their coverage maps, if they have any?

Vanguard,

That is a question which has been _answered_ many (many) times in this ng.
And it has been answered in this very thread.

How can you always be so ignorant of the fact?
The fact you miss such facts is why I base my assessment of your IQ at 80.

1. The FCC maps are _calculated_ data.
2. They are based on information the cellular providers give to the FCC.
3. They do not have any 3G or 5G coverage in them (last we checked).

Why do you ask Steve when it's only Steve who doesn't know that?
a. Steve is a consummate politician.
b. Steve is remunerated by Verizon in some fashion that he himself admitted.
c. We can predict _years_ in advance Steve will claim Verizon >> T-Mobile.

The fact you are ignorant of the facts is how I know you own a low IQ.
It's insulting to even have to read the garbage you consistently post.
Just to find out your brain is that of a child.

Child: Santa exists.
Adult: No it doesn't.
Child: But I saw him at the mall.
Adult: That was just a man dressed as Santa.
Child: No. It _was_ Santa.
Adult: Unfortunately, Santa is just a marketing gimmick.
Child: Prove it!

You are that child, Vanguard.

sms wrote:

> Apparently the Kim tragedy was exacerbated by them taking a road that
> was supposed to be gated closed but the gate had been left open in case
> there were people coming out of that area "government officials
> confirmed that a gate blocking access to the road on which the Kims were
> stranded should have been locked."
>
> Last September we were on a back road in rural Vermont and there was a
> big sign "Your GPS is Wrong" see <https://i.imgur.com/szghXLq.jpeg>.
>
> Actually the GPS was not wrong, and the road was open and went through
> the mountains to the next town, but in the winter the road doesn't go
> through.

Missing a turn, and taking unknown logging roads instead of heading back
to the missed turn. Trying to use their car as a snow plow. Taking any
road that is beyond the capabilities of the vehicle, or the driver, or
both. Despite having all-wheel drive, it was a commuter car, not a
robust offroader. An open gate does make the driver blind to the road
condition. No tools (e.g., folding shovel) and no survival supplies
stowed in the car. No proper apparel (as emergency supplies in the car,
or on the person -- car failures happen) for winter outside trekking.
Heading off into the woods without a topographical map and compass
instead of staying on the road where the road map he had would have had
some value. Batteries die and electronics fail, so have a paper map to
trek into the woods. Did he have a compass app on his phone, and know
how to calibrate it? A magnometer doesn't need a radio antenna. Did he
have a compass in his car's emergency supplies? A compounded slew of
bad decisions leading to a tragedy. A sad story, especially since James
Kim left behind a wife and 2 kids.

I remember a Disneyworld family trip where I missed the turn on the way
back to the resort. There was a small sign, pointed on one end, saying
"Kissimmee" (like it was pointing to where to go to get to the city).
It was on a grass covered dirt road (just the 2 ruts where tires had
tread a few times before), and pointed into a forested swamp. Um, no
thanks. I'm not feeding the alligators today. Made a u-turn a little
further down the highway, and found the missed turnoff to the city. If
I lived there, and was alone in the car, I might've felt like having
some fun with a much more capable offroading vehicle than a rental to go
exploring through the swamplands. I was there for less risky
entertainment. They found Kim's body. The alligators wouldn't have
left mine. We still joke about that road sign, but it wouldn't have
been a joke if I was so pompous as to think I could go offroading in a
rental through a swamp without proper emergency gear while risking the
lives of other passengers.

sms wrote:

> On 3/5/2022 9:20 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> See, thar yoo go. Someone disagrees with you, so they must be stupid or
>> lying. I'm seeing a resemblance of you to the Alan Connor kook. Same
>> behavior.
>
> Please just filter out the trolls rather than responding to them.

But I'm having fun. Ahhh, okay mom.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote

| The story sounds a bit fishy. If they had been burning tires for 2 to 3
| days, the rangers would've spotted and reported the black smoke.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/james-kim-died-of-hypothermia-autopsy-reveals/

The facts were not quite as I remembered them, but close.

VanguardLH wrote:

>> Every major carrier (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) in the USA, to my
>> knowledge and experience, will give you a repeater and/or a cell
>> tower for free.
>
> Carrier? Yes. MVNO? No.

FACT: I never said MVNO's give you a free repeater or femtocell.
SUGGESTION: Ask Steve what MVNO's do as he loves his varied MVNOs.

>> I wrote about this _many_ times so it's irksome to have to repeat
>
> No one here is compiling a biography of your Usenet participation to
> review everything you ever said before in other threads.

You miss the point that ignorance is what you exhibit in spades.

Why else would you repeatedly deny facts existing when they existed in the
very article you replied to that contained those facts in this very thread.

> That cites 7 out of 100 cellular users are using an MVNO. Reflects that
> many just go with name brands instead of expending the effort to
> research what is the best deal for them.

Thank you for that fact, which I will _remember_ (which distances me from
people like you who don't even remember what was in the very article they
just replied to moments ago).

About 7% of US customers use MVNO's is what I'll remember. About 93% don't.
> You're posting using Thunderbird.

You don't have basic Internet skills Vanguard, if you believe that.

I don't even _know_ what my nntp headers say as they're done with a
dictionary lookup that has a timed switch which is under my control, but the
only header that is in my control that isn't random is the SUBJECT line.

You helped me write that code, in fact, as did Marek, rest his soul.
You probably don't even remember helping me write it - but I remember.

Both you and Alan Baker don't have the minimum necessary Usenet skills.
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune*
*to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.system/c/_50ZqBhcbYs/m/higfbs1MBAAJ>

Let me tell you a _fact_ which, again, I've said many times and only the
utter morons (like Alan Baker) believe most headers can't be spoofed.

FACT: There is only one line in the header which is _not_ meaningless.
(Well, one line under your control anyway, and not added by the server.)

Here is an intelligence test for you Vanguard, where I'm well aware that you
and Frank Slootweg went on endlessly about the PATH header (which too can be
modified by the user, as Frank is well aware of having been an nntp admin
himself, but it isn't completely under the control of the user).

IQ Test for Vanguard (note Alan Baker failed this test _many_ times already)
Q: Which is the _only_ header in control of the user that is meaningful?

Hint: Your attempt at checking the path is futile Vanguard.
As with the FCC coverage maps, and as with the Kim tragedy, you're the only
one who doesn't already know that.

Your ignorance can be cured - but I don't you have the IQ to cure it.

> To me, if you're using one of the Big 3, you've been duped.

Hey, if you can point to an MVNO who gives me unlimited almost everything,
for less than I'm paying, I'm all ears.

I've had Verizon. I've had AT&T. And I've had T-Mobile. I switch.

I am retired so I have no income to speak of where all I ask of you is for
you to back up your claim that an MVNO in my area will give me a better
deal.

Since I'm not afraid of facts, here's my deal (six devices for $116/month),
four of which are modern cellphones, the other two are SIM-carded iPads:
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhpbcP50/tmopromo04.jpg> $100 for six lines + $16 tax

With this deal I get free towers for my home, and free & half-price phones.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Xq5SpS4D/tmopromo02.jpg> $15 iPhone, $0 Android phone

I also get free unlimited text and data in Europe, along with free roaming
in both the USA and Europe (which I visit a few times a year)

If an MVNO provides all that, I'll certainly look into it with all my heart.
I have no desire to waste money if I can get at least what I have, for less.

Which MVNO do you recommend?

> With wifi calling, none of the Big 3 have to provide femtocells anymore.

Getting back on technical topic, I don't know if the femtocell versus wifi
calling has any difference in terms of _data_ and _SMS/MMS_ purposes.

Are you claiming that wifi calling supersedes everything the femtocells did?
I'm not asking about old dumb phones, but the latest ones like mine.

> With wifi calling over the Internet, and since femtocells mandate
> Internet access, why would anyone still be using a femtocell? Well, for
> smartphones which have wifi, femtocells don't make sense. For old dumb
> phones with no wifi feature, yep, femtocells make sense. The dumb
> phones only due cellular.

Let's ignore dumb phones for this purpose.

I use _both_ wi-fi calling _and_ the femtocell (and a cellular repeater).
So I never bothered to look for how they each differed in detail.

Of course, a repeater works differently than a femtocell, but how different
is wifi calling from a femtocell in terms of Internet _data_ and SMS/MMS?

I don't know.
Do you?

> Nowadays smartphones with wifi can be had for
> cheap (under $100 for unlocked). Are you and your neighbors using
> femtocells still using dumb phones (no wifi)?

Almost all of my neighbors are in the upper level management of the most
profitable companies on the planet (and yes, that one too).

Nobody is using a dumb phone so let's just forget that.

> I get that many, maybe most, consumers get a comfy warm fuzzy feeling
> sticking with name brands. It's an emotional thing. Instead of looking
> at the 5-year, or longer, maintenance costs for each car they might
> purchase, they look at manufacturer warranty duration to feel comfy
> about the durability of their choice of car.

Find me an MVNO which gives me at least what I care about, and I'm in.

> Geez, I get more quota than I can use for $116 per *year*. I only need
> 1 line. You're paying that every *month* with your 6-line T-Mobile
> plan. Yikes! If you really are doling out the 6 lines to 5 other
> members in your family, that comes down to $19/line per month, or
> $228/year per line. That's twice the price I get per line from an MVNO.
> You must have super high quota demands than do I to pay for high quotas
> or unlimited quotas.

Well, now you're talking my language.
First of all, in reality, it's _worse_ than what you calculated because,
while I have six lines, two of them are guaranteed for life.

So I'm really paying for only four lines, which makes your calculations even
worse for me.

If you can find an MVNO that gives me unlimited everything for less than
what I'm paying, I'd be a fool for not giving them a call, wouldn't I?

> The guy that is still using a femtocell, claims all of the Big 3 provide
> free femtocells (but don't), and hasn't switched to wifi calling since
> he claims to have Internet service is telling me I cannot complain about
> cellular coverage that I cannot get that the carriers claim I should
> have. Sorry if I don't take your word that you are the cellular God of
> wisdom.

Who said I didn't "switch to Wi-Fi calling"?
Not me.

Did you guess that?
Stop it.

Don't assume I don't use _all_ the tools available to me at any moment:
a. Wi-Fi calling
b. Femtocall calling
c. Booster calling
d. Over the air calling (without connecting to any of the above).

Why would I limit myself by _not_ turning on Wi-Fi calling?
I've even posted numerous screenshots of the various settings in the past.
<https://i.postimg.cc/VN5K5k6Z/wificalling01.jpg> Prefer wifi or cellular

>> If you have Internet in the USA, you have _fantastic_ coverage in your
>> home!
>
> I'm not always at home.

Yeah but Mayayana was explicitly talking about people he knew at home.
Why must you contort the facts just to make a point nobody needed?

> Okay, not completely free. Zero for the Google Voice app on my Android
> phone. Zero for the Google Voice service.

Trust me, I use Google Voice extensively.
I've written about GV many times, in fact.
Even just recently, in fact.
*Is there a viable free alternative to Google Voice in the USA?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/35H9ClsLX8Y/m/hxOuk8q7AwAJ>

> $50 for the Obitalk device,
> a one-time cost. The Obitalk device was cheaper but equally functional
> to the Ooma device. Google Voice is free, and Ooma has their Basic
> service plan* for free.

I also have an Ooma (for years) which I think I'll drop as it sucks now.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QCNqss9T/femto-ooma-switch.jpg> My ooma & femtocell

The ooma is technically free, but it's a few dollars a month where I chose
the _cheapest_ zip code in the USA (somewhere in Kansas as I recall) for
that, and no, I'm not worried about 911 calls not knowing where I live.

VanguardLH wrote:

> You aren't in charge here. You don't moderate this newsgroup.

Jesus Christ Vanguard, that's the post of a small child.

FACT:
1. Mayayana said something about "home"
2. I responded to what he said about "home"
3. You berated _me_ for talking about "home"
4. You didn't berate Mayayana but instead accused me of the tangent
5. I then reminded you it was Mayayana who tangented' to "home"
6. Then you tell me "I'm not in charge" so you can say any stupid thing you
want and nobody can call you out for you saying those stupid things?

WFT?
How old are you anyway?

It's demeaning that I even have to bother to say what I just said above.
I guess people say I "troll" because I respond to morons like you.

And, well, in a way, they may be right.
It's sad that people like you actually exist.

sms wrote:

> The reality is that the need for home micro-cells largely went away when
> Wi-Fi calling became available; even most prepaid and MVNOs now provide
> Wi-Fi calling. So even though a carrier may provide a micro-cell, free
> upon request, there's not much upside in getting one.

In an attempt to pull this thread out of the cesspool, I openly admit
I am ignorant of how the _data_ functionality differs between:
a. Wi-Fi-calling data & SMS/MMS
b. Repeater-calling data & SMS/MMS
c. Femtocell-calling data & SMS/MMS
d. Over-the-air-calling data & SMS/MMS

Notice I'm not at all confused about the actual _calling_ part.
What confuses me (since I never looked it up) is how those four ways of
making connections over the cellular plan _differ_ in terms of:
a. Internet data packets
b. SMS text packets
c. MMS data packets

Does anyone know off hand if they even differ at all in those terms?

On 2022-03-05 12:01 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> The reality is that the need for home micro-cells largely went away
>> when Wi-Fi calling became available; even most prepaid and MVNOs now
>> provide Wi-Fi calling. So even though a carrier may provide a
>> micro-cell, free upon request, there's not much upside in getting one.
>
> In an attempt to pull this thread out of the cesspool, I openly admit
> I am ignorant
About time.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Missing a turn, and taking unknown logging roads instead of heading back
> to the missed turn. Trying to use their car as a snow plow.

There is no doubt in most people's minds that he could have made decisions
that would have turned out a lot better for him than it ended up being.

But my point was that Mayayana tried to use it as anecdotal evidence to
claim that a geek camper went camping with his family wholly unprepared.

That it was not.
Which was my point.

a. I _knew_ that Mayayana was racist (from long experience)
b. I _knew_ all about that story (as did most people here)
c. I knew _instantly_ that Mayayana was contorting the facts.

And he did.
I simply called him out for that.

And you repeatedly chastised me, and yet, not him - and not even once him.
Which tells me all I need to know about how your brain works.
--
It's not my fault that your brain works the way the facts show it does.

On 2022-03-05 12:25 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Missing a turn, and taking unknown logging roads instead of heading back
>> to the missed turn.  Trying to use their car as a snow plow.
>
> There is no doubt in most people's minds that he could have made decisions
> that would have turned out a lot better for him than it ended up being.
>
> But my point was that Mayayana tried to use it as anecdotal evidence to
> claim that a geek camper went camping with his family wholly unprepared.
>
> That it was not.
> Which was my point.
>
> a. I _knew_ that Mayayana was racist (from long experience)
> b. I _knew_ all about that story (as did most people here)
> c. I knew _instantly_ that Mayayana was contorting the facts.
>
> And he did.
> I simply called him out for that.
>
> And you repeatedly chastised me, and yet, not him - and not even once him.
> Which tells me all I need to know about how your brain works.

If you talk like that to people in person, you'll get your little face
slapped...

....but we know you don't actually talk to people like this where there
can be consequences, don't we?

Mayayana wrote:

> The facts were not quite as I remembered them

You purposefully distorted the anecdote to fit your biased narrative.

sms wrote:

> On 3/5/2022 12:00 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> The first FCC map doesn't show cell coverage at all. ...
>>>> I couldn't get this map to show cell coverage.
>>>
>>> You have to check the boxes on the right for each carrier. Look at this
>>> example <https://i.imgur.com/eO1LWZ2.png>.
>>
>> Argh! In Firefox, that right-side pane (Layer List) is blank (and no
>> content is getting blocked). In Edge Chromium, I see the checkboxes,
>> and list of carriers. Seems odd the FCC site is Chrome-only.
>
> Works in Firefox (97.0.2 64 bit) for me.

I waited until after this morning's scheduled Macrium Reflect backup, so
I could restore the old Firefox profile (their Profile Manager sucks to
let you pick an existing old profile folder). I did the Refresh in
Firefox which creates a new install-time profile folder: no add-ons, and
no config-screen or about:config tweaks. Still got the blank right-side
Layer List. A fresh/clean FF profile didn't help. So, I used my
Macrium backup to restore the entire Firefox folder rather than just the
Profiles subfolder. No point in having to rebuild my old profile into a
new one since the new defaults one didn't resolve the problem.

I noticed after loading that web page dozens of times on a new load of
Firefox (i.e., Firefox closed, double-click on your URL) that
occasionally I saw the content of the List Panel pane, but it was
positioned not on the right-side of the window but down in the draggable
lower pane (Attributes Table pane - hover over the handle to get a popup
showing the pane's name; click the handle to show, drag to resize).
There's a handle that lets you drag that pane up or down, or all the way
down to hide it). The contents of one pane (Layer List) were getting
painted in the wrong pane (Attributes). Alas, the content was managed
and unusable when it appeared in the wrong pane.

Oh well, I added the web page to my FF bookmarks as "FCC 4G LTE Coverage
(view in Chrome)", and imported my FF bookmarks into Edge Chrome.
Thanks again for the assist.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Oh well, I added the web page to my FF bookmarks as "FCC 4G LTE Coverage
> (view in Chrome)", and imported my FF bookmarks into Edge Chrome.
> Thanks again for the assist.

What good is a 4G coverage map if you have a 5G phone?

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 4 Mar 2022 02:35:14 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2022-03-03 23:12, micky wrote:
>> Please settle an argument I have with a friend. She wouldn't take my
>> word for it. I went hiking today, short hike, off road, away from
>> cities and towns, sometimes no cell service** even on parts of the
>> highway leadintg to the hike,, and there was no cellular service on the
>> trail.
>>
>> My friend insists you can still make emergency phone calls. I keep
>> telling her, only if there is cellular servie on an cell company you
>> don't subscribe to, or if you have no sim card at all. She pauses and
>> thinks, and then doesn't believe me. But if you all vote, she'll
>> believe you.
>
>There has to be coverage from at least one company. If no company has
>any coverage, you are stuck, isolated.
>
>If one or more companies give coverage, then you "should" be able to
>call emergencies on it. The trick to do it may vary. Change network on
>your phone, try removing the sim... In some cases, no way, nothing works
>except a sim of said company, according to some reports.

Thanks Carlos and Vanguard, SMS, and Andy. I don't know why I didn't
read most of the replies until 2 months later. (I guess being in the
car didn't help.)