<Dl> <Dd> Something is not an acceptable compromise if it doesn't actually solve the issue (indeed, it makes matters worse) for one of the parties . In this case, saying SBC, which is ultimately what this article is about, was "founded" in 1880, 1983, and 2005, isn't in any way accurate . This article is about a specific corporation, that was founded in 1983 . Like I said, you wouldn't say T - Mobile was founded in 1495 . The Reichspost was, and DT, which created T - Mobile, is a direct decedent . In that respect, it has a greater claim to being founded in 1495 than a company founded in 1983 due to a court ordered break - up does . Why would you claim SBC was "founded" in 1880? </Dd> <Dd> And no, it doesn't matter what AT&T "says" when it's ADDRESSING AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TOPIC . </Dd> <Dd> If you're going to pretend to be doing something other than trolling, perhaps you can address that issue rather than continuing to pretend AT&T's website is describing something other than the history of the Bell System . Perhaps you can also start arguing on T - Mobile's site that the founding date should be changed to 1495 . You'd at least be being consistent . </Dd> <Dd> I was unaware that there's a separate article about SBC Communications . That page should be merged into this one, it's redundant .--Squiggleslash 12: 43, 6 June 2007 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> Something is not an acceptable compromise if it doesn't actually solve the issue (indeed, it makes matters worse) for one of the parties . In this case, saying SBC, which is ultimately what this article is about, was "founded" in 1880, 1983, and 2005, isn't in any way accurate . This article is about a specific corporation, that was founded in 1983 . Like I said, you wouldn't say T - Mobile was founded in 1495 . The Reichspost was, and DT, which created T - Mobile, is a direct decedent . In that respect, it has a greater claim to being founded in 1495 than a company founded in 1983 due to a court ordered break - up does . Why would you claim SBC was "founded" in 1880? </Dd> <Dd> And no, it doesn't matter what AT&T "says" when it's ADDRESSING AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TOPIC . </Dd> <Dd> If you're going to pretend to be doing something other than trolling, perhaps you can address that issue rather than continuing to pretend AT&T's website is describing something other than the history of the Bell System . Perhaps you can also start arguing on T - Mobile's site that the founding date should be changed to 1495 . You'd at least be being consistent . </Dd>

This math term sounds like at&t mobilitys former name