Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #52316 > unrolled thread
| Started by | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-27 15:52 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-03 12:54 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-27 15:52 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2016-04-27 16:19 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:56 +1000
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-27 20:57 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-04-28 07:27 +1000
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-28 09:56 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 12:05 +1000
Re: Phone call.. alvey <currently@large.com.au> - 2016-04-28 12:20 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 14:35 +1000
Re: Phone call.. alvey <currently@large.com.au> - 2016-04-28 14:40 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:50 +1000
Re: Phone call.. news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2016-04-28 08:47 +0000
Re: Phone call.. alvey <currently@large.com.au> - 2016-04-29 06:15 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:33 +1000
Re: Phone call.. alvey <currently@large.com.au> - 2016-04-29 08:49 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:59 +1000
Re: Phone call.. news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2016-04-29 05:12 +0000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:56 -0600
Re: Phone call.. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-04-29 16:57 +0000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-29 14:49 -0600
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 10:02 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-04-30 10:57 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 12:03 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-04-30 12:17 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 10:23 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-01 11:11 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 11:31 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-02 06:08 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 11:00 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 11:27 +1000
Re: Phone call.. alvey <currently@large.com.au> - 2016-05-02 12:52 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:17 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:21 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 11:25 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 15:23 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-02 14:48 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 18:13 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-02 14:45 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 18:14 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-03 07:44 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:36 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:30 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-04-30 20:23 +0000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-01 16:08 -0600
Re: Phone call.. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-05-02 18:19 +0000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:21 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:17 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 04:15 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 14:13 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-01 16:12 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 08:31 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-01 16:51 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:33 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 04:18 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-05-02 18:32 +0000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-03 15:23 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2016-05-04 12:29 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 16:33 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-04 16:53 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 19:34 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-05-05 07:07 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-05 09:23 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 14:22 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-05-05 14:34 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Your_newsgroup_devil Ördög <lies-greed-corruption-hate@lnp.org.au> - 2016-05-05 04:42 +0000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:15 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:43 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-05 14:41 -0600
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:26 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 09:58 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:47 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-06 14:19 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-06 08:25 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:12 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 10:48 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-06 13:13 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 16:40 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Dechucka" <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:34 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-05-04 19:19 +0000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-04 13:57 -0600
Re: Phone call.. Jeßus <j@j.invalid> - 2016-04-28 16:31 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 17:55 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-27 17:07 +1000
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-27 19:11 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-27 22:38 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:13 -0600
Re: Phone call.. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-28 07:45 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 08:24 +1000
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-28 09:23 +1000
Re: Phone call.. BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-28 07:59 -0600
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-04-28 09:57 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 07:09 +1000
Re: Phone call.. SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2016-04-28 19:32 +1000
Re: Phone call.. "Andy" <woof@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 22:35 +1000
Re: Phone call.. Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2016-04-28 16:01 +1000
Re: Phone call.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-05-03 12:54 +1000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <doni7aFd0qrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52421 |
"Petzl" <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ve48ibh2utfj8r3t30rhbub9f23ap21b96@4ax.com... > On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:57:26 +1000, Jeßus <j@j.invalid> wrote: > >>On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:02:50 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>I've always been in the "white pages" and get heaps of scam calls seem >>>to work in waves. >>>I would like the police to have a "honey pot" bank account (even maybe >>>a fictional bank) advertise this locally so these scammers (all seem >>>overseas) can be hunted down. >> >>Unfortunately that wouldn't help a damned thing, other than to lighten >>the Police's bank account. Because they *can't* hunt them down without >>overseas cooperation from many different organisations (who are >>unwilling to help anyway). > > Give the police a LOT more No thanks, I'd be paying for that. > and identify the scammer! Useless when they can't be extradited. > Only costs a website logging IP's and get > bank numbers where it's tried to transfer to > No money would be transferred (you that stupid?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <donhs9FcusmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52417 |
"Petzl" <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5at7ib1dhesggecg8vv9ohfq70n58tf7fh@4ax.com... > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:49:33 -0600, BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my >>>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call >>>> lists. I don't know why, though. >>> >>> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is >>> not? >> >>That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on >>all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it >>would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? > > I've always been in the "white pages" Me too. > and get heaps of scam calls I don't anymore now that I am on the do not call register and tell those that call anyway that the aren't allowed to call me and tell those who are still allowed to call me to not call me again and to add me to their own do not call list. I don't even get one a week now. > seem to work in waves. Not here. > I would like the police to have a "honey pot" bank account (even maybe > a fictional bank) advertise this locally so these scammers (all seem > overseas) can be hunted down. The cops can't hunt anyone down who isnt in the country and it would be much too expensive to do it like that with the ones that flout the law who are inside the country,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dokii4Fosq8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52415 |
BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a > >> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my > >> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call > >> lists. I don't know why, though. > > > > Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is > > not? > > That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on > all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it > would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? As others have explained, that depends on what kind of 'plan' (subscription) the spammer has, where he's calling from, etc.. For example my plan is unlimited calls to landlines and mobiles. So next time, you'd better check it's not me who's calling! :-) But anyway, next time a spammer calls, just *ask* him! I'm sure spammers are ever so friendly and forthcoming! :-) Sorry, have to go now. Have to make some calls ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ng5uid$daf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52430 |
On 04/30/2016 02:23 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my >>>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call >>>> lists. I don't know why, though. >>> >>> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is >>> not? >> >> That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on >> all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it >> would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? > > As others have explained, that depends on what kind of 'plan' > (subscription) the spammer has, where he's calling from, etc.. > > For example my plan is unlimited calls to landlines and mobiles. So > next time, you'd better check it's not me who's calling! :-) I've seen plans set up like that for mobiles, but not for land lines. If the spammer is calling *from* a land line, no plan I've seen would charge him differently for calling a mobile vs. calling another land line. That's really what I was looking for clarification on. I take it you're saying that in some places, a call from a land line to a mobile costs more than a call from that same land line to a land line. > But anyway, next time a spammer calls, just *ask* him! I'm sure > spammers are ever so friendly and forthcoming! :-) > > Sorry, have to go now. Have to make some calls ... I typically let calls from any unknown number go to voice mail. If they don't leave a message, I look them up to see if they're known spammers, in which case I add them to my blacklist. Next time they call, they get a "no longer in service" message. If only caller ID were not so easy to fake, this would be a great system. My provider also has public blacklists, to which I subscribe, so if others have identified a caller as a telemarketer, I don't get the call. Even with all this, and being on our government-sponsored no-call lists, I get a lot of spam calls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dopk13Fpq12U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52437 |
BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 04/30/2016 02:23 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > >>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a > >>>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my > >>>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call > >>>> lists. I don't know why, though. > >>> > >>> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is > >>> not? > >> > >> That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on > >> all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it > >> would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? > > > > As others have explained, that depends on what kind of 'plan' > > (subscription) the spammer has, where he's calling from, etc.. > > > > For example my plan is unlimited calls to landlines and mobiles. So > > next time, you'd better check it's not me who's calling! :-) > > I've seen plans set up like that for mobiles, but not for land lines. > If the spammer is calling *from* a land line, no plan I've seen would > charge him differently for calling a mobile vs. calling another land > line. That's really what I was looking for clarification on. I take > it you're saying that in some places, a call from a land line to a > mobile costs more than a call from that same land line to a land line. Such plans were quite common in many countries and in some countries they still are. That was/is for the simple reason that the mobile infrastructure was/is much more expensive than the landline infrastructure. Then some plans were changed to same rate for calling to landline and mobile. In most cases that meant that the landline rate was raised and the mobile rate was lowered. That really sucked/sucks for landline to landline calls. However now the same two-rates system is again re-introduced for other services, for example for some VOIP services. Another example: Skype calls to landlines are - a lot - cheaper than to mobiles. Of course strictly speaking Skype is not 'calling from a landline', but for many people it is 'calling from a fixed location'. which amounts to the same. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:21 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <donhciFcrjuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52415 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng0h6e$bck$1@dont-email.me... > On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my >>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call >>> lists. I don't know why, though. >> >> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is >> not? > > That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on > all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it > would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? Because it's a lot cheaper to call numbers on a list than to call numbers at random and see if anyone useful ever answers the call.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ng7qrd$2tg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52449 |
On 05/01/2016 05:21 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ng0h6e$bck$1@dont-email.me... >> On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my >>>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call >>>> lists. I don't know why, though. >>> >>> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is >>> not? >> >> That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on >> all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it >> would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? > > Because it's a lot cheaper to call numbers on a list than to call > numbers at random and see if anyone useful ever answers the call. That makes a lot of sense. So the difference is to not whether your phone is land or mobile (or VOIP), but rather whether it's on a list, which a land line will normally be on (at least here) as soon as you get it, unless you pay extra for unlisted. When I got VOIP, it came with a new number, and didn't include any white pages listing. I "ported" my old number for convenience sake, but that meant staying on the white pages listing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 04:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dopjqsFpoptU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52473 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng7qrd$2tg$1@dont-email.me... > On 05/01/2016 05:21 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ng0h6e$bck$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 04/29/2016 10:57 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>>> mobile or a land line? I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my >>>>> cell, while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call >>>>> lists. I don't know why, though. >>>> >>>> Maybe your landline is in some online directory and your mobile is >>>> not? >>> >>> That could be it. I've had the land line long enough, it could be on >>> all sorts of lists and directories. I don't suppose you know why it >>> would make any difference in terms of cost to the spammers? >> >> Because it's a lot cheaper to call numbers on a list than to call >> numbers at random and see if anyone useful ever answers the call. > > That makes a lot of sense. So the difference is to not whether your > phone is land or mobile (or VOIP), but rather whether it's on a list, Its all of those, because in many jurisdictions it costs a lot more to call mobile numbers than landlines, and it isnt even possible to call VOIPs that don't have a direct indial number. > which a land line will normally be on (at least here) as soon as you > get it, unless you pay extra for unlisted. When I got VOIP, it came > with a new number, and didn't include any white pages listing. Ours mostly don't and while you can have a white pages listing for your mobile for free, that is optional and few bother to have it listed in the white pages. > I "ported" my old number for convenience sake, but that meant staying on > the white pages listing. I currently don't bother with an indial number with mine, because I have to have the landline for the DSL service, it isnt possible to have what we call a naked DSL service in town, a DSL service without a landline service. And since my voip service has no fixed charge at all except when you have a direct indial number, I just have the voip present my landline number as its caller ID and don't bother with another direct indial number. Mate of mine has so many numbers that when the free voip call doesn't get him, it's a hell of a hassle trying all the numbers in sequence to see which will get him when either the voip isnt ringing for some reason or he is away from home and can be using one of a range of mobile numbers or skype or voip on his smartphone etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 14:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <doipndFdh7qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52398 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng001k$66i$1@dont-email.me... > On 04/28/2016 02:15 PM, alvey wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:47:51 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:20:17 +1000, alvey wrote: >>> >>>> I get none at all now. Moved house and ditched the landline. It's >>>> marvellous. >>> >>> you're not with optarse them. >>> >>> >>> SWMBO purchased a new mobile, new number and within the first week the >>> scams had started. >>> >>> In any case, just give it time; their robo caller will connect you. >> >> I've had the same number since the beginning of Time magazine. >> Presumably it's still too expensive for the spammers to call mobiles. > > What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a > mobile or a land line? It costs some spammers a lot more to call a mobile than to call a landline. That's the case with my voip service, it costs me just 10c per call to landlines, regardless of the length of the call. It costs me 15c/minute with per second billing to call a mobile. No fixed charge per month at all. > I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my cell, Yeah, I've never had one either. > while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call lists. I might get one a week at most and I am on the DNC too. > I don't know why, though. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ng5up7$e0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52427 |
On 04/29/2016 10:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ng001k$66i$1@dont-email.me... >> On 04/28/2016 02:15 PM, alvey wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:47:51 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:20:17 +1000, alvey wrote: >>>> >>>>> I get none at all now. Moved house and ditched the landline. It's >>>>> marvellous. >>>> >>>> you're not with optarse them. >>>> >>>> >>>> SWMBO purchased a new mobile, new number and within the first week the >>>> scams had started. >>>> >>>> In any case, just give it time; their robo caller will connect you. >>> >>> I've had the same number since the beginning of Time magazine. >>> Presumably it's still too expensive for the spammers to call mobiles. >> >> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >> mobile or a land line? > > It costs some spammers a lot more to call a mobile than to call a landline. > > That's the case with my voip service, it costs me just 10c per > call to landlines, regardless of the length of the call. It costs > me 15c/minute with per second billing to call a mobile. > No fixed charge per month at all. That's kind of how my mobile service works; no monthly charge, just 10c/min plus $1 daily charge any day I use it. I can change to something like 15cmin without the daily charge, but I tend to use it in chunks, mostly on trips, so this is cheaper. My VOIP is a straight monthly charge. I don't recall them even having a plan that differentiated between mobile and land-line. It seems to me a spammer would have to be a bit silly to go with anything but a straight monthly charge, unlimited use type of plan. >> I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my cell, > > Yeah, I've never had one either. > >> while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call lists. > > I might get one a week at most and I am on the DNC too. > >> I don't know why, though. > > See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 08:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <donedrFcb1gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52438 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng5up7$e0l$1@dont-email.me... > On 04/29/2016 10:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ng001k$66i$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 04/28/2016 02:15 PM, alvey wrote: >>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:47:51 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:20:17 +1000, alvey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I get none at all now. Moved house and ditched the landline. It's >>>>>> marvellous. >>>>> >>>>> you're not with optarse them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SWMBO purchased a new mobile, new number and within the first week the >>>>> scams had started. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, just give it time; their robo caller will connect you. >>>> >>>> I've had the same number since the beginning of Time magazine. >>>> Presumably it's still too expensive for the spammers to call mobiles. >>> >>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>> mobile or a land line? >> >> It costs some spammers a lot more to call a mobile than to call a >> landline. >> >> That's the case with my voip service, it costs me just 10c per >> call to landlines, regardless of the length of the call. It costs >> me 15c/minute with per second billing to call a mobile. >> No fixed charge per month at all. > > That's kind of how my mobile service works; no monthly charge, Yeah, mine does too. > just 10c/min In my case 12c/min > plus $1 daily charge any day I use it. Nothing like that here. > I can change to something like 15cmin without the daily charge, but I tend > to use it in chunks, mostly on trips, so this is cheaper. I do too, use it mostly on Saturdays for calling, during the garage sale run. We coordinate the opening times using mobile phones. It wouldn't save me anything because I pay by the minute and most calls only cost me 12c. I don't normally spend $1 on all calls. > My VOIP is a straight monthly charge. I don't recall them even having a > plan that differentiated between mobile and land-line. I can't remember one that didn't. > It seems to me a spammer would have to be a bit silly to go with > anything but a straight monthly charge, unlimited use type of plan. Sure. >>> I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my cell, >> >> Yeah, I've never had one either. >> >>> while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call lists. >> >> I might get one a week at most and I am on the DNC too. >> >>> I don't know why, though. >> >> See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52441 |
On 05/01/2016 04:31 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ng5up7$e0l$1@dont-email.me... >> On 04/29/2016 10:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ng001k$66i$1@dont-email.me... >>>> On 04/28/2016 02:15 PM, alvey wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:47:51 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:20:17 +1000, alvey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I get none at all now. Moved house and ditched the landline. It's >>>>>>> marvellous. >>>>>> >>>>>> you're not with optarse them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> SWMBO purchased a new mobile, new number and within the first week >>>>>> the >>>>>> scams had started. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, just give it time; their robo caller will connect you. >>>>> >>>>> I've had the same number since the beginning of Time magazine. >>>>> Presumably it's still too expensive for the spammers to call mobiles. >>>> >>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>> mobile or a land line? >>> >>> It costs some spammers a lot more to call a mobile than to call a >>> landline. >>> >>> That's the case with my voip service, it costs me just 10c per >>> call to landlines, regardless of the length of the call. It costs >>> me 15c/minute with per second billing to call a mobile. >>> No fixed charge per month at all. >> >> That's kind of how my mobile service works; no monthly charge, > > Yeah, mine does too. > >> just 10c/min > > In my case 12c/min > >> plus $1 daily charge any day I use it. > > Nothing like that here. > >> I can change to something like 15cmin without the daily charge, but I >> tend to use it in chunks, mostly on trips, so this is cheaper. > > I do too, use it mostly on Saturdays for calling, during the garage > sale run. We coordinate the opening times using mobile phones. > > It wouldn't save me anything because I pay by the minute and > most calls only cost me 12c. I don't normally spend $1 on all calls. When I'm on a trip, there's a good chance I'll spend over two hours on the mobile in a single day. While at home, I go weeks without using it, since I have the home phone. >> My VOIP is a straight monthly charge. I don't recall them even having >> a plan that differentiated between mobile and land-line. > > I can't remember one that didn't. I just checked the pages for mine (Ooma), and don't see anything that differentiates calls to mobiles vs. calls to land lines. I guess this one of those things done differently here than there, whether because of some regulatory difference or just how the companies try to maximize profits. When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. >> It seems to me a spammer would have to be a bit silly to go with >> anything but a straight monthly charge, unlimited use type of plan. > > Sure. > >>>> I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my cell, >>> >>> Yeah, I've never had one either. >>> >>>> while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call lists. >>> >>> I might get one a week at most and I am on the DNC too. >>> >>>> I don't know why, though. >>> >>> See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <doni22Fcvr4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52444 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... > On 05/01/2016 04:31 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ng5up7$e0l$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 04/29/2016 10:13 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ng001k$66i$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> On 04/28/2016 02:15 PM, alvey wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 08:47:51 -0000 (UTC), news16 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:20:17 +1000, alvey wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I get none at all now. Moved house and ditched the landline. It's >>>>>>>> marvellous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you're not with optarse them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SWMBO purchased a new mobile, new number and within the first week >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> scams had started. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, just give it time; their robo caller will connect you. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've had the same number since the beginning of Time magazine. >>>>>> Presumably it's still too expensive for the spammers to call mobiles. >>>>> >>>>> What difference does it make to the spammer whether your number is a >>>>> mobile or a land line? >>>> >>>> It costs some spammers a lot more to call a mobile than to call a >>>> landline. >>>> >>>> That's the case with my voip service, it costs me just 10c per >>>> call to landlines, regardless of the length of the call. It costs >>>> me 15c/minute with per second billing to call a mobile. >>>> No fixed charge per month at all. >>> >>> That's kind of how my mobile service works; no monthly charge, >> >> Yeah, mine does too. >> >>> just 10c/min >> >> In my case 12c/min >> >>> plus $1 daily charge any day I use it. >> >> Nothing like that here. >> >>> I can change to something like 15cmin without the daily charge, but I >>> tend to use it in chunks, mostly on trips, so this is cheaper. >> >> I do too, use it mostly on Saturdays for calling, during the garage >> sale run. We coordinate the opening times using mobile phones. >> >> It wouldn't save me anything because I pay by the minute and >> most calls only cost me 12c. I don't normally spend $1 on all calls. > > When I'm on a trip, there's a good chance I'll spend over two > hours on the mobile in a single day. While at home, I go weeks without > using it, since I have the home phone. > >>> My VOIP is a straight monthly charge. I don't recall them even having >>> a plan that differentiated between mobile and land-line. >> >> I can't remember one that didn't. > > I just checked the pages for mine (Ooma), and don't see anything that > differentiates calls to mobiles vs. calls to land lines. I guess this > one of those things done differently here than there, whether because > of some regulatory difference or just how the companies try to maximize > profits. When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually > have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. Yeah, that's the big difference between here and there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you lot. >>> It seems to me a spammer would have to be a bit silly to go with >>> anything but a straight monthly charge, unlimited use type of plan. >> >> Sure. >> >>>>> I've noticed that I don't get spam calls to my cell, >>>> >>>> Yeah, I've never had one either. >>>> >>>>> while I get plenty to my land line despite being on no-call lists. >>>> >>>> I might get one a week at most and I am on the DNC too. >>>> >>>>> I don't know why, though. >>>> >>>> See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ng7r5g$445$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52452 |
On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... <snip> >> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually >> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. > > Yeah, that's the big difference between here and > there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. > > And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you > lot. Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 04:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dopjusFppk9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52474 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ng7r5g$445$1@dont-email.me... > On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... > <snip> >>> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually >>> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. >> >> Yeah, that's the big difference between here and >> there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. >> >> And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you >> lot. > > Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically > distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles > just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or > VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better. Not just the Australian approach, there are actually few that do mobile numbers the way its done in north america. Virtually everywhere else has a unique prefix for mobile numbers so its easy to see it's a mobile number you are calling. And easy to see what can be texted too, although its now possible to text/SMS landlines here now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dopkp9FpvksU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #52474 |
BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... > <snip> > >> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually > >> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. > > > > Yeah, that's the big difference between here and > > there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. > > > > And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you > > lot. > > Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically > distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles > just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or > VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better. I think geographically distinct codes is still the norm in many countries, instead of the exception. At least for the part of Europe that I know, it is. And we also have unique prefixes for mobiles. But I guess that's what you get for being a seppo! :-) [1] [1] From Rod's response I understand that you're American. [2] [2] I'm Dutch and Rod has some 'special' names for me too! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 15:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ngb4l5$70t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52481 |
On 05/02/2016 12:32 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... >> <snip> >>>> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually >>>> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. >>> >>> Yeah, that's the big difference between here and >>> there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. >>> >>> And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you >>> lot. >> >> Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically >> distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles >> just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or >> VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better. > > I think geographically distinct codes is still the norm in many > countries, instead of the exception. At least for the part of Europe > that I know, it is. And we also have unique prefixes for mobiles. We just had areas that ran out of numbers as population grew, and my area is one of those. They added a second area code, and rather than making a lot of people change their numbers as has been done in some places, they made the new code available for new numbers in the same area. It can be confusing when two land lines in the same house have different area codes. > But I guess that's what you get for being a seppo! :-) [1] > > [1] From Rod's response I understand that you're American. [2] Yes, you have that right. I had to look up "seppo", so I got a laugh. > [2] I'm Dutch and Rod has some 'special' names for me too! :-) Like most Americans, I'm a mongrel. In my case, that includes 1/4 Dutch. Not that it does me any good. I'm glad I joined this thread. I've learned a bit, though I don't know that it helps me in any practical way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 12:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <57295ea9$0$43894$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #52516 |
"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ngb4l5$70t$1@dont-email.me... > On 05/02/2016 12:32 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me... >>> <snip> >>>>> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually >>>>> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not. >>>> >>>> Yeah, that's the big difference between here and >>>> there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix. >>>> >>>> And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you >>>> lot. >>> >>> Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically >>> distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles >>> just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or >>> VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better. >> >> I think geographically distinct codes is still the norm in many >> countries, instead of the exception. At least for the part of Europe >> that I know, it is. And we also have unique prefixes for mobiles. > > We just had areas that ran out of numbers as population grew, and my > area is one of those. They added a second area code, and rather than > making a lot of people change their numbers as has been done in some > places, they made the new code available for new numbers in the same > area. It can be confusing when two land lines in the same house have > different area codes. > >> But I guess that's what you get for being a seppo! :-) [1] >> >> [1] From Rod's response I understand that you're American. [2] > > Yes, you have that right. I had to look up "seppo", so I got a laugh. > >> [2] I'm Dutch and Rod has some 'special' names for me too! :-) > > Like most Americans, I'm a mongrel. In my case, that includes 1/4 > Dutch. Not that it does me any good. > > I'm glad I joined this thread. I've learned a bit, though I don't know > that it helps me in any practical way. Seppos always have a lot to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 16:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <4e5jibpddobp46jddobn1s4vlu7r1e8fhg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #52523 |
On Wed, 4 May 2016 12:29:57 +1000, "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> wrote:
>
>"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ngb4l5$70t$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 05/02/2016 12:32 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/01/2016 05:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> "BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ng6137$kul$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> When I make a call, unless I know the recipient I usually
>>>>>> have no idea whether the number is for a mobile or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that's the big difference between here and
>>>>> there, all our mobile number have a unique 04 prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we don't pay a cent when someone calls us on our mobile, unlike you
>>>>> lot.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. We used to have area codes that were geographically
>>>> distinct, but that's not even the case anymore. Numbers for mobiles
>>>> just come from the same set of available numbers as for mobile or
>>>> VOIP. I think I like the Australian approach for this better.
>>>
>>> I think geographically distinct codes is still the norm in many
>>> countries, instead of the exception. At least for the part of Europe
>>> that I know, it is. And we also have unique prefixes for mobiles.
>>
>> We just had areas that ran out of numbers as population grew, and my
>> area is one of those. They added a second area code, and rather than
>> making a lot of people change their numbers as has been done in some
>> places, they made the new code available for new numbers in the same
>> area. It can be confusing when two land lines in the same house have
>> different area codes.
>>
>>> But I guess that's what you get for being a seppo! :-) [1]
>>>
>>> [1] From Rod's response I understand that you're American. [2]
>>
>> Yes, you have that right. I had to look up "seppo", so I got a laugh.
>>
>>> [2] I'm Dutch and Rod has some 'special' names for me too! :-)
>>
>> Like most Americans, I'm a mongrel. In my case, that includes 1/4
>> Dutch. Not that it does me any good.
>>
>> I'm glad I joined this thread. I've learned a bit, though I don't know
>> that it helps me in any practical way.
>
>Seppos always have a lot to learn.
If they don't vote for Trump the world has no hope
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/feedback/17-09-2010/114965-obama_birth_certificate-0/
http://bit.ly/1OdFi6O
Now, I don’t know
whhttp://pickeringpost.com/story/-i-would-not-advocate-that-we-put-a-muslim-in-charge-of-this-nation-/5387ether
Barack Obama is a Muslim or not, but he was certainly brought up as a
Muslim and “educated” in an Indonesian Madrassa as a Muslim. His
family is Muslim and he speaks Arabic with the fluency of a Muslim. He
wears an Arabic inscribed ring and bends his knee to a filthy Saudi
king and shows no deference, other than a handshake, to the Pope.
These are his words: “There is no sweeter sound on earth than the
Muslim call to prayer” which, to 98 per cent of Americans, is a sound
akin to scraping your fingers up a blackboard. “Non-Muslims must stop
equating terrorism with Islam” he said.
Obama also says in words, “We are summoned to push back against those
who would distort OUR religion for their nihilistic ends.” “The future
must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” “We will
convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so
much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own
country.”
“Islam is peace.” “The Islamic State is not Islamic.” “As a student of
history, I also know civilisation’s debt to Islam.” “Islam has a proud
tradition of tolerance.” (WTF?) “Islam has always been part of
America.” “We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim
communities.”
More of Obama’s words: “These rituals remind us of the principles that
we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress,
tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” “I made it clear that
America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.” “Islam is not
part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an
important part of promoting peace.”
And, “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and
deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Enough of Obama’s words, what about his deeds then? Well he has
released six dangerous Islamic terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for
an American deserter who converted to Islam.
During the Pope’s visit he quietly released another terrorist back to
Yemen who was marked “never to be released”. He promoted and endorsed
a mosque built adjacent to 9/11 ground zero. He refuses to confront
ISIS. He is a card-carrying member of the Egyptian terrorist group,
the Muslim Brotherhood, supported its leader Mohamed Morsi and
rejected President al Sisi’s call for co-existence.
He has ensured Iran has a nuclear weapon in one of the craziest
international deals ever negotiated. Or was it crazy? He refuses to
arm the Kurds who own the only boots on the ground fighting ISIS for
fear of upsetting Turkey who, along with the Saudis, has given safe
passage and support to ISIS.
He has alienated the only serious ally the West has in the Middle East
in Israel. He has altered US Military reports to falsely show America
is winning the war against ISIS. He refuses to use the words Islam and
terrorism in the same sentence. He has stacked his Administration with
Muslims and Muslim sympathisers. He knows and uses the ISIS hand
signal of dominance. Oh I could go on and on, but it evokes the old
adage that ends with, “.... it’s probably a duck”.
So Ben Carson has made a stand and he now polls on a par with the
formerly skyrocketing, and now faltering, Donald Trump!
Carson knows what blind innocents don’t know: Islam is the only faith
that supersedes and overrides all else an adherent does and thinks.
That's what Carson is trying to say... that’s what Islam IS!
If you are a Muslim you come as a total package.
Unlike Christianity, Islam IS the military, Islam IS the education
process, Islam IS the treasury, Islam IS the judiciary, Islam IS the
law (Shariah), Islam IS the subjugation of women and girls, Islam IS
crucifixions, the severing of limbs and beheadings. Islam IS FGM,
Islam IS the one and only Caliphate that must eventually rule over all
Western infidels.
If you deny any of the above you are an apostate of Islam... the worst
of all possible sins, because in the Islamic faith EVERYONE is born a
Muslim. That's why there is no baptising of infants, it's already a
fait accompli.
Is this the reason Obama has set the entire world on fire? No-one
could have caused this much damage accidentally.
Has the softly-spoken, non-politician Carson tapped into the
suffering, silent majority? He knows the Koran, Shariah and the Hadith
well. Is he referring to a Muslim operative who has already
infiltrated the White House?
--
Petzl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeßus <j@j.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 16:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mt6jib918jtqir2b19lv1a0m296s63ko3l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #52524 |
On Wed, 04 May 2016 16:33:35 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote: >If they don't vote for Trump the world has no hope Fuck me dead... if you weren't already an idiot, now you support Trump as well. And simply because he's a WASP. LOL >http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/feedback/17-09-2010/114965-obama_birth_certificate-0/ > http://bit.ly/1OdFi6O Please explain WTF Obama has to do with the coming election in terms of voting for a candidate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web