Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:25 +0100
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 12:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:29 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:07 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 03:25 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:30 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:32 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:27 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:27 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:26 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:24 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:13 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:59 +1000
imei modification is legal in the US (proof posted) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 09:40 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:02 +1000
imei alteration is not fraud -- 1 of 5 legal tests pass. Insufficient. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 12:00 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:52 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 19:51 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:03 +0200
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:52 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:06 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:09 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:13 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 20:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 23:16 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 15:21 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:13 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 22:07 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:04 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:30 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:11 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:49 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 07:18 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 17:13 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 14:24 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 06:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 20:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 12:00 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:18 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-01 15:19 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-02 20:15 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-02 17:38 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-04 18:20 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-04 14:25 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:06 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:03 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:12 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-28 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-28 17:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 19:34 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 14:41 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 20:27 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:39 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:42 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:07 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:54 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:53 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:22 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:07 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:18 +1000
Smartphone contracts in the US (was: Who pays for a phone call..) Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201507.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-07-23 15:27 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:09 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 01:40 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:44 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:48 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:22 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:15 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:10 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 19:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d24kcrFffg5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21581 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > On 31 Jul 2015 18:22:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > > >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:24:53 +1000, "Rod Speed" > >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >news:la8lratmsl3e7sctesci1qs5me00ksfton@4ax.com... > >> >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:18:57 +1000, "Rod Speed" > >> >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your > >> >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no > >> >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> > >> > > >> Your usual lame response that took several hours for you to > >> compose....pitiful. Only used when you're stumped and have no actual > >> answer. > > > > Talking about lame, you *do* realize that there are other timezones > >than yours, don't you? So "that took several hours for you to compose" > >is utter bollocks and should be left out, unless of course you want to > >look as silly as Roddles. > What you don't realize is that I wrote this weeks ago in response to > this bit of stupidity from him. My reference to time is that he had to > work to compose this ongoing tripe as a response to anyone with whom > he disagrees. What you don't realize is that a response should make sense in the context in which it is written. People can't look inside your head and probably wouldn't want to. Your first response of this type was already lame (because this kind of response from Roddles is one of his many recordings, i.e. no time to compose), your umpteen repetitions are just as silly as Roddles'. > What happened to EOD? :-) The References: header says it didn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 15:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <07aqrah25o9agb1f6prhkacoc2hsj75p7q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21615 |
On 1 Aug 2015 19:18:51 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On 31 Jul 2015 18:22:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:24:53 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:la8lratmsl3e7sctesci1qs5me00ksfton@4ax.com... >> >> >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:18:57 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> >> >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your >> >> >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no >> >> >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> >> >> > >> >> Your usual lame response that took several hours for you to >> >> compose....pitiful. Only used when you're stumped and have no actual >> >> answer. >> > >> > Talking about lame, you *do* realize that there are other timezones >> >than yours, don't you? So "that took several hours for you to compose" >> >is utter bollocks and should be left out, unless of course you want to >> >look as silly as Roddles. >> What you don't realize is that I wrote this weeks ago in response to >> this bit of stupidity from him. My reference to time is that he had to >> work to compose this ongoing tripe as a response to anyone with whom >> he disagrees. > > What you don't realize is that a response should make sense in the >context in which it is written. People can't look inside your head and >probably wouldn't want to. I'd love to see inside your head. All that empty space!!! Rod's little statement was written to several people in the last months. It was, and is, stupidly composed and petty. > > Your first response of this type was already lame (because this kind >of response from Roddles is one of his many recordings, i.e. no time >to compose), your umpteen repetitions are just as silly as Roddles'. You're right. That's once. > >> What happened to EOD? :-) > > The References: header says it didn't. Just another of your idiocies. You made a definite statement and failed to honor it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 20:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d27c3aF623mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21616 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > On 1 Aug 2015 19:18:51 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > > >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2015 18:22:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:24:53 +1000, "Rod Speed" > >> >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >> >news:la8lratmsl3e7sctesci1qs5me00ksfton@4ax.com... > >> >> >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:18:57 +1000, "Rod Speed" > >> >> >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your > >> >> >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no > >> >> >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> > >> >> > > >> >> Your usual lame response that took several hours for you to > >> >> compose....pitiful. Only used when you're stumped and have no actual > >> >> answer. > >> > > >> > Talking about lame, you *do* realize that there are other timezones > >> >than yours, don't you? So "that took several hours for you to compose" > >> >is utter bollocks and should be left out, unless of course you want to > >> >look as silly as Roddles. > >> What you don't realize is that I wrote this weeks ago in response to > >> this bit of stupidity from him. My reference to time is that he had to > >> work to compose this ongoing tripe as a response to anyone with whom > >> he disagrees. > > > > What you don't realize is that a response should make sense in the > >context in which it is written. People can't look inside your head and > >probably wouldn't want to. > > I'd love to see inside your head. All that empty space!!! Rod's > little statement was written to several people in the last months. It > was, and is, stupidly composed and petty. Did I say otherwise? > > Your first response of this type was already lame (because this kind > >of response from Roddles is one of his many recordings, i.e. no time > >to compose), your umpteen repetitions are just as silly as Roddles'. > > You're right. That's once. > > > >> What happened to EOD? :-) > > > > The References: header says it didn't. > > Just another of your idiocies. You made a definite statement and > failed to honor it. No, not another of my 'idiocies', but yet another of your failures to read/comprehend. My EOD was not in this subthread/'discussion', but in another one. That was what my 'idiocy' explained, but, as usual, it went right over your head. I.e. you just proved *again* that you can't follow/comprehend/remember/ <whatever>, what is and what isn't said in which subthread. So your choices are to quit while you're behind, or make yourself look even more foolish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <it6tra5trljn8sbs28s9sqaqs84t64tq28@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21620 |
On 2 Aug 2015 20:15:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >: If you look up the word swoosh in a dictionary you'll find your picture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 18:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d2ce48Feh4uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21623 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > On 2 Aug 2015 20:15:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: [Restore:] > > I.e. you just proved *again* that you can't follow/comprehend/remember/ > > <whatever>, what is and what isn't said in which subthread. > > > > So your choices are to quit while you're behind, or make yourself look > >even more foolish. [End restore.] > If you look up the word swoosh in a dictionary you'll find your > picture. So you chose the latter option. Your loss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 14:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <fc42sa5rosr7h0g9t0a5puakganu70v5rj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21672 |
On 4 Aug 2015 18:20:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On 2 Aug 2015 20:15:38 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> wrote: >[Restore:] > >> > I.e. you just proved *again* that you can't follow/comprehend/remember/ >> > <whatever>, what is and what isn't said in which subthread. >> > >> > So your choices are to quit while you're behind, or make yourself look >> >even more foolish. > >[End restore.] > >> If you look up the word swoosh in a dictionary you'll find your >> picture. > > So you chose the latter option. Your loss. Again. How would you know? SWOOSH forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <270720150056040998%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21398 |
In article <d1lbdiFjpqnU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of > > something and infringing on someone else's copyright. > > Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously > when all you are doing is changing the media format > with something that you have paid for a copy of or > with something that has been broadcast in your > jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally > entitled to do. illicit copying is very different than a media conversion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 15:06 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1lsi3FndkrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21401 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. >> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >> when all you are doing is changing the media format >> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >> with something that has been broadcast in your >> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >> entitled to do. > illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 08:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <f0bcratokpoea0r61agr9vvg7d1gq3rkl7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21404 |
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:06:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >>>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >>> when all you are doing is changing the media format >>> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >>> with something that has been broadcast in your >>> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >>> entitled to do. > >> illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. > >Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion >is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. > >So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1npqmF873iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21426 |
"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message news:d36drapmhklv4nfjomnvj0u0pnj5at54l5@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:20:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>news:f0bcratokpoea0r61agr9vvg7d1gq3rkl7@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:06:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> >>>>>>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>>>>>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>> >>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >>>>>> when all you are doing is changing the media format >>>>>> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >>>>>> with something that has been broadcast in your >>>>>> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >>>>>> entitled to do. >>>> >>>>> illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. >>>> >>>>Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion >>>>is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. >>>> >>>>So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always. >>> >>> Idiot. >> >>Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, >>fuckwit. <reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 18:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <70hdral65tc7iub4s7638otok7pobpjmac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21470 |
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:31:44 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >news:d36drapmhklv4nfjomnvj0u0pnj5at54l5@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:20:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>>news:f0bcratokpoea0r61agr9vvg7d1gq3rkl7@4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:06:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>>>>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>>>>>>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>>> >>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >>>>>>> when all you are doing is changing the media format >>>>>>> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >>>>>>> with something that has been broadcast in your >>>>>>> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >>>>>>> entitled to do. >>>>> >>>>>> illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. >>>>> >>>>>Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion >>>>>is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. >>>>> >>>>>So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always. >>>> >>>> Idiot. >>> >>>Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, >>>fuckwit. > ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> > Boring. As usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 20:12 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1ubjuFruuiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21477 |
"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message news:70hdral65tc7iub4s7638otok7pobpjmac@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:31:44 +1000, "Rod Speed" > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>news:d36drapmhklv4nfjomnvj0u0pnj5at54l5@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:20:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>>>news:f0bcratokpoea0r61agr9vvg7d1gq3rkl7@4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:06:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>>>>>>>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >>>>>>>> when all you are doing is changing the media format >>>>>>>> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >>>>>>>> with something that has been broadcast in your >>>>>>>> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >>>>>>>> entitled to do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion >>>>>>is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. >>>>>> >>>>>>So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>>Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, >>>>fuckwit. <reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 05:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <ka0krato3b80dhsgd24khp7v4mjo038lli@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21546 |
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:12:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >news:70hdral65tc7iub4s7638otok7pobpjmac@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:31:44 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>>news:d36drapmhklv4nfjomnvj0u0pnj5at54l5@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:20:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:f0bcratokpoea0r61agr9vvg7d1gq3rkl7@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:06:07 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of >>>>>>>>>> something and infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, most obviously >>>>>>>>> when all you are doing is changing the media format >>>>>>>>> with something that you have paid for a copy of or >>>>>>>>> with something that has been broadcast in your >>>>>>>>> jurisdiction and you have recorded as you are legally >>>>>>>>> entitled to do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> illicit copying is very different than a media conversion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, but some do THINK that doing a media conversion >>>>>>>is a copyright infringement and it is in some jurisdictions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So your original 'everyone knows' is just plain wrong, as always. >>>>>> >>>>>> Idiot. >>>>> >>>>>Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, >>>>>fuckwit. > ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> > Your usual lame response that took several hours for you to compose....pitiful. Only used when you're stumped and have no actual answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1npptF871gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21386 |
"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message news:iu5dradcem90j46tmsn0ahf4f8nmoh6149@4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:31:16 +1000, "Rod Speed" > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message >>news:d1ngpuF5vcjU1@mid.individual.net... >>> BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>>> On 27 Jul 2015 19:28:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> In article <d1krpiFg33bU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg >>>> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> > B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about >>>> >> > copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there. >>>> >> >>>> >> nonsense. >>>> >> >>>> >> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of something and >>>> >> infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>> > >>>> > Your limited view only proves my point, especially given the >>>> > context, >>>> >c.q. the lack thereof. >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>> >>> Ah, you're yet another one of the regiment of stamping tiny feet!? >> >>You're the only one chucking a tantrum. >> >>> If you say someone is wrong, you must >>> say *why* (you think) (s)he is wrong. >> >>Wrong, as always. <reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 18:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <jrgdraharhv1actfjhi42nvl1mlh1ql9j2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21469 |
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:31:18 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message >news:iu5dradcem90j46tmsn0ahf4f8nmoh6149@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:31:16 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:d1ngpuF5vcjU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>>>> On 27 Jul 2015 19:28:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >> In article <d1krpiFg33bU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg >>>>> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> > B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about >>>>> >> > copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> nonsense. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of something and >>>>> >> infringing on someone else's copyright. >>>>> > >>>>> > Your limited view only proves my point, especially given the >>>>> > context, >>>>> >c.q. the lack thereof. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>> Ah, you're yet another one of the regiment of stamping tiny feet!? >>> >>>You're the only one chucking a tantrum. >>> >>>> If you say someone is wrong, you must >>>> say *why* (you think) (s)he is wrong. >>> >>>Wrong, as always. > ><reams of you desperately attempting to bullshit your >way out of your predicament that fools absolutely no >one at all, as always, flushed where it belongs> > Your lame response that took several hours for you to compose....pitiful. Only used when you're stumped and have no actual answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 19:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1q4g1Fq451U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21386 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > On 27 Jul 2015 19:57:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > wrote: > > >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: > >> On 27 Jul 2015 19:28:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >> In article <d1krpiFg33bU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > >> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about > >> >> > copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there. > >> >> > >> >> nonsense. > >> >> > >> >> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of something and > >> >> infringing on someone else's copyright. > >> > > >> > Your limited view only proves my point, especially given the context, > >> >c.q. the lack thereof. > >> > >> Wrong. > > > > Ah, you're yet another one of the regiment of stamping tiny feet!? > > > > If you say someone is wrong, you must say *why* (you think) (s)he is > >wrong. But being a supporter of nospam, we understand why you do what > >you do. > > I don't know nospam, and have never "supported" him, but the fact is > that he addressed a specific situation and was absolutely correct. I > said what I think and why I think he's correct. Yes, "he addressed a specific situation and was absolutely correct", but the situation which he addressed was *not* related to the point(s) I made to Michelle Steiner. I.e. his response was 'proving' a straw man, which *he* created. That's the problem with - mostly silent - snippers like nospam. Their snipping changes/loses (the) context and leads to hordes of straw men. > Comprehension isn't > your strong suit. Since nospam created the straw man and you 'fell' for it, it's clearly not me who's having the comprehension problems here. So if nospam is responding to someone/something and you think he is right, then I advise you to go back to the parent posting to see what he left out/unanswered/uncommented/<whatever>, and *then* see if you still think the same about his response. [Left for completeness:] > Of course there was a limited point of view because it pointed out > that if a person knows he's making an illegal copy then he knows it's > not acceptable. That is outside of your context. Deal with it and > take "your" tiny feet and shuffle off into oblivion where your > argument belongs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 17:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <crufra104obqk584c1evt1l71a9030tkeh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21511 |
On 28 Jul 2015 19:46:10 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On 27 Jul 2015 19:57:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> >> On 27 Jul 2015 19:28:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> In article <d1krpiFg33bU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg >> >> >> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about >> >> >> > copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there. >> >> >> >> >> >> nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> >> everyone knows when they're making an illicit copy of something and >> >> >> infringing on someone else's copyright. >> >> > >> >> > Your limited view only proves my point, especially given the context, >> >> >c.q. the lack thereof. >> >> >> >> Wrong. >> > >> > Ah, you're yet another one of the regiment of stamping tiny feet!? >> > >> > If you say someone is wrong, you must say *why* (you think) (s)he is >> >wrong. But being a supporter of nospam, we understand why you do what >> >you do. >> >> I don't know nospam, and have never "supported" him, but the fact is >> that he addressed a specific situation and was absolutely correct. I >> said what I think and why I think he's correct. > > Yes, "he addressed a specific situation and was absolutely correct", >but the situation which he addressed was *not* related to the point(s) I >made to Michelle Steiner. I.e. his response was 'proving' a straw man, >which *he* created. > > That's the problem with - mostly silent - snippers like nospam. Their >snipping changes/loses (the) context and leads to hordes of straw men. > >> Comprehension isn't >> your strong suit. > > Since nospam created the straw man and you 'fell' for it, it's clearly >not me who's having the comprehension problems here. > > So if nospam is responding to someone/something and you think he is >right, then I advise you to go back to the parent posting to see what he >left out/unanswered/uncommented/<whatever>, and *then* see if you still >think the same about his response. > >[Left for completeness:] > >> Of course there was a limited point of view because it pointed out >> that if a person knows he's making an illegal copy then he knows it's >> not acceptable. That is outside of your context. Deal with it and >> take "your" tiny feet and shuffle off into oblivion where your >> argument belongs. As I said, comprehension isn't your strong suit. Your babbling here shows that, and the propensity for verbosity that defeats your purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 19:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1so6dFg326U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21515 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: [...] > As I said, comprehension isn't your strong suit. Your babbling here > shows that, and the propensity for verbosity that defeats your > purpose. Do you realize how silly such a 'response' is? You fail to say/prove *why* what you say is so. I.e. *what* don't I comprehend and *what* is my "babbling"? This stamping of tiny feet might be cute for a 3-year old, but for a presumed adult it's pathetic. (AFAIC,) EOD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 14:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <g2bira96jptlglfg8bs6bo4mca3ualpod6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21532 |
On 29 Jul 2015 19:34:37 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: >BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >[...] >> As I said, comprehension isn't your strong suit. Your babbling here >> shows that, and the propensity for verbosity that defeats your >> purpose. > > Do you realize how silly such a 'response' is? You fail to say/prove >*why* what you say is so. I.e. *what* don't I comprehend and *what* is >my "babbling"? You're and idiot. > > This stamping of tiny feet might be cute for a 3-year old, but for a >presumed adult it's pathetic. > > (AFAIC,) EOD. You're an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-29 20:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <d1sra4Fgt82U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21533 |
BobbyK <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: [...] > You're and idiot. [...] > You're an idiot. [Yes, I know I said 'EOD', just bear with me.] Just for kicks, I checked my 'Posted' file. I see that we had some pleasant - and only pleasant - exchanges in the past. (Mainly involving RS and others loons, so perhaps they just were 'the enemy of my enemy...' exchanges! :-)) Anyway, no hard feelings. After all, you can't help it that you're an idiot, can you!? :-) Better luck next time, for the both of us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web