Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > misc.phone.mobile.iphone > #76031 > unrolled thread

Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy?

Started by"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid>
First post2015-07-22 09:50 -0400
Last post2015-07-26 13:55 +1000
Articles 20 on this page of 110 — 12 participants

Back to article view | Back to misc.phone.mobile.iphone

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.


Contents

  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
            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
              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
              an imei number is a "statement"?  true or false? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-09 10:52 +0000
          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 BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-01 15:14 -0500
            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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →


#76280 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2015-07-25 22:13 -0400
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<250720152213020113%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#76279
In article <250720151909316131%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws.
> > 
> > you do realize who it is, right?
> 
> Actually, no.

he who has many names, tries to use linux, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76281 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromMichelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org>
Date2015-07-25 20:04 -0700
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<250720152004404691%michelle@michelle.org>
In reply to#76280
In article <250720152213020113%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <250720151909316131%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws.
> > > 
> > > you do realize who it is, right?
> > 
> > Actually, no.
> 
> he who has many names, tries to use linux, etc.

There are too many of them, and I don't try to memorize their aliases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76282 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2015-07-25 23:16 -0400
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<250720152316288465%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#76281
In article <250720152004404691%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > he who has many names, tries to use linux, etc.
> 
> There are too many of them, and I don't try to memorize their aliases.

i don't keep track of the names, but the persona and posting style is
the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76306 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1krpiFg33bU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76277
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <250720152044532783%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was 
> > > considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone 
> > > that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint.
> > 
> > bullshit they did.
> > 
> > > As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all 
> > > five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA 
> > > AT&T that all five elements don't apply.
> > 
> > you didn't prove any such thing.
> > 
> > the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only
> > blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to
> > the fcc. 
> 
> I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws.

  Ah, nospam in down in the dust and digging a hole to the other side
and guess who's coming to his 'rescue'!?

  But responding to  your comment: *He* (M.L.) will probably have a clue
about that as well.

  And your reason for snipping his attribution/'name' was exactly what!?

  B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about
copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76308 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-26 15:21 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<h8garalh8idsfb13qe00odk7p8ac6m9i52@4ax.com>
In reply to#76306
On 26 Jul 2015 19:46:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> In article <250720152044532783%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> > > When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was 
>> > > considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone 
>> > > that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint.
>> > 
>> > bullshit they did.
>> > 
>> > > As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all 
>> > > five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA 
>> > > AT&T that all five elements don't apply.
>> > 
>> > you didn't prove any such thing.
>> > 
>> > the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only
>> > blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to
>> > the fcc. 
>> 
>> I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws.
>
>  Ah, nospam in down in the dust and digging a hole to the other side
>and guess who's coming to his 'rescue'!?
>
>  But responding to  your comment: *He* (M.L.) will probably have a clue
>about that as well.
>
>  And your reason for snipping his attribution/'name' was exactly what!?
>
>  B.T.W. Most people - especially Americans - have no clue about
>copyright law, so if I were you, I wouldn't go there.

You'd be surprised that more than a few people, especially Americans,
have more than a clue about copyright law.  I suggest you not go
there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76326 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-27 10:13 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1lbdiFjpqnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76306

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:260720151823126695%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> 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.

We'll see...

> 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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76329 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-26 22:07 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<9r7brap6f5rv01lurdparq54hg80gm9vir@4ax.com>
In reply to#76326
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:13:34 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:260720151823126695%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> 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.
>
>We'll see...
>
>> 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. 

 Try reading it again.  He said that everyone knows when they are
MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.  Period. Who's the silly one?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76332 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-27 15:04 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1lseqFncspU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76329
BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
>>> 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.

>> We'll see...

>>> 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. 
 
> Try reading it again.  

Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again. 

> He said that everyone knows when they are
> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.  

Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
copy and infringing on someone else's copyright 
when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
legally entitled to do in the situations I listed. 

> Period. 

There is no period except between your ears. 

> Who's the silly one?

You and him both.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76354 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-27 08:02 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<5nacra9soj5cmo1lb9bl6f9uhahbk96ive@4ax.com>
In reply to#76332
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:04:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote 
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote 
>>>> 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.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>>>> 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. 
> 
>> Try reading it again.  
>
>Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again. 
>
>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.  
>
>Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>copy and infringing on someone else's copyright 
>when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>legally entitled to do in the situations I listed. 
>
>> Period. 
>
>There is no period except between your ears. 
>
>> Who's the silly one?
>
>You and him both.  

If you KNOW that you are making an illegal copy you KNOW that it is
infringing, idiot.

LOL.  You put your foot in mouth again and again.  When shown to be
absolutely wrong just come back with nonsense.  For once just admit
that you shit in your hat.

That'll never happen because you think you can't be wrong, which is
wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76389 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-28 08:30 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1npo2F86koU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76354

"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
news:br5drad1chcqv5oht33h7rvl8kj5acdoq2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> Try reading it again.
>>
>>>> Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again.
>>
>>>>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>>>>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.
>>
>>>> Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>>>> copy and infringing on someone else's copyright
>>>> when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>>>> legally entitled to do in the situations I listed.
>>
>>>>> Period.
>>
>>>> There is no period except between your ears.
>>
>>>>> Who's the silly one?
>>
>>>> You and him both.
>>
>>> If you KNOW that you are making an illegal
>>> copy you KNOW that it is infringing, idiot.
>>
>>That isn't what is being discussed, 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]


#76396 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-27 18:48 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<3ngdra9anlm5knrk0uukub1qbh623qcn61@4ax.com>
In reply to#76389
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:30:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
>news:br5drad1chcqv5oht33h7rvl8kj5acdoq2@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>> Try reading it again.
>>>
>>>>> Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again.
>>>
>>>>>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>>>>>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.
>>>
>>>>> Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>>>>> copy and infringing on someone else's copyright
>>>>> when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>>>>> legally entitled to do in the situations I listed.
>>>
>>>>>> Period.
>>>
>>>>> There is no period except between your ears.
>>>
>>>>>> Who's the silly one?
>>>
>>>>> You and him both.
>>>
>>>> If you KNOW that you are making an illegal
>>>> copy you KNOW that it is infringing, idiot.
>>>
>>>That isn't what is being discussed, 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 lame response that took several hours for you to
compose....pitiful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76434 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-30 20:11 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1ubjtFruuiU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76396

"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
news:3ngdra9anlm5knrk0uukub1qbh623qcn61@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:30:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:br5drad1chcqv5oht33h7rvl8kj5acdoq2@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Try reading it again.
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again.
>>>>
>>>>>>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>>>>>>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.
>>>>
>>>>>> Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>>>>>> copy and infringing on someone else's copyright
>>>>>> when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>>>>>> legally entitled to do in the situations I listed.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Period.
>>>>
>>>>>> There is no period except between your ears.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Who's the silly one?
>>>>
>>>>>> You and him both.
>>>>
>>>>> If you KNOW that you are making an illegal
>>>>> copy you KNOW that it is infringing, idiot.
>>>>
>>>>That isn't what is being discussed, 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]


#76442 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-30 05:49 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<a90kra5pefofo1fq36lq3p5sk2pokm1o89@4ax.com>
In reply to#76434
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:11:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
>news:3ngdra9anlm5knrk0uukub1qbh623qcn61@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:30:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:br5drad1chcqv5oht33h7rvl8kj5acdoq2@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try reading it again.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>>>>>>>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>>>>>>> copy and infringing on someone else's copyright
>>>>>>> when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>>>>>>> legally entitled to do in the situations I listed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no period except between your ears.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who's the silly one?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You and him both.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you KNOW that you are making an illegal
>>>>>> copy you KNOW that it is infringing, idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>That isn't what is being discussed, 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]


#76445 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-31 07:18 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d1vim8F7ghtU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76442

"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
news:a90kra5pefofo1fq36lq3p5sk2pokm1o89@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:11:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:3ngdra9anlm5knrk0uukub1qbh623qcn61@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:30:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:br5drad1chcqv5oht33h7rvl8kj5acdoq2@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:19:41 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try reading it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't need to, nothing changes after reading it again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He said that everyone knows when they are
>>>>>>>>> MAKING AN ILLICIT copy it's infringing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plenty would BELIEVE that they are making an illicit
>>>>>>>> copy and infringing on someone else's copyright
>>>>>>>> when in fact they are doing what they are perfectly
>>>>>>>> legally entitled to do in the situations I listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no period except between your ears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who's the silly one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You and him both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you KNOW that you are making an illegal
>>>>>>> copy you KNOW that it is infringing, idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That isn't what is being discussed, 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]


#76447 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-30 17:13 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<la8lratmsl3e7sctesci1qs5me00ksfton@4ax.com>
In reply to#76445
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76450 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-07-31 14:24 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d20c22Fd37jU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76447

"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>
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76453 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-31 06:48 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<a3omra9tbup0de6s9cr20u5v6hjm90qtsn@4ax.com>
In reply to#76450
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76471 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromBobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net>
Date2015-07-31 20:51 -0500
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<kf9orapo72cr83egpeb65jmqvs3euvqabh@4ax.com>
In reply to#76453
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 09:35:31 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
>news:jfvnra9du4ca4k3bccqmq5pbpfpn23db7d@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 06:19:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>news:a3omra9tbup0de6s9cr20u5v6hjm90qtsn@4ax.com...
>>>> 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>
> 
I'm a little busy so I'll have to ignore you later...along with
everyone else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76473 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-01 12:00 +1000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d22nj2Fr3bU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76471

"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message 
news:kf9orapo72cr83egpeb65jmqvs3euvqabh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 09:35:31 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:jfvnra9du4ca4k3bccqmq5pbpfpn23db7d@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 06:19:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"BobbyK" <bknight@Conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:a3omra9tbup0de6s9cr20u5v6hjm90qtsn@4ax.com...
>>>>> 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>
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#76476 — Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud

FromFrank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Date2015-08-01 19:18 +0000
SubjectRe: IMEI alteration is not fraud
Message-ID<d24kcrFffg5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#76453
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]


Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | misc.phone.mobile.iphone


csiph-web