Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why my phone is an iPhone
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard Brazee
May 7, 2013, 9:58:27 AM5/7/13
to
My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
And more important than any of the above:
No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
e-mail either.
If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
first company to do so. Real Soon Now
1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
And more important than any of the above:
No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
e-mail either.
If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
first company to do so. Real Soon Now
nospam
May 7, 2013, 11:43:45 AM5/7/13
to
In article <032io8ha7epgq9n4q...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
or dumb, however, it does integrate with android better than with
iphone.
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
> would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
> first company to do so. Real Soon Now
google voice, which will work with any phone (cell or landline), smart
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
> would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
> first company to do so. Real Soon Now
or dumb, however, it does integrate with android better than with
iphone.
David Empson
May 9, 2013, 7:08:44 AM5/9/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
>
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
There is a setting on the iOS device for how far back calendar events
> My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
>
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
are synced (Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Calendars: Sync). I
have mine set to "All Events", and they all seem to be there, right back
to 2002 when I started using iCal on the Mac.
I'm using iCloud to sync the calendars now, but before I upraded to Lion
I was using iTunes to sync the calendars, and it got them all as well.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Howard Brazee
May 9, 2013, 8:37:19 AM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 9 May 2013 23:08:44 +1200, dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David
Empson) wrote:
>There is a setting on the iOS device for how far back calendar events
>are synced (Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Calendars: Sync). I
>have mine set to "All Events", and they all seem to be there, right back
>to 2002 when I started using iCal on the Mac.
I'm wondering where this is controlled when I have two computers and
Empson) wrote:
>There is a setting on the iOS device for how far back calendar events
>are synced (Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Calendars: Sync). I
>have mine set to "All Events", and they all seem to be there, right back
>to 2002 when I started using iCal on the Mac.
two iDevices all synced. I just checked my iPad and saw that it was
set wrong, thanks.
It still would be nice to be able to control this event by event.
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
David Empson
May 9, 2013, 9:13:16 AM5/9/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 23:08:44 +1200, dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David
> Empson) wrote:
>
> >There is a setting on the iOS device for how far back calendar events
> >are synced (Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Calendars: Sync). I
> >have mine set to "All Events", and they all seem to be there, right back
> >to 2002 when I started using iCal on the Mac.
>
>
> I'm wondering where this is controlled when I have two computers and
> two iDevices all synced.
If they are synced via iCloud, then iCloud has the master copy of
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 23:08:44 +1200, dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David
> Empson) wrote:
>
> >There is a setting on the iOS device for how far back calendar events
> >are synced (Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Calendars: Sync). I
> >have mine set to "All Events", and they all seem to be there, right back
> >to 2002 when I started using iCal on the Mac.
>
>
> I'm wondering where this is controlled when I have two computers and
> two iDevices all synced.
everything, and each iDevice can be set to only sync historic events
back a specified number of months, so everything older would
automatically disappear.
I can't see any similar setting in "Calendar" on Mountain Lion, so
presumably Apple thinks Calendar/iCal should have the full history.
> I just checked my iPad and saw that it was set wrong, thanks.
> It still would be nice to be able to control this event by event.
calendar would be nice (assuming you've organised your events into
multiple calendars).
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Laszlo Lebrun
May 10, 2013, 1:17:13 AM5/10/13
to
On 07.05.2013 15:58, Howard Brazee wrote:
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls
Can you please elaborate on that?
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls
What exactly is so unique?
--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)
Howard Brazee
May 10, 2013, 9:20:46 AM5/10/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:13 +0200, Laszlo Lebrun
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>On 07.05.2013 15:58, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls
>
>Can you please elaborate on that?
>What exactly is so unique?
I'm thinking from your last sentence that I wasn't clear - so I will
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>On 07.05.2013 15:58, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls
>
>Can you please elaborate on that?
>What exactly is so unique?
re-state:
On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
calls. While currently, I have no reason to switch from my iPhone -
if some other phone offered this, it would be very attractive.
No phone offers this now. Whichever gets it right first will have a
huge advantage.
Laszlo Lebrun
May 10, 2013, 2:13:54 PM5/10/13
to
On 10.05.2013 15:20, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
> calls.
Would you please define what "an intelligent spam filtering of phone
> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
> calls.
calls" is supposed to be?
What does that do?
Message has been deleted
nospam
May 10, 2013, 2:38:01 PM5/10/13
to
In article <slrnkoqbja....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
nothing prevents them from calling you. the best you can do is block
the call and hope they give up.
> Google Voice does this to some extent, though it's not good. It is
> better than nothing.
it's actually *very* good. google voice is ideal for spam filtering,
mainly because it can block calls with a 'not in service' message and
the requisite sit tones. this causes your number to eventually fall off
the call lists.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
> >> calls.
>
> > Would you please define what "an intelligent spam filtering of phone
> > calls" is supposed to be?
> > What does that do?
>
> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
> >> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
> >> calls.
>
> > Would you please define what "an intelligent spam filtering of phone
> > calls" is supposed to be?
> > What does that do?
>
nothing prevents them from calling you. the best you can do is block
the call and hope they give up.
> Google Voice does this to some extent, though it's not good. It is
> better than nothing.
it's actually *very* good. google voice is ideal for spam filtering,
mainly because it can block calls with a 'not in service' message and
the requisite sit tones. this causes your number to eventually fall off
the call lists.
Laszlo Lebrun
May 10, 2013, 3:28:24 PM5/10/13
to
On 10.05.2013 19:25, Lewis wrote:
> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
DevilsPGD
May 10, 2013, 7:35:26 PM5/10/13
to
In the last episode of <kmjhoo$p3v$1...@tota-refugium.de>, Laszlo Lebrun
whether you solicited a particular call or not?
--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> said:
>On 10.05.2013 19:25, Lewis wrote:
>> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
>
>That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
>commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
How does your provider know the content of calls before they happen, or
>On 10.05.2013 19:25, Lewis wrote:
>> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
>
>That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
>commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
whether you solicited a particular call or not?
--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
nospam
May 10, 2013, 11:05:04 PM5/10/13
to
In article <701ro81s65p11b8u0...@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
known spammer and if so, it is automatically flagged as spam and won't
ring your phone. callers get voicemail, and if you later block the
number, they'll get a not in service message next time and ultimately
stop calling. it works *really* well.
<booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
> >
> >That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
> >commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
>
> How does your provider know the content of calls before they happen, or
> whether you solicited a particular call or not?
google voice has spam filtering that checks if the caller id matches a
> >> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
> >
> >That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
> >commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
>
> How does your provider know the content of calls before they happen, or
> whether you solicited a particular call or not?
known spammer and if so, it is automatically flagged as spam and won't
ring your phone. callers get voicemail, and if you later block the
number, they'll get a not in service message next time and ultimately
stop calling. it works *really* well.
DevilsPGD
May 11, 2013, 12:10:08 AM5/11/13
to
In the last episode of <100520132305049545%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
common carriers have a lot less flexibility when it comes to what they
choose to carry, or not.
Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
calls any different than any other caller.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying such things don't work, they do, BUT
common carriers don't get to implement them.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>google voice has spam filtering that checks if the caller id matches a
>known spammer and if so, it is automatically flagged as spam and won't
>ring your phone. callers get voicemail, and if you later block the
>number, they'll get a not in service message next time and ultimately
>stop calling. it works *really* well.
Google can do so, because they're not a common carrier. Unfortunately,
>google voice has spam filtering that checks if the caller id matches a
>known spammer and if so, it is automatically flagged as spam and won't
>ring your phone. callers get voicemail, and if you later block the
>number, they'll get a not in service message next time and ultimately
>stop calling. it works *really* well.
common carriers have a lot less flexibility when it comes to what they
choose to carry, or not.
Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
calls any different than any other caller.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying such things don't work, they do, BUT
common carriers don't get to implement them.
Laszlo Lebrun
May 11, 2013, 6:20:28 AM5/11/13
to
On 11.05.2013 06:10, DevilsPGD wrote:
> Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
> common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
> calls any different than any other caller.
>
In Germany they MUST do it. Unsolicited telephone calls with retained
> Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
> common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
> calls any different than any other caller.
>
caller ID's are illegal and linked to fines (albeit not completely
discouraging).
nospam
May 11, 2013, 9:21:26 AM5/11/13
to
In article <kmkv0d$fj0$1...@tota-refugium.de>, Laszlo Lebrun
to do?
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> > Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
> > common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
> > calls any different than any other caller.
> >
> In Germany they MUST do it. Unsolicited telephone calls with retained
> caller ID's are illegal and linked to fines (albeit not completely
> discouraging).
what if the call originates from outside germany? what are they going
> > Blocking calls that you have requested is permitted, of course, but a
> > common carrier cannot maintain a list of known spammers and treat those
> > calls any different than any other caller.
> >
> In Germany they MUST do it. Unsolicited telephone calls with retained
> caller ID's are illegal and linked to fines (albeit not completely
> discouraging).
to do?
Howard Brazee
May 11, 2013, 9:34:27 AM5/11/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:13:54 +0200, Laszlo Lebrun
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>On 10.05.2013 15:20, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
>> calls.
>
>Would you please define what "an intelligent spam filtering of phone
>calls" is supposed to be?
>What does that do?
The prime goal is to keep spammers from calling me. Or at least from
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>On 10.05.2013 15:20, Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On the top of my phone wants is intelligent spam filtering of phone
>> calls.
>
>Would you please define what "an intelligent spam filtering of phone
>calls" is supposed to be?
>What does that do?
having my phone ring. Pretty much what the spam filter does on my
computer's Mail application. At least let me answer a phone and
touch a button to refuse calls from the number in the future. Or use
a database of political advertisement phone numbers.
But there's room for much more with intelligence. It could recognize
that I'm driving a car or in a work meeting and filter out messages
below a particular urgency. (Allowing the hospital to call when a
spouse is in emergency).
Actually, I'd also like to synchronize my computer's Mail spam
filtering with my phone's as well.
Howard Brazee
May 11, 2013, 9:35:22 AM5/11/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 21:28:24 +0200, Laszlo Lebrun
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
>
>That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
>commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
Politicians exempt themselves from this option.
<lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> Prevents idiot scammers and spammers and telemarketers from calling you.
>
>That's the job of my provider, I had only to tick the option "no
>commercial solicitations" and I never got one...
Message has been deleted
Laszlo Lebrun
May 11, 2013, 5:01:48 PM5/11/13
to
How does the iPhone do the same job?
Does it send each phone number to the servers of Apple?
I'd not be very pleased with that! My privacy matters.
Do you need an active 3G connection for that? What about roaming outside
USA?
Howard Brazee
May 11, 2013, 6:39:04 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:25:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <othso89br5a8k08f1...@4ax.com>,
>junk folder on the computer is deleted from my iPhone (and iPad as well,
>for that matter).
OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
didn't pay the difference).
I guess there isn't a market for synchronizing the spam filtering
logic to the phone since most people who care would use IMAP.
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <othso89br5a8k08f1...@4ax.com>,
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I'd also like to synchronize my computer's Mail spam
>> filtering with my phone's as well.
>
>Mine does, with the IMAP accounts. Any spam that mail.app moves to the
>
>> Actually, I'd also like to synchronize my computer's Mail spam
>> filtering with my phone's as well.
>
>junk folder on the computer is deleted from my iPhone (and iPad as well,
>for that matter).
OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
didn't pay the difference).
I guess there isn't a market for synchronizing the spam filtering
logic to the phone since most people who care would use IMAP.
Message has been deleted
Laszlo Lebrun
May 12, 2013, 9:18:16 AM5/12/13
to
On 12.05.2013 13:57, Lewis wrote:
> In message <kmmbjs$9jp$1...@tota-refugium.de>
> you just making up random shit?
>
Please answer the question.
How does an iPhone filter the calls?
> In message <kmmbjs$9jp$1...@tota-refugium.de>
> Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> How does the iPhone do the same job?
>> Does it send each phone number to the servers of Apple?
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? Are you really this stupid, or are
>> How does the iPhone do the same job?
>> Does it send each phone number to the servers of Apple?
>
> you just making up random shit?
>
Please answer the question.
How does an iPhone filter the calls?
Message has been deleted
Laszlo Lebrun
May 12, 2013, 9:50:19 AM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/13 3:39 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <kmo4qo$5e0$4...@tota-refugium.de>
> lemurs make rainbows appear in the sky?"
>
see you with Sandman in 30 days...
> In message <kmo4qo$5e0$4...@tota-refugium.de>
> Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 12.05.2013 13:57, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <kmmbjs$9jp$1...@tota-refugium.de>
>>> Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>>>> How does the iPhone do the same job?
>>>> Does it send each phone number to the servers of Apple?
>>>
>>> What the fuck are you talking about? Are you really this stupid, or are
>>> you just making up random shit?
>>>
>> Please answer the question.
>
> No, it is a fucking idiotic question. Much like if you asked "How do
>> On 12.05.2013 13:57, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <kmmbjs$9jp$1...@tota-refugium.de>
>>> Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>>>> How does the iPhone do the same job?
>>>> Does it send each phone number to the servers of Apple?
>>>
>>> What the fuck are you talking about? Are you really this stupid, or are
>>> you just making up random shit?
>>>
>> Please answer the question.
>
> lemurs make rainbows appear in the sky?"
>
>> How does an iPhone filter the calls?
>
> Repeating the question doesn't make it less stupid.
>> How does an iPhone filter the calls?
>
>
see you with Sandman in 30 days...
Alan Browne
May 12, 2013, 10:02:09 AM5/12/13
to
On 2013.05.11 18:39 , Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:25:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <othso89br5a8k08f1...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I'd also like to synchronize my computer's Mail spam
>>> filtering with my phone's as well.
>>
>> Mine does, with the IMAP accounts. Any spam that mail.app moves to the
>> junk folder on the computer is deleted from my iPhone (and iPad as well,
>> for that matter).
>
> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
> didn't pay the difference).
"Pay" for IMAP? How quaint. My ISP offers it as an option to POP.
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 07:25:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <othso89br5a8k08f1...@4ax.com>,
>> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I'd also like to synchronize my computer's Mail spam
>>> filtering with my phone's as well.
>>
>> Mine does, with the IMAP accounts. Any spam that mail.app moves to the
>> junk folder on the computer is deleted from my iPhone (and iPad as well,
>> for that matter).
>
> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
> didn't pay the difference).
You can set up Gmail accounts as POP or IMAP. (I use POP. I tried IMAP
and didn't like how it worked with Apple Mail client).
> I guess there isn't a market for synchronizing the spam filtering
> logic to the phone since most people who care would use IMAP.
--
-Pierre Berton
Message has been deleted
Alan Browne
May 13, 2013, 5:30:37 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013.05.12 22:32 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <svWdnfiLoZ98PRLM...@giganews.com>,
> service; lower tiers are stuck with POP.
The point is that IMAP is long past the day where it is a "premium"
(Really - it's just storage - something with a very low cost presently).
I could see it being no extra charge up to some number of stored GB,
after which a monthly charge could kick in.
"stuck with POP" is a bit off. It's a decent alternative to IMAP. (And
no, I don't need the litany of IMAP advantages).
> In article <svWdnfiLoZ98PRLM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
>>> didn't pay the difference).
>>
>> "Pay" for IMAP? How quaint. My ISP offers it as an option to POP.
>
> One of my providers (godaddy) offers IMAP only with its highest tier of
>
>>> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
>>> didn't pay the difference).
>>
>> "Pay" for IMAP? How quaint. My ISP offers it as an option to POP.
>
> service; lower tiers are stuck with POP.
The point is that IMAP is long past the day where it is a "premium"
(Really - it's just storage - something with a very low cost presently).
I could see it being no extra charge up to some number of stored GB,
after which a monthly charge could kick in.
"stuck with POP" is a bit off. It's a decent alternative to IMAP. (And
no, I don't need the litany of IMAP advantages).
Zaidy036
May 13, 2013, 5:39:18 PM5/13/13
to
current mail to GMail and you will have both and a superior Spam filter
and both POP and IMAP.
nospam
May 13, 2013, 5:47:56 PM5/13/13
to
In article <s9adnU0T5IbjxgzM...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
> >>> didn't pay the difference).
> >>
> >> "Pay" for IMAP? How quaint. My ISP offers it as an option to POP.
> >
> > One of my providers (godaddy) offers IMAP only with its highest tier of
> > service; lower tiers are stuck with POP.
>
> The point is that IMAP is long past the day where it is a "premium"
> (Really - it's just storage - something with a very low cost presently).
godaddy is a scum registrar that nickel and dimes people.
> >>> OK, I use my brother's provider, and he didn't pay for IMAP (and I
> >>> didn't pay the difference).
> >>
> >> "Pay" for IMAP? How quaint. My ISP offers it as an option to POP.
> >
> > One of my providers (godaddy) offers IMAP only with its highest tier of
> > service; lower tiers are stuck with POP.
>
> The point is that IMAP is long past the day where it is a "premium"
> (Really - it's just storage - something with a very low cost presently).
Message has been deleted
Alan Browne
May 13, 2013, 7:14:43 PM5/13/13
to
My ISP (my principal e-mail) also provides very good spam filtering so
no need to wrap it thru gmail.
Alan Browne
May 13, 2013, 7:19:21 PM5/13/13
to
On 2013.05.13 18:12 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <s9adnU0T5IbjxgzM...@giganews.com>,
> well in this medium.
Use the sardonic smiley in that case: :-\ (or is it :-/ ? )
> In article <s9adnU0T5IbjxgzM...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> "stuck with POP" is a bit off. It's a decent alternative to IMAP.
>
> I know; I was being sarcastic, forgetting that sarcasm doesn't translate
>
>> "stuck with POP" is a bit off. It's a decent alternative to IMAP.
>
> well in this medium.
Use the sardonic smiley in that case: :-\ (or is it :-/ ? )
Rod Speed
May 13, 2013, 10:01:31 PM5/13/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
> My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
> 2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
> 3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
> And more important than any of the above:
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
> e-mail either.
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
> would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
> first company to do so. Real Soon Now
My phone is an iphone basically because the user interface
is a lot better done than with anything else available.
I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
my country, and that its very difficult to do even the most
basic maintenance like swapping the battery or one of the
switches if they stop working yourself.
I love the wealth of choice you get on apps, and that the
more exotic apps do tend to show up first on the iphone.
I love the resale value, but that's likely academic tho I might
use that to swap to an iphone 6 when they show up and
have shown that they haven't fucked anything up too badly.
I don't like the fact that it doesn't trivially appear as a disk
drive, and that you can't network it to the Win7 systems
as easily as you can with other Win7 or 8 systems, but find
that the skydrive system works pretty well for the simpler
stuff like the notes I take with me for a doctor's appointment etc.
I don't like the fact that there isnt any easy way to see just
what is using the cellular data by app when I am out of the
house and wifi is not available.
I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
email addresses that matter.
> My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
> 2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
> 3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
> And more important than any of the above:
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
> e-mail either.
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone calls, I
> would give up all of the benefits of going Apple. I hope Apple is the
> first company to do so. Real Soon Now
My phone is an iphone basically because the user interface
is a lot better done than with anything else available.
I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
my country, and that its very difficult to do even the most
basic maintenance like swapping the battery or one of the
switches if they stop working yourself.
I love the wealth of choice you get on apps, and that the
more exotic apps do tend to show up first on the iphone.
I love the resale value, but that's likely academic tho I might
use that to swap to an iphone 6 when they show up and
have shown that they haven't fucked anything up too badly.
I don't like the fact that it doesn't trivially appear as a disk
drive, and that you can't network it to the Win7 systems
as easily as you can with other Win7 or 8 systems, but find
that the skydrive system works pretty well for the simpler
stuff like the notes I take with me for a doctor's appointment etc.
I don't like the fact that there isnt any easy way to see just
what is using the cellular data by app when I am out of the
house and wifi is not available.
I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
email addresses that matter.
Howard Brazee
May 13, 2013, 10:26:20 PM5/13/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:01:31 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
>I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
>email addresses that matter.
Most of my phone spam is from U.S. political committees, which are
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
>I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
>email addresses that matter.
exempt from the laws politicians give to everybody else here.
nospam
May 13, 2013, 10:42:07 PM5/13/13
to
In article <k483p81spkgnsa0uv...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
they stop calling when they get a not in service recording.
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> Most of my phone spam is from U.S. political committees, which are
> exempt from the laws politicians give to everybody else here.
however, they're not exempt from flagging them as blocked calls.
> Most of my phone spam is from U.S. political committees, which are
> exempt from the laws politicians give to everybody else here.
they stop calling when they get a not in service recording.
DevilsPGD
May 14, 2013, 12:36:15 AM5/14/13
to
In the last episode of <130520131747565027%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>godaddy is a scum registrar that nickel and dimes people.
And tricks people into giving up their rights. *shrugs* Such is life.
>godaddy is a scum registrar that nickel and dimes people.
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 2:15:25 AM5/14/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote
The spam calls I do get on my landline mostly flout our law
on spam calls, calling from outside the country, even tho those
calls are just as illegal, there is no real way to punish those.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
>> I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
>> email addresses that matter.
> Most of my phone spam is from U.S. political committees, which
> are exempt from the laws politicians give to everybody else here.
I do get some spam calls on my landline, just not on my iphone.
>> I just don't get any spam calls at all and don't expect that
>> I ever will. I don't get enough spam to matter on the main
>> email addresses that matter.
> Most of my phone spam is from U.S. political committees, which
> are exempt from the laws politicians give to everybody else here.
The spam calls I do get on my landline mostly flout our law
on spam calls, calling from outside the country, even tho those
calls are just as illegal, there is no real way to punish those.
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 2:26:59 AM5/14/13
to
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:032io8ha7epgq9n4q...@4ax.com...
> My phone is an iPhone because of these reasons:
>
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
>
> 2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
>
> 3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
>
> And more important than any of the above:
>
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
> e-mail either.
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone
> calls, I would give up all of the benefits of going Apple.
I wouldn't.
>
> 1. It synchronizes all of my calendars and my wife's calendars easily
> and accurately (We don't use the "On My Mac" calendars because they
> don't synchronize). (I wish it didn't purge old calendar items though)
>
> 2. It synchronizes our contacts easily and accurately.
>
> 3. It synchronizes my iTunes.
>
> And more important than any of the above:
>
> No other phone has intelligent spam filtering of phone calls and
> e-mail either.
> If someone else came up with a way to control incoming phone
> calls, I would give up all of the benefits of going Apple.
> I hope Apple is the first company to do so. Real Soon Now
where the spammers deliberately use fake Caller IDs that
vary randomly so there is nothing for the phone to use to
decide if it's a spam call or not.
The best you can do in that situation is to have the caller
respond to some instructions from the phone on how to
actually make the phone ring by say punching in a code
which the phone will then ring the phone for you to answer.
That would at least get around the automatic diallers that
almost all spam callers use, but wouldn't help with the
crudest of the spammers who dial the calls manually.
That's a tiny subset of the total calls tho.
I'd be surprised if nothing like that is available for any cellphone.
Message has been deleted
nospam
May 14, 2013, 9:07:36 AM5/14/13
to
In article <ave3qh...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that its even possible in the ultimate
> where the spammers deliberately use fake Caller IDs that
> vary randomly so there is nothing for the phone to use to
> decide if it's a spam call or not.
>
> The best you can do in that situation is to have the caller
> respond to some instructions from the phone on how to
> actually make the phone ring by say punching in a code
> which the phone will then ring the phone for you to answer.
> That would at least get around the automatic diallers that
> almost all spam callers use, but wouldn't help with the
> crudest of the spammers who dial the calls manually.
> That's a tiny subset of the total calls tho.
>
> I'd be surprised if nothing like that is available for any cellphone.
google voice can do that.
> I'm not convinced that its even possible in the ultimate
> where the spammers deliberately use fake Caller IDs that
> vary randomly so there is nothing for the phone to use to
> decide if it's a spam call or not.
>
> The best you can do in that situation is to have the caller
> respond to some instructions from the phone on how to
> actually make the phone ring by say punching in a code
> which the phone will then ring the phone for you to answer.
> That would at least get around the automatic diallers that
> almost all spam callers use, but wouldn't help with the
> crudest of the spammers who dial the calls manually.
> That's a tiny subset of the total calls tho.
>
> I'd be surprised if nothing like that is available for any cellphone.
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 4:04:44 PM5/14/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance is
illegal.
Apple does it anyway.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
>> at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
>> my country,
> I don't think you know what 'illegal' means.
>> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
>> at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
>> my country,
Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance is
illegal.
Apple does it anyway.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 8:13:53 PM5/14/13
to
"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-4545D9...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <avfjns...@mid.individual.net>,
It isnt the police that prosecute offenders under that particular law here.
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 8:18:58 PM5/14/13
to
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnkp5h99....@mbp55.local...
> In message <avfjns...@mid.individual.net> Rod Speed
It isnt an assumption, it�s the law. Even you
can read the legislation that makes it illegal.
> or your country's law enforcement is shit.
Or its not an easy thing to prove in a court of law.
> I'm not familiar with the phrase "retail price maintenance"
> so I don't know what you might be talking about.
It basically means that the manufacturer tells the retailer
what the item must be sold for in the retail market.
> Google shows results for "resale price maintenance"
> but that doesn't seem relevant.
It is. Its the retail sale, that resale, that the price is maintained on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance
AV3
May 14, 2013, 8:51:07 PM5/14/13
to
On May/14/2013 7:0956 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<avfjns...@mid.individual.net> Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In message<avfjns...@mid.individual.net> Rod Speed
> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> law enforcement is shit.
>
> I'm not familiar with the phrase "retail price maintenance" so I don't
> know what you might be talking about. Google shows results for "resale
> price maintenance" but that doesn't seem relevant.
>
I believe the American term is "price fixing" in the sense that someone
>
down the manufacturing-merchandising line tries to dictate to the
retailer his selling price and/or pricing for competing items. Where
price fixing is illegal Apple could investigate the pricing policy of a
retailer and refuse to offer its products to retailers whose policies
Apple didn't like, but it couldn't contractually bind a retailer to a
pricing policy dictated by Apple. In other words, the retailer would
have the final decision as to his selling price.
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 10:00:06 PM5/14/13
to
news:michelle-3F3EB2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <avg2b1...@mid.individual.net>,
> prosecute offenders under that particular law.
No point, they already know it happens.
We have in fact just had a federal parliamentary enquiry into that.
> Complaining about it here doesn't do anything.
I didn't complain about it here.
I JUST said that I think it stinks and that I choose
to buy some of their products anyway, essentially
because they are done better than the alternatives.
> In article <avg2b1...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>> news:michelle-4545D9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <avfjns...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>> > <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say at
>> >> >> all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>> >> >> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in my
>> >> >> country,
>> >>
>> >> > I don't think you know what 'illegal' means.
>> >>
>> >> Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance
>> >> is illegal.
>> >>
>> >> Apple does it anyway.
>> >
>> > Well, then; you should report Apple to the police for breaking the
>> > law.
>>
>> It isnt the police that prosecute offenders under that particular law
>> here.
> Well then, report Apple who whoever does
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>> news:michelle-4545D9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > In article <avfjns...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>> > <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say at
>> >> >> all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>> >> >> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in my
>> >> >> country,
>> >>
>> >> > I don't think you know what 'illegal' means.
>> >>
>> >> Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance
>> >> is illegal.
>> >>
>> >> Apple does it anyway.
>> >
>> > Well, then; you should report Apple to the police for breaking the
>> > law.
>>
>> It isnt the police that prosecute offenders under that particular law
>> here.
> prosecute offenders under that particular law.
No point, they already know it happens.
We have in fact just had a federal parliamentary enquiry into that.
> Complaining about it here doesn't do anything.
I didn't complain about it here.
I JUST said that I think it stinks and that I choose
to buy some of their products anyway, essentially
because they are done better than the alternatives.
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 14, 2013, 11:25:27 PM5/14/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
>>>>>> at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>>>>>> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
>>>>>> my country,
>>>>> I don't think you know what 'illegal' means.
>>>> Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance is
>>>> illegal.
>>>> Apple does it anyway.
>>> Then either it's not illegal in the way you assume,
>> It isnt an assumption, it’s the law. Even you
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I hate some aspects of it, particularly that Apple gets any say
>>>>>> at all on what I can easily run on it, and the fact that they are
>>>>>> doing the most flagrantly illegal retail price maintenance in
>>>>>> my country,
>>>>> I don't think you know what 'illegal' means.
>>>> Corse I do. The law in my country says that retail price maintenance is
>>>> illegal.
>>>> Apple does it anyway.
>>> Then either it's not illegal in the way you assume,
>> can read the legislation that makes it illegal.
> No I can't,
Corse you can.
> since I have no idea what country you are talking about
You could ask.
> or what law it may be.
Trivial to search on that.
> You using the wrong terminology doesn't help.
It isnt the wrong terminology, it’s the terminology used in this country.
> Your interpretation of the law
It isnt my interpretation, it’s the law.
> and of what Apple does is likely not the full story.
You're just plain wrong, again.
>>> I'm not familiar with the phrase "retail price maintenance"
>>> so I don't know what you might be talking about.
>> It basically means that the manufacturer tells the retailer
>> what the item must be sold for in the retail market.
>>> Google shows results for "resale price maintenance"
>>> but that doesn't seem relevant.
>> It is. Its the retail sale, that resale, that the price is maintained on.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance
Irrelevant to what its called in the legislation here that makes that
illegal here.
> and Apple doesn't do that, at least not as defined by law.
They do here under our law.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 6:50:44 AM5/15/13
to
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> No I can't,
>> Corse you can.
>> > since I have no idea what country you are talking about
>> You could ask.
>>> or what law it may be.
>> Trivial to search on that.
> OK, that settles it; you are a troll.
You wouldn’t know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> If you weren't a troll, you would have said what country you're talking
> about and would have either quoted the law or provided a link to it.
Even sillier.
You can't even manage to work out that I wasn’t complaining
about anything, I JUST mentioned that Apple flouts our law
on retail price maintenance in passing, and had you two make
VERY spectacular fools of yourself flaunting your complete
pig ignorance of the law here on that.
No one actually gives a flying red fuck what you believe
is is the law here, so there isnt any point in rubbing your
stupid pig ignorant noses in the law here.
Now you two get to do the usual puerile shit, proclaim
that you are putting me in your kill files in the usual
childish stunt of putting your fingers in your ears,
closing your eyes and chanting "nyah, nyah, can't
hear ya" just like any 3 year old, when you have
got done like a fucking dinner, yet again.
Great, there is only so much of your juvenile
shit anyone should have to put up with.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> No I can't,
>> Corse you can.
>> > since I have no idea what country you are talking about
>> You could ask.
>>> or what law it may be.
>> Trivial to search on that.
You wouldn’t know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> If you weren't a troll, you would have said what country you're talking
> about and would have either quoted the law or provided a link to it.
Even sillier.
You can't even manage to work out that I wasn’t complaining
about anything, I JUST mentioned that Apple flouts our law
on retail price maintenance in passing, and had you two make
VERY spectacular fools of yourself flaunting your complete
pig ignorance of the law here on that.
No one actually gives a flying red fuck what you believe
is is the law here, so there isnt any point in rubbing your
stupid pig ignorant noses in the law here.
Now you two get to do the usual puerile shit, proclaim
that you are putting me in your kill files in the usual
childish stunt of putting your fingers in your ears,
closing your eyes and chanting "nyah, nyah, can't
hear ya" just like any 3 year old, when you have
got done like a fucking dinner, yet again.
Great, there is only so much of your juvenile
shit anyone should have to put up with.
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 6:52:18 AM5/15/13
to
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Well then, report Apple who whoever does
>>> prosecute offenders under that particular law.
>> No point, they already know it happens.
>> We have in fact just had a federal parliamentary enquiry into that.
> What were the results of the enquiry?
Just the usual political waffle.
>>> Complaining about it here doesn't do anything.
>> I didn't complain about it here.
> Yes you did, and are still doing it.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Well then, report Apple who whoever does
>>> prosecute offenders under that particular law.
>> No point, they already know it happens.
>> We have in fact just had a federal parliamentary enquiry into that.
Just the usual political waffle.
>>> Complaining about it here doesn't do anything.
>> I didn't complain about it here.
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth.
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 2:21:27 PM5/15/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
You're always welcome to assume anything you like.
Corse you will look even sillier than you already do
when you nose is rubbed in the actual legislation.
Bet you won't actually have the balls to admit that
you fucked up completely tho.
> You've repeated accusations numerous times
Only because fools like you proclaimed that
what Apple does here is not illegal, without even
knowing which country was being discussed.
> and have done so without a
> shred of supporting evidence,
Because the evidence is so completely trivial to find.
ALL you have to do is look at the catalog prices
that the Apple products being discussed are being
sold for are EXACTLY the same, to the dollar in
the country being discussed.
> therefore, you are a liar.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you have never had a fucking clue about the basics.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> No I can't,
>>>> Corse you can.
>>>> > since I have no idea what country you are talking about
>>>> You could ask.
>>>>> or what law it may be.
>>>> Trivial to search on that.
>>> OK, that settles it; you are a troll.
>> You wouldn’t know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.
>>> If you weren't a troll, you would have said what country you're talking
>>> about and would have either quoted the law or provided a link to it.
>> Even sillier.
>> You can't even manage to work out that I wasn’t complaining
>> about anything, I JUST mentioned that Apple flouts our law
>> on retail price maintenance in passing, and had you two make
>> VERY spectacular fools of yourself flaunting your complete
>> pig ignorance of the law here on that.
> At this point, I have to assume that you are lying.
>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> No I can't,
>>>> Corse you can.
>>>> > since I have no idea what country you are talking about
>>>> You could ask.
>>>>> or what law it may be.
>>>> Trivial to search on that.
>>> OK, that settles it; you are a troll.
>> You wouldn’t know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.
>>> If you weren't a troll, you would have said what country you're talking
>>> about and would have either quoted the law or provided a link to it.
>> Even sillier.
>> You can't even manage to work out that I wasn’t complaining
>> about anything, I JUST mentioned that Apple flouts our law
>> on retail price maintenance in passing, and had you two make
>> VERY spectacular fools of yourself flaunting your complete
>> pig ignorance of the law here on that.
You're always welcome to assume anything you like.
Corse you will look even sillier than you already do
when you nose is rubbed in the actual legislation.
Bet you won't actually have the balls to admit that
you fucked up completely tho.
> You've repeated accusations numerous times
Only because fools like you proclaimed that
what Apple does here is not illegal, without even
knowing which country was being discussed.
> and have done so without a
> shred of supporting evidence,
Because the evidence is so completely trivial to find.
ALL you have to do is look at the catalog prices
that the Apple products being discussed are being
sold for are EXACTLY the same, to the dollar in
the country being discussed.
> therefore, you are a liar.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you have never had a fucking clue about the basics.
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 4:02:54 PM5/15/13
to
>>> You've repeated accusations numerous times
>> Only because fools like you proclaimed that
>> what Apple does here is not illegal,
> No one has proclaimed that,
>> Only because fools like you proclaimed that
>> what Apple does here is not illegal,
Everyone can see that he did just that.
> you lying troll.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>> ALL you have to do is look at the catalog prices
>> that the Apple products being discussed are
>> being sold for are EXACTLY the same, to the
>> dollar in the country being discussed.
> so there is no country being discussed,
Presumably you actually are that that stupid.
> moron.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
> Oh, contrary to your paranoid delusions, I'm not going to killfile you;
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that
stupid.
> showing you up for the dirtbag you are is too much fun.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 5:28:28 PM5/15/13
to
Yes you will.
> You've refused to disclose the legislation
Another bare faced lie. I just haven't bothered
to post a link to it, a different matter entirely.
> or what country you live in,
Another bare faced lie. I haven't been asked
what country it is, so I can't have refused to
'disclose' that. I have in fact said very explicitly
indeed that you are welcome to ask if you care.
> so it is impossible for me to verify anything you've said.
Another bare faced lie. Its perfectly possible for even
someone as stupid as you to work what country I am in.
> Without supporting evidence, you are simply lying.
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
>> Only because fools like you proclaimed that
>> what Apple does here is not illegal, without even
>> knowing which country was being discussed.
You in fact said that what Apple does HERE is not illegal
without even knowing which country I was talking about.
> I don't know where you are, so I've never
> said anything about what Apple does there.
Everyone can see for themselves that you stupidly did just that.
> However, according to you, your own government
> does not seem to consider it illegal,
Everyone can see for themselves that I have never
ever said anything even remotely resembling
anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.
> so it matters not at all what your opinion is.
Yours in spades.
>>> and have done so without a
>>> shred of supporting evidence,
>> Because the evidence is so completely trivial to find.
>> ALL you have to do is look at the catalog prices
>> that the Apple products being discussed are being
>> sold for are EXACTLY the same, to the dollar in
>> the country being discussed.
Corse there is, even if it hasn’t been named, fuckwit.
Savageduck
May 15, 2013, 8:12:34 PM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-15 14:28:28 -0700, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> said:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
<<< Le Snip >>>
>> or what country you live in,
>
> Another bare faced lie. I haven't been asked
> what country it is, so I can't have refused to
> 'disclose' that. I have in fact said very explicitly
> indeed that you are welcome to ask if you care.
>
>> so it is impossible for me to verify anything you've said.
>
> Another bare faced lie. Its perfectly possible for even
> someone as stupid as you to work what country I am in.
You live in Papua New Guinea??
--
Regards,
Savageduck
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote
<<< Le Snip >>>
>> or what country you live in,
>
> Another bare faced lie. I haven't been asked
> what country it is, so I can't have refused to
> 'disclose' that. I have in fact said very explicitly
> indeed that you are welcome to ask if you care.
>
>> so it is impossible for me to verify anything you've said.
>
> Another bare faced lie. Its perfectly possible for even
> someone as stupid as you to work what country I am in.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 9:55:37 PM5/15/13
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2013051517123480278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Message has been deleted
Rod Speed
May 15, 2013, 10:54:48 PM5/15/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> or what country you live in,
>>> Another bare faced lie. I haven't been asked
>>> what country it is, so I can't have refused to
>>> 'disclose' that. I have in fact said very explicitly
>>> indeed that you are welcome to ask if you care.
>>>> so it is impossible for me to verify anything you've said.
>>> Another bare faced lie. Its perfectly possible for even
>>> someone as stupid as you to work out what country I am in.
>> You live in Papua New Guinea??
> I'm thinking
Obvious lie.
>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> or what country you live in,
>>> Another bare faced lie. I haven't been asked
>>> what country it is, so I can't have refused to
>>> 'disclose' that. I have in fact said very explicitly
>>> indeed that you are welcome to ask if you care.
>>>> so it is impossible for me to verify anything you've said.
>>> Another bare faced lie. Its perfectly possible for even
>> You live in Papua New Guinea??
Obvious lie.
0 new messages