UKVoIPTalk.com

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact* that this group is
>not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on about the fact that I got this group
>created, but I did and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.[/color]

<catamongstpidgeons>

This newsgroup is a forum (or platform) for anybody so inclined to
exchange information or views, in exactly the same way as a Church
Hall meeting is a forum for discussion and interchange.

It is however not a web forum which is something quite different
although it may achieve the same aims.

</catamongstpidgeons>

<J.Clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2bd0u2hko3mcsufp1b8ceeukbnnuiqfgnc@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > I'm sorry to harp on about the fact that I got this
> > group created,[/color]
> Do you EVER do anything else but inform the world of that
> fact Ivor at least once a week.[/color]

Only if I'm forced to, Ron. Oh well, looking on the bright side, at least
in this thread you haven't complained about Sipgate (yet)..!

Ivor

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45e03eea.0@entanet[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:45e01ead.0@entanet
> >
> > [snip]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Sorry Ivor, but I just cannot agree with you here. A
> > > "web forum" is a web based group. A "forum" is just a
> > > forum. You cannot even claim context, as this
> > > discussion is not occuring on the "web".[/color]
> >
> > Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact*
> > that this group is not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on
> > about the fact that I got this group created, but I did
> > and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.[/color]
>
> All newsgroups are forums.[/color]

No they are not, they are newsgroups. Most software seems to agree as
well; when I click on "reply" it says "reply to group" not "reply to
forum" for a start.
[color=blue]
> Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.[/color]

Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
usenet again..?
[color=blue]
> This is my last contribution to this sub-thread.[/color]

Thank heavens for that.

Ivor

"Herman the German" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:v1q0u21bralck5e4ici0a220veb5ivlc3h@news.individual.de[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact*
> > that this group is not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on
> > about the fact that I got this group created, but I did
> > and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.[/color]
>
> <catamongstpidgeons>
>
> This newsgroup is a forum (or platform) for anybody so
> inclined to exchange information or views, in exactly the
> same way as a Church Hall meeting is a forum for
> discussion and interchange.[/color]

A platform is one word that could be used, yes. But not forum.
[color=blue]
> It is however not a web forum which is something quite
> different although it may achieve the same aims.
>
> </catamongstpidgeons>[/color]

My cat doesn't like pigeons.

Ivor

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:01:19 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue]
>Only if I'm forced to, Ron. Oh well, looking on the bright side, at least
>in this thread you haven't complained about Sipgate (yet)..![/color]

No intention I have given up trying to save fools from themselves if
fools want to waste their bandwidth on Sipgate it is up to them I much
prefer a more reliable and stable service like that of Voipfone and
voip.uk .
I suppose Sipgate is ok for cheap skates like yourself .

On Feb 24, 6:03 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:45e03eea.0@entanet
>
>
>
>
>[color=green]
> > Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:45e01ead.0@entanet[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > [snip][/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > Sorry Ivor, but I just cannot agree with you here. A
> > > > "web forum" is a web based group. A "forum" is just a
> > > > forum. You cannot even claim context, as this
> > > > discussion is not occuring on the "web".[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact*
> > > that this group is not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on
> > > about the fact that I got this group created, but I did
> > > and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > All newsgroups are forums.[/color]
>
> No they are not, they are newsgroups. Most software seems to agree as
> well; when I click on "reply" it says "reply to group" not "reply to
> forum" for a start.
>[color=green]
> > Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.[/color]
>
> Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
> usenet again..?[/color]

Ivor, have a word with yourself.

If there's a meeting in the Village Hall where things are discussed
amongst the attendees then it's what's known as a 'forum'. Convention
might dictate that it's actually a Village Hall but the meeting can
still be described by English-speaking people as a 'forum'. Even if I
built the Village Hall (which I did as it happens) I can accept that a
discussion held within it could be described as a forum.

You're obviously a fairly intelligent person - and in some ways
*almost* likeable - but your blinkered views on virtually *everything*
are frankly ridiculous.

I don't expect a response because you claim to have killfiled me. Your
loss I'm afraid.

--
Andy

On Feb 24, 6:24 pm, J.Cla...@btinternet.com wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:01:19 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>
> <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
> >Only if I'm forced to, Ron. Oh well, looking on the bright side, at least
> >in this thread you haven't complained about Sipgate (yet)..![/color]
>
> No intention I have given up trying to save fools from themselves if
> fools want to waste their bandwidth on Sipgate it is up to them I much
> prefer a more reliable and stable service like that of Voipfone and
> voip.uk .
> I suppose Sipgate is ok for cheap skates like yourself .[/color]

You may remember that I have previously agreed totally with your
assessment of Sipgate. I gave up on it almost 2 years ago and decided
that we would pay the extra for Vonage.

My opinion is now totally reversed. We've had nothing but problems
with Vonage for that last 2 months, while our Sipgate service has been
rock-solid at NO COST. Better call quality, lower costs (using mostly
Voipcheap for outgoing calls) and no outages - unlike Vonage.

I've come to believe that most of our previous problems with Sipgate
were due to slightly odd network set-ups and the rest was just
teething problems with their cut-price service. We've eliminated the
problems at our end and it seems they have as well.

Just my opinion, but then your opinion is just that.

--
Regards

Andy

On 2007-02-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact* that this group is
> not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on about the fact that I got this group
> created, but I did and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.[/color]

And rewarded yourself with a good rest from your labours on the seventh
day, one hopes.

Brian.

Andy Lord formulated on Saturday :[color=blue]
> On Feb 24, 6:03 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45e03eea.0@entanet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:45e01ead.0@entanet[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> [snip][/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>> Sorry Ivor, but I just cannot agree with you here. A
>>>>> "web forum" is a web based group. A "forum" is just a
>>>>> forum. You cannot even claim context, as this
>>>>> discussion is not occuring on the "web".
>>>> Agree or not, as you choose. Doesn't change the *fact*
>>>> that this group is not a forum. I'm sorry to harp on
>>>> about the fact that I got this group created, but I did
>>>> and I didn't create a forum, I created a newsgroup.
>>> All newsgroups are forums.[/color]
>>
>> No they are not, they are newsgroups. Most software seems to agree as
>> well; when I click on "reply" it says "reply to group" not "reply to
>> forum" for a start.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.[/color]
>>
>> Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
>> usenet again..?[/color]
>
> Ivor, have a word with yourself.
>
> If there's a meeting in the Village Hall where things are discussed
> amongst the attendees then it's what's known as a 'forum'. Convention
> might dictate that it's actually a Village Hall but the meeting can
> still be described by English-speaking people as a 'forum'. Even if I
> built the Village Hall (which I did as it happens) I can accept that a
> discussion held within it could be described as a forum.
>
> You're obviously a fairly intelligent person - and in some ways
> *almost* likeable - but your blinkered views on virtually *everything*
> are frankly ridiculous.
>
> I don't expect a response because you claim to have killfiled me. Your
> loss I'm afraid.[/color]

On 24 Feb 2007 11:40:36 -0800, "Andy Lord" <andy.lord.uk@gmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>My opinion is now totally reversed. We've had nothing but problems
>with Vonage for that last 2 months, while our Sipgate service has been
>rock-solid at NO COST. Better call quality, lower costs (using mostly
>Voipcheap for outgoing calls) and no outages - unlike Vonage.[/color]

I have noticed one or two people complaining about problems with
Vonage over the past few weeks and has you mentioned
" for that last 2 months" I had no problems at all with Vonage
and never saw mention of anyone else having Problems either
I dispensed with Vonage just OVER two months ago for a different
reason so something has happened in the last two months .
[color=blue]
>I've come to believe that most of our previous problems with Sipgate
>were due to slightly odd network set-ups and the rest was just
>teething problems with their cut-price service. We've eliminated the
>problems at our end and it seems they have as well.
>
>Just my opinion, but then your opinion is just that.[/color]

I am agreeing with what you are saying Andy but I just will not take
another chance with Sipgate besides which voip.co.uk offer a much
better deal with free calls evenings and weekends support contact
by 01 telephone number which is a free call anyway on the voip uk
line.
Presumably Sipgate still only offer support by email, how antiquated
and penny pinching like .