UKVoIPTalk.com

<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:qeud539ovrrshbbfrhle1iajhk5vjms1ki@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:03 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > Ah, foul language. Now you've shown your true colours.[/color]
>
> You are enough to make the pope use foul language go away
> and hound the spammers .[/color]

Ah, so you *want* me to hound spammers..? What are you complaining about,
then..?!

Ivor

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue]
>Ah, sweeping generalisations.
>[/color]
No it has been my experance that all you bikers and radio hams are
tarred with the same brush .

<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2hud539copp0dq3q4umq8mf6vhmkm2j523@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > Ah, sweeping generalisations.
> >[/color]
> No it has been my experance that all you bikers and radio
> hams are tarred with the same brush .[/color]

Like I said, sweeping generalisations. Have you met *all* the bikers and
radio amateurs in the world..? Have you even met a fraction of them..? No.
I'd stop digging now if I were you.

Ivor

<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:l9jd5356klepipfqas9voelnkso3conood@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:21:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>><clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:gs6c53lpmrltk4nb6ilunvlli02o8q22u1@4ax.com[color=darkred]
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:03:35 +0100, alexd
>>> <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>> > > news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>> >
>>> > > > What makes this spam?
>>> > >
>>> > > It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.
>>> >
>>> > In your opinion. If you don't like the thread, just
>>> > ignore it.
>>> He couldn't how else could he get himself noticed don't
>>> forget he OWN'S this forum or thinks he does .[/color]
>>
>>Newsgroup.[/color]
> FORUM[/color]

Exactly how ****ing old are you Ron?

Ivor is wrong on this one, but his intentions are far better than yours.

--
<<< Unlock Your Phone's Potential >>>
<<< [url]www.uselessinfo.org.uk[/url] >>>
<<< [url]www.thephonelocker.co.uk[/url] >>>
<<< [url]www.gsm-solutions.co.uk[/url] >>>

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:50:50 GMT, "Richard Colton"
<webmaster@NILSPAMuselessinfo.org.uk> wrote:

[color=blue]
>Exactly how ****ing old are you Ron?[/color]
Oh dear more foul language now you know Ivor does not allow this in
his fourum .

[email]clavox@btinternet.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:32:35 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> Ah, sweeping generalisations.
>>[/color]
> No it has been my experance that all you bikers and radio hams are
> tarred with the same brush .[/color]

I have partaken in both activities in yesteryear.
Would have you have spotted it? or is it more noticeable on people
currently partaking in such activities?

Brian A wrote:
[color=blue]
> O.K., I was hoping I wouildn't be the first here ...
> 1. Obvious stuff like reliability and good quality audio.
> 2. Good prices including a flat rate to landlines like voip.co.uk and
> vyke.co.uk. Decent mobile rates.
> 3. Good voicemail facility.
> 4. MUST work with Voxalot.
> 5. Usual inclusive 'network services' (i.e. 1471 etc.) additions.
> 6. Inclusive geo incoming number.[/color]

7. A reliable and rapid fail-over to PSTN number as and when the service
should go down.

Loss of internet and e-mail for a few hours is no big thing really, but
loss of VOIP service at providers end for more than a few minutes is a
real problem and needs to be switched to PSTN for inbound calls very
quickly.

Pete
--
[url]http://www.gymratz.co.uk[/url] - Gym Equipment and fitness specialists
[url]http://www.water-rower.co.uk[/url] - WaterRowers at discount prices
[url]http://www.commercial-gym-equipment.co.uk[/url] - commercial gym equipment!

On Fri, 25 May 2007 12:22:40 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> No it's not.[/color]
>
>Unsolicited Commercial Email. It was certainly unsolicited. It may not
>have been commercial, but it looked like it to me. Email, well a newsgroup
>posting may not be email, but it's close enough.
>[color=green]
>> The OP was not spam.[/color]
>
>Yes it was.
>[color=green]
>> On the other hand, if your reply was an answer to the
>> question suggesting that "no spam" was something you
>> would like to see from the OPs service, then good - I
>> second the suggestion.[/color]
>
>It was that too.[/color]

I'm not sure whether it was spam or not but it _was_ a bloody good
troll!

Ed.

On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f356ob$1v84$3@energise.enta.net[color=green]
>> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>> > news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>> > > "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>> > > news:5bjb8hF2srgukU1@mid.individual.net...
>> > > > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>> > > > news:f305k2$fij$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>> > > > > We will launch a new VOIP service soon. We are
>> > > > > sounding out u guys n gals in this newsgroup!
>> > > > > Tell me what you would like from our service
>> > > > No spam.
>> > > >
>> > > What makes this spam?
>> >
>> > It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.[/color]
>>
>> No it's not.[/color]
>
> Unsolicited Commercial Email.[/color]

Pick ONE definition, please.
[color=blue]
> It was certainly unsolicited.[/color]

Agreed.
[color=blue]
> It may not have been commercial, but it looked like it to me.[/color]

It wasn't commercial, and isn't commercial. You jumped the gun and
didn't read the original post. An apology from you to the OP would be
nice, but I don't expect we'll see one. Nor do I expect you to admit
that you are wrong in this case.
[color=blue]
> Email, well a newsgroup posting may not be email, but it's close
> enough.[/color]

<groundless argument>
Email is not a newsgroup. Nowhere on the [url]www.usenet.org.uk[/url] does it say
the word email, therefore you may not refer to it as email EVER.
</groundless argument>

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f356ob$1v84$3@energise.enta.net[color=green]
>> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>> news:f32j6p$a5h$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>>> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:5bjb8hF2srgukU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f305k2$fij$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>>>>> We will launch a new VOIP service soon. We are
>>>>>> sounding out u guys n gals in this newsgroup!
>>>>>> Tell me what you would like from our service
>>>>> No spam.
>>>>>
>>>> What makes this spam?
>>> It's unsolicited. That's the definition of spam.[/color]
>> No it's not.[/color]
>
> Unsolicited Commercial Email. It was certainly unsolicited.[/color]

As is every root message in this newsgroup.

[color=blue]
> have been commercial, but it looked like it to me.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Email, well a newsgroup
> posting may not be email, but it's close enough.[/color]

As close as a Rabbit is to a Kangaroo.