Michael Wise <no@spam.invalid> wrote in
news:no-4FF5C1.16361914102007@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:

> In article <lMudnS4ZNu2VO4_anZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>> > Internally? It would be internal if it was just VZW using the
>> > information, however "affiliates, agents, and parent companies
>> > (including Vodaphone) and their subsidiaries" goes way beyond
>> > internally.
>>
>> Let's see- the parent companies already own the information. Their
>> affiliates and agents already have access to most of the information,
>> as they are the ones selling and servicing accounts. Looks pretty
>> internal to me.
>>
>> >
>> > What do you suppose constitutes "affiliates and agents"?
>>
>> Entities that sell Verizon Wireless service- that's the legal
>> definition. What else would it be, Einstein?
>
>
> What legal dictionary did you get that from?
>
> Affiliate is a rather open-ended word...and can mean anybody they
> choose to do business with for whatever purpose.
>
> Ever been spammed by an "affiliate" who got your address from a
> company you did business with? What makes you think VZW views
> "affiliates" any differently than every other company out there.
>
>
>
>> >> So, your claim of Verizon "selling" the information is
>> >> incorrect. And your understanding of the contents of the letter
>> >> is poor, at best.
>> >
>> > Pot, kettle,...you know the rest.
>>
>> You're an idiot?
>
>
> Don't you have homework to do or zits to pop?


Not since I got my Masters.

>
>
> Play nice now.
>
>