"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8m3hv29bobach1v6lfck865i5ss82mtfce@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:39:37 -0500, "Bob Walker"
> <rowalker@dontspamme.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> <PT_Jh.9273$P47.9226@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>>>>>> Also with verizon If I wanted to forward a call to another number I
>>>>>> would just enter *72 and the number. But I was told by a friend that
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> has to be setup in the phone settings to forward a call and then do
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> again in the settings to turn it off. It sounds like a lot of hassle
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> have to go into the settings every time if this is the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many phones have a menu setting for forwarding calls. RTFM.
>>>>
>>>>I did RTFM Jerk. ...
>>>
>>> Since you have no manners, I'm not going to waste any more time on you.
>>> Good luck.
>
>>With all due respect, John, it doesn't appear that the OP asked for any
>>help.
>
> Actually he did ask for help (a question) -- did you miss the "?",
> perhaps jumping in mid-thread?

No, I read it from the beginning. His question was whether he would be
charged for the SMS, not a request for help with call forwarding.

>
>>He was just commenting on what he perceived to be Cingular's inferior
>>process for forwarding calls.
>
> In that second part of his post, a vent that had nothing to do with
> Cingular, it was clear that he hadn't RTFM; hence my suggestion. On
> some phones, it's possible to shortcut the forwarding process. And with
> just a bit more effort he would have found that standard GSM codes do
> work on Cingular.

He was comparing Verizon's functionality with Cingular's. It seems
appropriate here. It didn't sound like a rant.

>
>>YOU were the one who was ill-mannered by
>>interjecting RTFM into the conversation.
>
> There's nothing offensive about RTFM.
>

Really? It seems offensive in a civilized discussion.

> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>