GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
Page 3 - GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!. Discuss GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!, on Wireless Forums.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45e01ead.0@entanet
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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. Use a dictionary, not your own personal
definitions.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>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.
<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.
<J.Clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2bd0u2hko3mcsufp1b8ceeukbnnuiqfgnc@4ax.com
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sorry to harp on about the fact that I got this
> > group created,
> Do you EVER do anything else but inform the world of that
> fact Ivor at least once a week.
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)..!
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45e03eea.0@entanet
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:45e01ead.0@entanet
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 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.
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.
> Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.
Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
usenet again..?
> This is my last contribution to this sub-thread.
"Herman the German" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:v1q0u21bralck5e4ici0a220veb5ivlc3h@news.indiv idual.de
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> <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.
A platform is one word that could be used, yes. But not forum.
> It is however not a web forum which is something quite
> different although it may achieve the same aims.
>
> </catamongstpidgeons>
On Feb 24, 6:03 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:45e03eea.0@entanet
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:45e01ead.0@entanet
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.
>
> Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
> usenet again..?
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.
On Feb 24, 6:24 pm, J.Cla...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:01:19 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>
> <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> >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)..!
>
> 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 .
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.
On 2007-02-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
And rewarded yourself with a good rest from your labours on the seventh
day, one hopes.
Andy Lord formulated on Saturday :
> On Feb 24, 6:03 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45e03eea.0@entanet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:45e01ead.0@entanet
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.
>>
>> Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
>> usenet again..?
>
> 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 Lord" <andy.lord.uk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172345476.914428.162240@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com
[snip]
> 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.
True, but we're not in a village hall. This is usenet, where a meeting
place like this is referred to by general consensus over many years
standing as a newsgroup, not 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.
If you say so. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
> I don't expect a response because you claim to have
> killfiled me. Your loss I'm afraid.
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:erq68d$j76$2$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk
> On 2007-02-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And rewarded yourself with a good rest from your labours
> on the seventh day, one hopes.
It took a lot longer than that, I can tell you :-)
On Feb 24, 9:59 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Andy Lord" <andy.lord...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172345476.914428.162240@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com
>
> [snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> True, but we're not in a village hall. This is usenet, where a meeting
> place like this is referred to by general consensus over many years
> standing as a newsgroup, not a forum.
But the 'forum' is the interaction between people, not the fabric of
the building, not usenet, nor any website.
Forgive me, I'm good at understanding abstract concepts but not at
describing them. Please bear with me.
You can presumably understand that a live phone-in (geographical
numbers only!) debate on television (let's use Question Time as an
example) may be accurately described as a 'forum'?
Does the fact that it's a forum for debate stop it being a television
programme?
Does the fact that it's a television programme stop it being a forum
for debate?
The word 'forum' describes the interaction of people within a venue,
rather than describing the physical characteristics of the venue
itself.
"Andy Lord" <andy.lord.uk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172356155.413254.253700@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com
> On Feb 24, 9:59 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid>
> wrote:
> > "Andy Lord" <andy.lord...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1172345476.914428.162240@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > True, but we're not in a village hall. This is usenet,
> > where a meeting place like this is referred to by
> > general consensus over many years standing as a
> > newsgroup, not a forum.
>
> But the 'forum' is the interaction between people, not
> the fabric of the building, not usenet, nor any website.
By your description, perhaps. But by usenet definition and convention, a
discussion or topic taking place in a newsgroup is not called forum.
<J.Clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8ue1u2d3gs7a12r3ogr60ju9d5ndi78jq4@4ax.com
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:59:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > True, but we're not in a village hall. This is usenet,
> > where a meeting place like this is referred to by
> > general consensus over many years standing as a
> > newsgroup, not a forum.
>
> And like the people who enter a village hall make up a
> forum so people whe enter newsgroups make a forum also .
On Feb 24, 10:39 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> <J.Cla...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8ue1u2d3gs7a12r3ogr60ju9d5ndi78jq4@4ax.com
>
> > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:59:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> > <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > True, but we're not in a village hall. This is usenet,
> > > where a meeting place like this is referred to by
> > > general consensus over many years standing as a
> > > newsgroup, not a forum.
>
> > And like the people who enter a village hall make up a
> > forum so people whe enter newsgroups make a forum also .
>
> Not by usenet tradition.
>
As you assert. I believe the 'Jargon File' is more authoritative than
either of us though:
n. [Usenet, GEnie, CI$; pl. `fora' or `forums'] Any discussion group
accessible through a dial-in BBS, a mailing list, or a newsgroup (see
the network). A forum functions much like a bulletin board; users
submit postings for all to read and discussion ensues. Contrast real-
time chat via talk mode or point-to-point personal email.
--
Andy
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:45e03eea.0@entanet
>> Use a dictionary, not your own personal definitions.
>
> Not my personal definition, usenet convention. How long have you been on
> usenet again..?
I wasn't going to reply, but as you are asking me a direct question...
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
On Feb 22, 1:57 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say that there is a choice of 2 Million numbers. Does that mean
> that if I request a number a little further up the list of numbers for
> a particular area code youy will be able to release it?
JCH,
I hope you are happy with the number we released for you as per your
request.
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
On Feb 26, 7:51 am, "fa103" <f.alam...@connexin.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 1:57 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say that there is a choice of 2 Million numbers. Does that mean
> > that if I request a number a little further up the list of numbers for
> > a particular area code youy will be able to release it?
>
> JCH,
>
> I hope you are happy with the number we released for you as per your
> request.
>
> F
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
On Feb 28, 9:48 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:51 am, "fa103" <f.alam...@connexin.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 1:57 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You say that there is a choice of 2 Million numbers. Does that mean
> > > that if I request a number a little further up the list of numbers for
> > > a particular area code youy will be able to release it?
>
> > JCH,
>
> > I hope you are happy with the number we released for you as per your
> > request.
>
> > F
>
> Yes it's great. Thank's for the prompt service.
>
> John.
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
"fa103" <f.alamgir@connexin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172809567.097978.40310@30g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Feb 28, 9:48 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 7:51 am, "fa103" <f.alam...@connexin.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 22, 1:57 pm, "JCH" <hughes....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You say that there is a choice of 2 Million numbers. Does that
>> > > mean
>> > > that if I request a number a little further up the list of
>> > > numbers for
>> > > a particular area code youy will be able to release it?
>>
>> > JCH,
>>
>> > I hope you are happy with the number we released for you as per
>> > your
>> > request.
>>
>> > F
>>
>> Yes it's great. Thank's for the prompt service.
>>
>> John.
>
> Glad you are happy with it.
>
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
On Mar 2, 4:51 pm, Herman the German <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:03:48 GMT, "Harry Stottle"
>
> <sorryspamdoesntw...@nospam.uk.co> wrote:
> >And I suppose the next message is going to be:-
>
> >Thanks for saying "Glad you are happy with it"
>
> >You are fooling nobody except yourself.
>
> Indeed. All he has done is alienate a number of potential customers.
>
> His loss, I guess.
Hi Alienate a group of customers? How have i managed that.. honestly
with all sincerity i would love you all to be part of the connexin
team. I would really value any feedback you cna give me. The aim of
this group was to be a Q&A for people enquiring about VoIP and to
improve connexin which is a young growing company.
Re: GROUND BREAKING NEW VOIP SERVICE---choose from over 2 million UK numbers!
On Mar 9, 9:59 pm, MathMan <math...@scientist.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2007 11:52:48 -0800, "fa103" <f.alam...@connexin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I look forward to your replies.
>
> Perhaps you missed this post from two weeks ago
>
> On 22 Feb 2007 05:10:33 -0800, "fa103" <f.alam...@connexin.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Why are connexin hiding their trading address from their customers?
> >Our company Address is written
> >very clearly on the governments companies house website.
>
> Company No. 05823408, 6 Silver Street, Hull
>
> Dutton Moore. Your accountants
> (http://www.griffincharteredaccountan...uk/contact.asp)
>
> > As well as onwww.connexin.co.uk
>
> Connexin Limited, Suite 23, 28 Old Brompton Road, Kensington
>
> Anonymous rented mailbox
> (http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/directory/1257/5052.php)
>
> So I ask again, why are connexin hiding their *trading* address from
> their customers?
The Connexin trading address is 6 silver street hull, however you can
have a different address as a business address which is suite 23, 28
Old Brompton road, London. We use it to route our packages. We are a
telecoms provider hence dont really need a default premesis to work
from, Most of our work is done from remote locations we are never
really in one city at one time, as we are also a telecoms consultancy.
Re: [ot] forum 
Linear Mode
