"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38qrn$2ema$3@energise.enta.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
> > > On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
> > > > doesn't provide a website where you can check out
> > > > their products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.
> > > But they are not advertising anything nor are they
> > > inviting people to contact them directly. They
> > > (whoever they are) are asking a simple question on
> > > uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to
> > > illicit discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.
> >
> > Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they
> > are" says it all to me. If they were a reputable
> > organisation they wouldn't hide.
>
> So because they have not give you proof of identity in
> some form, they must be spammers? Even though it is
> completely irrelevant for their post?
It isn't irrelevant. The post was spam. The lack of a valid address merely
compounds it.
"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
news:f38n61$t3d$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> Because the website, which might change, is not up yet !
> At the moment, we have a couple of servers up and we are
> testing and configuring stuff. Hopefully, you will
> appreciate our effort to get things right on day 1.
Ah. Not only top posting, but a meaningless reply. If you'd waited until
you had a website up before posting at all, plus if you'd posted with a
valid/sensible name (what on earth do you think "Infant Newbie" sounds
like to a potential customer..?) then you *might* just have interested me.
I don't propose to continue this, I'm obviously banging my head against a
wall, it's starting to hurt.
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38tcc$2jvq$1@energise.enta.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > The post was spam.
>
> I think you are the only person who has responded who
> actually thinks that. It doesn't even meet your second
> definition of spam.
"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f38q2l$t0u$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>I have to reply to myself because the thread is so long. I dont want to
>>start a "spam war". Ivor, I live in London and I dont spam. My email
>>address is invalid, just like yours. I do have a rarely used yahoo address
>>which you can contact me directly on - if you wish. its meshcode at
>>xxxxxhoo.co.uk. I have read the whole thread and I will condense the wish
>>list and reply to all.
>>
>> HOWEVER, one thing worries me and maybe you guys can tell me how to
>> manage it....SUPPORT !!
>> How can I provide proper live person on the phone (note I said person,
>> not cretin) with some knowledge and keep the service reasonably priced. I
>> know what people think about non-UK call centres so lets not even go
>> there!
>>
>> Most of the things required are usually sourced from BT Wholesale and I
>> will surely try to provide a good service.
>>
>> Second thing - how does the provider improve the sound quality when so
>> much of it depends on the connection from the end user?
>
> Bart,
>
> You have hit probably the biggest issue on the head, customers are hard
> people they want good service
> and they don't want to pay for it. customers want free geographic calls,
> all functions, and cheap costs and a live support
> person who will answer the calls in 3 rings and they want the moon on a
> stick.
>
> Working in support in another industry I see supporting VOIP a nightmare,
> You not only have to support your systems but also
> other peoples internet connection/router/softphones/hardphones/ata all for
> a customer who may only add 10 credit a quarter. In other
> industries you would maybe charge customers 80/hour for decent tech
> support.
>
> I think having live telephone support is nice it is really an impossible
> dream, unless a user whants to pay for it either via services charges for
> the
> VOIP services or having premium chargable support ( in addition to
> standard support - no likes only form of support to be premium rate
> number)
>
> or you can go down the Betamax route, they have several VOIP services
> which offer no support, but prices are so cheap and people get such a good
> deal
> that you kind of let the issues go when you have them as the savings are
> huge.
>
> Sound quality can vary a lot from different services providers.
> The voice provider needs to have the bandwidth to cope with all incoming
> and outgoing channels
> should have different internet backbones
> plus there is the routing of calls, some cheaper companies use grey routes
> to channel calls abroad and quality can be iffy
>
>
That wont work - I would not expect people to sign up for a service +
support and pay more than people who sign up for service only. I think some
form of paid support will be handy. What about a rapid 24 hour email
support - like within 5 minutes and a VERY EXPENSIVE phone line?
Concerning the voice quality, I can only see a Suck it n See approach. How
can I get competitively priced routes and make sure I have good quality?
There are loads of companies/guys out there providing A/Z routes but there
is no measure of quality. I will investigate that matter.
We already have servers in a UK call centre and hops are low. We will soon
know if we have to move to the docklands --- hmmmm(more
expensive)......(((thinking, thinking, thinking))
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5bqbn9F2ue6nhU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> news:f38n61$t3d$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>> Because the website, which might change, is not up yet !
>> At the moment, we have a couple of servers up and we are
>> testing and configuring stuff. Hopefully, you will
>> appreciate our effort to get things right on day 1.
>
> Ah. Not only top posting, but a meaningless reply. If you'd waited until
> you had a website up before posting at all, plus if you'd posted with a
> valid/sensible name (what on earth do you think "Infant Newbie" sounds
> like to a potential customer..?) then you *might* just have interested me.
>
> I don't propose to continue this, I'm obviously banging my head against a
> wall, it's starting to hurt.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Sorry about top posting earlier. Its this OE. Lets make peace....at least I
am not offering Viagra !
I will soon have to stop work and watch Monte-Carlo. I wonder which will
come first, will he crash or will he win?
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38tcc$2jvq$1@energise.enta.net...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> The post was spam.
>
> I think you are the only person who has responded who actually thinks
> that. It doesn't even meet your second definition of spam.
I think there is no doubt that it was not spam, and Ivor has kind of backed
himself into a corner, I have lost
all respect for him after his posts on this thread. If he had any balls or
sense of worth he would put his hands up
and admit maybe he made a mistake, I suspect he lives so much for his anti
spam role in life that he did not engage brain
before replying to the OP and just sent the SPAM reply on auto pilot.
Making a mistake is not wrong, and admitting to it shows some guts where as
trying to defend the plain right daft is silly
> That wont work - I would not expect people to sign up for a service +
> support and pay more than people who sign up for service only. I think
> some form of paid support will be handy. What about a rapid 24 hour email
> support - like within 5 minutes and a VERY EXPENSIVE phone line?
>
> Concerning the voice quality, I can only see a Suck it n See approach. How
> can I get competitively priced routes and make sure I have good quality?
> There are loads of companies/guys out there providing A/Z routes but there
> is no measure of quality. I will investigate that matter.
>
> We already have servers in a UK call centre and hops are low. We will soon
> know if we have to move to the docklands --- hmmmm(more
> expensive)......(((thinking, thinking, thinking))
I think telephone support really is OTT for average VOIP customer mail
support usually works just as well, if customers want and need immediate
telephone
support then premium rate may be a way to go, I know if I was desperate to
get my unsupported ATA to work and could not wait for email comms to come
back
I would pay.
reference call quality, not sure, but I know of at least one VOIP provider
who offers customers different grade calls to some countries, so with a
different phone prefix you can use premium quality line. Which is great for
business use, where a crappy phone call could cost far more than the
2p/minute call charge to country X.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think anyone going into the
VOIP industry must have balls of steel, many have come and gone. the profit
is only there to made with huge numbers of subscribers, if Vonage has not
been able to make a profit it must save something
"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f39e42$45i$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f38tcc$2jvq$1@energise.enta.net...
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > The post was spam.
> >
> > I think you are the only person who has responded who
> > actually thinks that. It doesn't even meet your second
> > definition of spam.
>
> I think there is no doubt that it was not spam, and Ivor
> has kind of backed himself into a corner, I have lost
> all respect for him after his posts on this thread.
It's just as well I don't care whether you respect me or not then, isn't
it.
Feel free to killfile me. It's amazing that people don't do that, but then
if you did you wouldn't see my posts to complain about them, would you..?!
> If he
> had any balls or sense of worth he would put his hands up
> and admit maybe he made a mistake, I suspect he lives so
> much for his anti spam role in life that he did not
> engage brain before replying to the OP and just sent the SPAM reply on
> auto pilot.
> Making a mistake is not wrong, and admitting to it shows
> some guts where as trying to defend the plain right daft
> is silly
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vd6g5355sl06utoo7618j7re2piieqcm18@4ax.com
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 10:07:51 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > (what on earth do you think "Infant Newbie" sounds
> > like to a potential customer..?) .
>
> Much better than sipgate .
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa6g53p3akgb6nt2opeofnpip0a78s056u@4ax.com
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 02:12:13 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> > news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Still not giving away any details of websites etc.
> >
> > Why not..?
> >
> > > Not even asking for Beta Testers.
> > > Certainly Doesnt want Ivor to be a Beta Tester.
> >
> > That's just as well, because it's the last thing I'd
> > want to be.
>
> Only because you are a complete know all that knows B all
"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f39fbo$5p0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk
[snip]
> I think telephone support really is OTT for average VOIP
> customer mail support usually works just as well, if
> customers want and need immediate telephone
> support then premium rate may be a way to go, I know if
> I was desperate to get my unsupported ATA to work and
> could not wait for email comms to come back
> I would pay.
There is one fundamental flaw with premium rate phone support. If the
problem *doesn't* get solved, the caller has wasted their money and has no
way to retrieve it. If I am unhappy with a service that I pay for by
invoice or bill, I can withhold payment until I am satisfied. With a phone
call, the money's gone and I'm no further forward than I was before.
> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think anyone
> going into the VOIP industry must have balls of steel,
> many have come and gone. the profit is only there to made
> with huge numbers of subscribers, if Vonage has not been
> able to make a profit it must save something
Sipgate are still in business, they were one of the first and are still
there, they must be doing something right.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5br343F2t31hsU1@mid.individual.net...
> "RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
> news:f39fbo$5p0$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>> I think telephone support really is OTT for average VOIP
>> customer mail support usually works just as well, if
>> customers want and need immediate telephone
>> support then premium rate may be a way to go, I know if
>> I was desperate to get my unsupported ATA to work and
>> could not wait for email comms to come back
>> I would pay.
>
> There is one fundamental flaw with premium rate phone support. If the
> problem *doesn't* get solved, the caller has wasted their money and has no
> way to retrieve it. If I am unhappy with a service that I pay for by
> invoice or bill, I can withhold payment until I am satisfied. With a phone
> call, the money's gone and I'm no further forward than I was before.
>
>> Please do not take this the wrong way, but I think anyone
>> going into the VOIP industry must have balls of steel,
>> many have come and gone. the profit is only there to made
>> with huge numbers of subscribers, if Vonage has not been
>> able to make a profit it must save something
>
> Sipgate are still in business, they were one of the first and are still
> there, they must be doing something right.
>
> Ivor
>
Ivor, I am happy to have you on board with such a good point. However, we
have a TWIST to our service and the calls from end users should all be free
(cant say more and I wont elaborate). We will however provide a traditional
service which I want to be TOP NOTCH. It might not even need to be
profitable - all it needs to do is pay its own way. So I am thinking,
quality, quality quality.
"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in
news:f39mqq$l7u$1@news.freedom2surf.net:
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5br343F2t31hsU1@mid.individual.net...
snip
>>
>> Sipgate are still in business, they were one of the first and are
>> still there, they must be doing something right.
>>
>> Ivor
>>
> Ivor, I am happy to have you on board with such a good point. However,
> we have a TWIST to our service and the calls from end users should all
> be free (cant say more and I wont elaborate). We will however provide
> a traditional service which I want to be TOP NOTCH. It might not even
> need to be profitable - all it needs to do is pay its own way. So I am
> thinking, quality, quality quality.
>
Ahh so someone has to listen to an advert before the call is connected
methinks - OK it's a business model, not one I'd go for, but it's an
approach.
What I don't want is : resellers, spam (ignoring what has been said
before), poor call quality, obscure call pricing plans, hard-to-get out
of contracts.
What I do want is : one-off payments (rather than monthly charges) for
things like geo numbers; a choice of number; settable outgoing CLID;
simple (yes *simple*) setting instructions for my ATA (and his, and his,
and hers);veiwable on-line call cost records.
What I'd like is : a second tier service that I can ignore if I want to
that includes the bells & whistles that 'professional users' might want
- that might even extend to voicemail.
What I think I'm describing is mostly Sipgate with a bit of Voip.co.uk
thrown in.
>
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oqoi53tjum60ficbgr5f5ggjp66is0osvh@4ax.com
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 02:06:06 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> > <clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:fc2e53hmcf5io7e93us566suuj6lc7bicb@4ax.com
> > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:50:50 GMT, "Richard Colton"
> > > <webmaster@NILSPAMuselessinfo.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Exactly how fucking old are you Ron?
> > > Oh dear more foul language now you know Ivor does not
> > > allow this in his fourum .
> >
> > I'm getting dangerously close to yawning here...
>
> Well I sincerely hope you get lockjaw in that case .
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2iej53t8itusebjd70dntn53o6jes73hcq@4ax.com
[snip]
> fuck me stiff whatever anyone post here you are screaming
> spam like a big kid. Grow up and get over it perhaps a
> change of nappy would help you .
Ah, foul language. Now I understand your true level. Grow up.
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqjj53l6hj4p248h4nh61ng16ibhrmomi9@4ax.com
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:33:09 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > <mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2iej53t8itusebjd70dntn53o6jes73hcq@4ax.com
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > fuck me stiff whatever anyone post here you are
> > > screaming spam like a big kid. Grow up and get over
> > > it perhaps a change of nappy would help you .
> >
> > Ah, foul language. Now I understand your true level.
> > Grow up.
>
> Ah now I understand why clavox loves to have a go at you
> every time he gets the chance if all subscribers to this
> forum took the same attitude towards you there my be a
> chance that you could just FUCK OFF .
Not a chance. And this still isn't a forum.
Grow up and stop swearing. People with intelligence don't need to swear to
make their point.
<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ljoj53hoc1qoc58f2ir89t26hn3hbs5lt8@4ax.com
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:47:38 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > Not a chance. And this still isn't a forum.
> It IS a forum and other people say it IS a forum also
They are wrong.
> > Grow up and stop swearing.
> Just who gave you the right to tell others what to do Ivor
> if I or anyone else wants to swear here or anywhere else
> they will and you will not stop them now FOAD .
Ah, so you can tell me what to do but not the other way around.
Right.
Why do you feel it necessary to swear, anyway..? An intelligent person
doesn't need to.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to advertise anyone or anything.
> Even if I was, this isn't a forum, but we've already had this discussion.
Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all things voip, etc., you
are wrong on this one. A forum is any place where things can be
discussed, not just a "bulletin board" type website. Live long and
prosper, but stick to voip not linguistics.
1.
1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city
that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
2. A public meeting place for open discussion.
3. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a
newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually
among experts and often including audience participation.
3. A court of law; a tribunal.
"Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
message news:81ac9$465b5815$9163a40a$6378@news2.tudelft.nl
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to advertise
> > anyone or anything. Even if I was, this isn't a forum,
> > but we've already had this discussion.
>
> Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all things
> voip, etc., you are wrong on this one. A forum is any
> place where things can be discussed, not just a "bulletin
> board" type website. Live long and prosper, but stick to
> voip not linguistics.
As has been discussed ad nauseum in other places, I am *not* wrong. We are
talking about *Usenet* convention and not dictionary definition.
Usenet is a platform where groups are hosted in multiple locations using
nntp format. Forums are web based, hosted in a single location using http
access.
*That* is the definition I apply and the only one I recognise.
Take it or leave it, I do not propose to discuss it further here, it has
already been done to death elsewhere.
> Ahh so someone has to listen to an advert before the call is connected
> methinks - OK it's a business model, not one I'd go for, but it's an
> approach.
>
> What I don't want is : resellers, spam (ignoring what has been said
> before), poor call quality, obscure call pricing plans, hard-to-get out
> of contracts.
> What I do want is : one-off payments (rather than monthly charges) for
> things like geo numbers; a choice of number; settable outgoing CLID;
> simple (yes *simple*) setting instructions for my ATA (and his, and his,
> and hers);veiwable on-line call cost records.
> What I'd like is : a second tier service that I can ignore if I want to
> that includes the bells & whistles that 'professional users' might want
> - that might even extend to voicemail.
>
> What I think I'm describing is mostly Sipgate with a bit of Voip.co.uk
> thrown in.
>
The one thing that puts me off going fully VOIP (I use voip.co.uk for
outgoing calls and BT for incoming) is ownership of any allocated
geographic number and the 'permanence' of the VOIP provider. Like many
people I suspect, my telephone number is widely known and therefore more
important to me than the telco providing it. I could port my current BT
number to voip.co.uk but what would happen if they went bust? I
suspect that the number would automatically revert back to BT's pool and
I would have no claim over it. Equally I could choose to publicise my
voip.co.uk number(s) and then I'd almost definitely lose them.
In an ideal world I would 'own' the number and then choose a telco to
provide service...
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
> message news:81ac9$465b5815$9163a40a$6378@news2.tudelft.nl
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to advertise
>>> anyone or anything. Even if I was, this isn't a forum,
>>> but we've already had this discussion.
>> Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all things
>> voip, etc., you are wrong on this one. A forum is any
>> place where things can be discussed, not just a "bulletin
>> board" type website. Live long and prosper, but stick to
>> voip not linguistics.
>
> As has been discussed ad nauseum in other places, I am *not* wrong. We are
> talking about *Usenet* convention and not dictionary definition.
Fortunately I don't frequent those nauseatic places.
> Usenet is a platform where groups are hosted in multiple locations using
> nntp format. Forums are web based, hosted in a single location using http
> access.
>
> *That* is the definition I apply and the only one I recognise.
You cannot define human interaction in terms of the technology that
facilitates that interaction.
> Take it or leave it, I do not propose to discuss it further here, it has
> already been done to death elsewhere.
We can all play that game, Ivor:
'I see it now,' Alice remarked thoughtfully: 'and what are "toves"?'
'Well, "toves" are something like badgers - they're something like
lizards - and they're something like corkscrews.'
'They must be very curious-looking creatures.'
'They are that,' said Humpty Dumpty: 'also they make their nests under
sundials - also they live on cheese.'
"Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
message news:85709$465b6020$9163a40a$9137@news2.tudelft.nl
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:81ac9$465b5815$9163a40a$6378@news2.tudelft.nl
> > > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > > How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to advertise
> > > > anyone or anything. Even if I was, this isn't a
> > > > forum, but we've already had this discussion.
> > > Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all
> > > things voip, etc., you are wrong on this one. A forum
> > > is any place where things can be discussed, not just
> > > a "bulletin board" type website. Live long and
> > > prosper, but stick to voip not linguistics.
> >
> > As has been discussed ad nauseum in other places, I am
> > *not* wrong. We are talking about *Usenet* convention
> > and not dictionary definition.
>
> Fortunately I don't frequent those nauseatic places.
You're in one.
> > Usenet is a platform where groups are hosted in
> > multiple locations using nntp format. Forums are web
> > based, hosted in a single location using http access.
> >
> > *That* is the definition I apply and the only one I
> > recognise.
>
> You cannot define human interaction in terms of the
> technology that facilitates that interaction.
In this instance, I can.
> > Take it or leave it, I do not propose to discuss it
> > further here, it has already been done to death
> > elsewhere.
>
> We can all play that game, Ivor:
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
> message news:85709$465b6020$9163a40a$9137@news2.tudelft.nl
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>> "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:81ac9$465b5815$9163a40a$6378@news2.tudelft.nl
>>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>>> How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to advertise
>>>>> anyone or anything. Even if I was, this isn't a
>>>>> forum, but we've already had this discussion.
>>>> Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all
>>>> things voip, etc., you are wrong on this one. A forum
>>>> is any place where things can be discussed, not just
>>>> a "bulletin board" type website. Live long and
>>>> prosper, but stick to voip not linguistics.
>>> As has been discussed ad nauseum in other places, I am
>>> *not* wrong. We are talking about *Usenet* convention
>>> and not dictionary definition.
>> Fortunately I don't frequent those nauseatic places.
>
> You're in one.
Lame.
>>> Usenet is a platform where groups are hosted in
>>> multiple locations using nntp format. Forums are web
>>> based, hosted in a single location using http access.
>>>
>>> *That* is the definition I apply and the only one I
>>> recognise.
>> You cannot define human interaction in terms of the
>> technology that facilitates that interaction.
>
> In this instance, I can.
Pray tell. How?
>>> Take it or leave it, I do not propose to discuss it
>>> further here, it has already been done to death
>>> elsewhere.
So you can't even be bothered to repost established "truths"? Not even
links to conclusive arguments. That's really lame, Ivor.
>> We can all play that game, Ivor:
>
> [snip]
>
> Irrelevant. This is a newsgroup, not a forum.
Not so x2. Post only news instead of discussing, unless you want to be
guilty of the "crime" you accuse others of!!!!!!
> As I said, take it or leave it.
Or else? Don't tell me: plonk! What have you got left when you plonk
everyone in "your" newsgroup just because they don't adhere to the same
definition of newsgroup and forum as you?
Ivor, accept modern life: you can cause a newsgroup to be established,
but you don't own it and you can't control it.
I'm sure you're a really nice guy otherwise, and I salute you.
"Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
message news:64c04$465b71c8$9163a40a$20064@news1.tudelft.n l
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:85709$465b6020$9163a40a$9137@news2.tudelft.nl
> > > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > > "Chris Hopley" <chris.hopley@gggggmail.com> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > news:81ac9$465b5815$9163a40a$6378@news2.tudelft.nl
> > > > > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > > > > How can I be spamming, I'm not trying to
> > > > > > advertise anyone or anything. Even if I was,
> > > > > > this isn't a forum, but we've already had this
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > Ivor, as much as I respect your knowledge of all
> > > > > things voip, etc., you are wrong on this one. A
> > > > > forum is any place where things can be discussed,
> > > > > not just a "bulletin board" type website. Live
> > > > > long and prosper, but stick to voip not
> > > > > linguistics.
> > > > As has been discussed ad nauseum in other places, I
> > > > am *not* wrong. We are talking about *Usenet*
> > > > convention and not dictionary definition.
> > > Fortunately I don't frequent those nauseatic places.
> >
> > You're in one.
>
> Lame.
Possibly, but true nonetheless.
> > > > Usenet is a platform where groups are hosted in
> > > > multiple locations using nntp format. Forums are web
> > > > based, hosted in a single location using http
> > > > access. *That* is the definition I apply and the only one I
> > > > recognise.
> > > You cannot define human interaction in terms of the
> > > technology that facilitates that interaction.
> >
> > In this instance, I can.
>
> Pray tell. How?
I just have. Lame..? Perhaps, but still true.
> > > > Take it or leave it, I do not propose to discuss it
> > > > further here, it has already been done to death
> > > > elsewhere.
>
> So you can't even be bothered to repost established
> "truths"? Not even links to conclusive arguments. That's
> really lame, Ivor.
It's already been done to death before. Repeating it is a waste of my time
as well as yours. It's all there if you care to find it and read it.
> > > We can all play that game, Ivor:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Irrelevant. This is a newsgroup, not a forum.
>
> Not so x2. Post only news instead of discussing, unless
> you want to be guilty of the "crime" you accuse others
> of!!!!!!
I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I am merely stating a fact.
> > As I said, take it or leave it.
>
> Or else? Don't tell me: plonk! What have you got left
> when you plonk everyone in "your" newsgroup just because
> they don't adhere to the same definition of newsgroup and
> forum as you?
Who said I was going to do that..? Do you want me to..? Why don't you
"plonk" me, then you won't have to listen.
> Ivor, accept modern life: you can cause a newsgroup to be
> established, but you don't own it and you can't control
> it.
True. But it's still a *newsgroup* and not a forum.
> I'm sure you're a really nice guy otherwise, and I salute
> you.
Or I could be an absolute bastard. It's totally irrelevant in this matter.
In any case, I'll be here long after you and everyone else has given up
trying to redefine this *group* so you might as well accept it now.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home
>> On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>> Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
>>> doesn't provide a website where you can check out their
>>> products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.
>> But they are not advertising anything nor are they
>> inviting people to contact them directly. They (whoever
>> they are) are asking a simple question on
>> uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
>> discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.
>
> Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all to
> me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide.
>
> Ivor
>
>
I'm a reputable organisation but I don't display my company information
on every post I make. Neither do I display a valid email address.
Therefore by your definition Ivor, every message I post is spam.
"Desk Rabbit" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:voadnVJ6BMvumcHbnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@pipex.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:
[snip]
> > Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they
> > are" says it all to me. If they were a reputable
> > organisation they wouldn't hide.
>
> I'm a reputable organisation but I don't display my
> company information on every post I make. Neither do I
> display a valid email address. Therefore by your
> definition Ivor, every message I post is spam.
Not at all. However if you were to try and advertise your business here,
that would be spam.
Re: What do you want from a VOIP provider 
Linear Mode
