 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / September 2005Will you be buying T3 Shares?
I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. Looks like Barnaby has backflipped again.. sheesh Bloody Banana Benders wouldn't have half a brain cell tween them.. > I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. Depends on the price, stupid. > Looks like Barnaby has backflipped again.. sheesh Bloody Banana Benders > wouldn't have half a brain cell tween them.. >I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. > > Looks like Barnaby has backflipped again.. sheesh Bloody Banana Benders > wouldn't have half a brain cell tween them.. Barnaby need only ask the Qld rural electorate if they think the remaining 51% of Telstra should be sold off. There's a definitive answer. Long before the 3 Amigos arrived on the scene, the Big T was in trouble. (ex insider's opinion). In the last three years they have cut staff, reduced technical training to an all time low (now almost non existent and effectively de-skilling the workforce), and they have gone on an outsourcing path with little or no quality control on the products and services. Ziggy has a lot to answer for. Like a lot of the Big T's upper management, they operate on a "come in, bugger it up and move on before anyone notices" policy; at the same time taking a nice fat golden handshake on the way out the door. Australians are entitled to a fair and reasonable telecommunications service (in the city and the bush). Pre-T1, every tax paying Australian contributed one way or another to building a telecommunications system accessible to just about everyone. Australians own it and we should be making sure the government of the day does the right thing for ALL Australians (not just the city folk). Don't get me wrong. I'm all for competition in the marketplace, but I see telecommunications as a vital part of Australia's infrastructure (like water, public health, electricity, sewerage, education, most public transport etc.). Fully privatise telecommunications in the bush and the country folk might as well shut up shop, move to the cities and go on the dole. Other than the lucrative mobile services, no other telco has established or maintained telecommunications services in the bush. Come to think of it, have the city folk seen an Optus or AAPT public phone? Nah, and never likely too either. But T3 - you've gotta be kiddin'. However feel free to send money. I'll shred some of it for you for nothing. It would be similar to investing in T3 shares. Ask any T2 investor. They already know. :( Cheers, Alan > Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote >> I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. >> Looks like Barnaby has backflipped again.. sheesh Bloody Banana Benders >> wouldn't have half a brain cell tween them.. > Barnaby need only ask the Qld rural electorate if they think the remaining 51% > of Telstra should be sold off. Those hayseed fuckwits are completely irrelevant. > There's a definitive answer. Nope. > Long before the 3 Amigos arrived on the scene, the Big T was in trouble. Utterly mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. Have a look at their profit, cretin. > (ex insider's opinion). Who got the bums rush it so richly deserved. > In the last three years they have cut staff, They've been doing that for a hell of a lot longer than the last 3 years, fuckwit. And they had FAR too many monkeys who did f.ck all so that was what they should have done. > reduced technical training to an all time low (now almost non existent and > effectively de-skilling the workforce), Lie. > and they have gone on an outsourcing path Because that is the only thing that makes any sense. Been doing that for years too, not just the last 3 years. > with little or no quality control on the products and services. Another lie. > Ziggy has a lot to answer for. Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Blount gave a lot more the bums rush than Ziggy ever did. And that that was the only viable thing to do with the monopoly was ripped away too. > Like a lot of the Big T's upper management, they operate on a "come in, bugger > it up and move on before anyone notices" policy; Have fun explaining the most recent profit. > at the same time taking a nice fat golden handshake on the way out the door. Peanuts in telstra's total costs. > Australians are entitled to a fair and reasonable telecommunications service > (in the city and the bush). And they have got that. > Pre-T1, every tax paying Australian contributed one way or another to building > a telecommunications system Another pig ignorant lie. The customers did, with the govt taking a substantial 'dividend' from telstra off that cash flow. > accessible to just about everyone. Still is. > Australians own it Only own half of it now, fool. > and we should be making sure the government of the day does the right thing > for ALL Australians (not just the city folk). More mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. Vast swags of the non city folk have adsl and decent modern digital exchanges too. > Don't get me wrong. I'm all for competition in the marketplace, but I see > telecommunications as a vital part of Australia's > infrastructure (like water, public health, electricity, sewerage, education, > most public transport etc.). Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that there is f.ck all public transport outside the citys now. And should have noticed that its only the towns that get a water supply too. > Fully privatise telecommunications in the bush and the country folk might as > well shut up shop, move to the cities and go on the dole. Utterly silly pig ignorant drivel. > Other than the lucrative mobile services, no other telco has > established or maintained telecommunications services in the bush. Lie. Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have noticed the satellite services. > Come to think of it, have the city folk seen an Optus or AAPT public phone? Only fuckwits bother with public phones anymore, dinosaur. > Nah, and never likely too either. Because they have noticed that anyone with a clue uses mobiles now, fuckwit. > But T3 - you've gotta be kiddin'. However feel free to send money. I'll shred > some of it for you for nothing. It would be similar to > investing in T3 shares. Ask any T2 investor. They already know. :( Even someone as stupid as you should realise that after T2, the govt will have to do something to get anyone to buy any of T3. No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door. Rod, do you think telstra management is deliberately trying to drive the share price down (to a more realistic $2 level as some experts have been saying)? It's been suggested that Telstra's shares are overpriced anyway. If the price does go down to about $2, wouldn't it be a good idea to buy up then before the full sale kicks in? > Rod, do you think telstra management is > deliberately trying to drive the share price down Yes, to make themselves look good when it goes up again later. That will have a dramatic effect on the size of the bags of gold they take back to yankeeland. > (to a more realistic $2 level as some experts have been saying)? That price isnt that likely given that telstra is the only telco in the country that makes decent profits, and that isnt about to change any time soon. > It's been suggested that Telstra's shares are overpriced anyway. Thats harder to say, the lowest prices are from mindlessly comparing share prices per subscriber with other telcos in quite different situations. > If the price does go down to about $2, wouldn't it be a > good idea to buy up then before the full sale kicks in? Even harder to say. Its far from clear what the govt will do on that. After the T2 debacle and the effect that has on what price they can flog them for, they may well be stupid enough to just put them all into their stupid fund that costello wants to have to pay shinybum pensions. I've never been keen on telstra shares, primarily because they are after all the ex monopoly that has to see its market share erode, and there's always been the other unknown of when they get to flog off the rest of it. Clearly it would have made much more sense to flog off all the rest at T2 instead. > > Rod, do you think telstra management is > > deliberately trying to drive the share price down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That will have a dramatic effect on the size of > the bags of gold they take back to yankeeland. Exactly. Spelling it out for those who haven't seen this in action, it is a time honoured tradition of management to clear the decks on taking command. Establish that everything is crap at that point and be the hero for "fixing" it. Bad news has to come quickly in one big lump and is not allowed after that. If the govt shareholder doesn't like that and fires them now, the new guy and friends will have a contract which lets them walk away a lot richer. If the govt lets them get away with it they go later, even richer. It pays to hire carefully, because that is your last chance to control the situation. Bruce G > Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote >>> Rod, do you think telstra management is >>> deliberately trying to drive the share price down >> Yes, to make themselves look good when it goes up again later. >> That will have a dramatic effect on the size of >> the bags of gold they take back to yankeeland. > Exactly. Spelling it out for those who haven't seen this in action, > it is a time honoured tradition of management to clear the decks > on taking command. Establish that everything is crap at that point > and be the hero for "fixing" it. Bad news has to come quickly in > one big lump and is not allowed after that. > If the govt shareholder doesn't like that and fires them now, the new guy > and friends will have a contract which lets them walk away a lot richer. That shouldnt be possible if they actually had a clue. The contract should allow them to be given the bums rush with no bag of gold at all if they turn out to be complete duds like those clowns are. > If the govt lets them get away with it they go later, > even richer. It pays to hire carefully, because that > is your last chance to control the situation. The other obvious approach is to have better contracts, particularly ones that allow duds to get the bums rush, right out the door, with no bag of gold at all. In fact the board should be sacked for not having that in place too. > > Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > should allow them to be given the bums rush with no bag of gold > at all if they turn out to be complete duds like those clowns are. We can agree till the cows come home, but the trouble is the CEO that you want is also correctly suspicious of the motives of the Board - eg. are they going to flog the company to a competitor the week after he starts on the job? (but this gotcha is obviously not an issue with Telstra). So parachutes are demanded by anyone that you would want for the job. I agree this doesn't mean you have to agree to those terms when hiring (or at least restrict them to change of control). > > If the govt lets them get away with it they go later, > > even richer. It pays to hire carefully, because that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In fact the board should be sacked for not having that in place too. I'd prefer the Board be judged for hiring the right CEO - time will tell. > Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote >>> Rod Speed rod_speed@yahoo.com wrote >>>>> Rod, do you think telstra management is >>>>> deliberately trying to drive the share price down >>>> Yes, to make themselves look good when it goes up again later. >>>> That will have a dramatic effect on the size of >>>> the bags of gold they take back to yankeeland. >>> Exactly. Spelling it out for those who haven't seen this in action, >>> it is a time honoured tradition of management to clear the decks >>> on taking command. Establish that everything is crap at that point >>> and be the hero for "fixing" it. Bad news has to come quickly in >>> one big lump and is not allowed after that. >>> If the govt shareholder doesn't like that and fires them now, the new guy >>> and friends will have a contract which lets them walk away a lot richer. >> That shouldnt be possible if they actually had a clue. The contract >> should allow them to be given the bums rush with no bag of gold >> at all if they turn out to be complete duds like those clowns are. > We can agree till the cows come home, but the trouble is the CEO > that you want is also correctly suspicious of the motives of the Board - > eg. are they going to flog the company to a competitor the week after he > starts on the job? (but this gotcha is obviously not an issue with Telstra). Yes, so that should have been in the contact and we dont know whether it is or not. > So parachutes are demanded by anyone that you would want for the job. Dont believe that Telstra wouldnt have got anyone who is worth appointing with that particular clause included. > I agree this doesn't mean you have to agree to those terms > when hiring (or at least restrict them to change of control). Yep, that's the obvious way to do it, specifically cover that flog off situation in the contract. >>> If the govt lets them get away with it they go later, >>> even richer. It pays to hire carefully, because that >>> is your last chance to control the situation. >> The other obvious approach is to have better contracts, >> particularly ones that allow duds to get the bums rush, >> right out the door, with no bag of gold at all. >> In fact the board should be sacked for not having that in place too. > I'd prefer the Board be judged for hiring the right CEO - time will tell. I think its already told. That fool chose to appoint one of his mates who has a bee his bonnet about govt regulation and the board was stupid enough to allow him to do that too. It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall after Howard called McGauchie and told him to put the boot into the Mex. >> Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door. Priceless coming from someone with 3 weeks experience in the telecommunications industry as a strike breaking scab labour van driver for the PMG. ROFLMAO Profit has little to do with the Telecommunications Charter which obliges Telstra to provide a satisfactory level of service to ALL Australians, no matter where they are located. As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service is heavily subsidised by the government. No one except the very rich and large companies could afford satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. You are so far removed form reality and out of your depth on these types of matters, I often wonder why you insist on making a fool out of yourself and responding to threads which contain subject matter which is right over your head. Cheers, Alan >>> Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] >> >> No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> > As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service is > heavily subsidised by the government. Lie. > No one except the very rich and large companies could afford satellite > telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. Lie, the subsidy is peanuts in the costs of any decent rural operation. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door. >>>> Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> Priceless coming from someone with 3 weeks experience in the telecommunications industry as a strike breaking scab labour van driver for the PMG. ROFLMAO Profit has little to do with the Telecommunications Charter which obliges Telstra to provide a satisfactory level of service to ALL Australians, no matter where they are located. *** RodBot unable to respond to the above has he hasn't got a friggin' clue *** >> As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service >> is heavily subsidised by the government. > > Lie. Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to the contrary? >> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford satellite >> telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. > > Lie, the subsidy is peanuts in the costs of any decent rural operation. Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to back up your claim? Haven't got anything to say except the ususal inane RodBot reply? Goes to show you know bugger all. Cheers, Alan Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>> Alan Rutlidge <dont_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] >>>> >>>> No wonder you got the bums rush, right out the door. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> > Profit has little to do with the Telecommunications Charter which obliges > Telstra to provide a satisfactory level of service to ALL Australians, no > matter where they are located. Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. >>> As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service is >>> heavily subsidised by the government. >> Lie. > Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to the contrary? YOU lied. YOU get to provide the evidence. THATS how it works, liar. >>> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford >>> satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. >> Lie, the subsidy is peanuts in the costs of any decent rural operation. > Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to back up your claim? YOU lied. YOU get to provide the evidence. THATS how it works, liar. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. > Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra > for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. Wrong again RodBot. http://www.telstra.com.au/universalservice/policy.htm To ensure that all people in Australia have reasonable access to standard telephone services and payphones, the Government has established a universal service obligation. The universal service obligation was incorporated in the Telecommunications Act 1997 and now the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (the Act). It is designed to ensure that all people in Australia, no matter where they live or conduct business, have reasonable access on an equitable basis to: (i) standard telephone services; (ii) payphones; and (iii) prescribed carriage services Read it and weep you pig ignorant fool. > >>>> As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service is >>>> heavily subsidised by the government. > >>> Lie. > >> Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to the contrary? > > YOU lied. > > YOU get to provide the evidence. Read and weep - http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/hibis/default.asp > > THATS how it works, liar. > >>>> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford >>>> satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. > >>> Lie, the subsidy is peanuts in the costs of any decent rural operation. The subsidy for an outright purchase of the equipment will ceas on 20 Sept this year. It's costing the government too much. > >> Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to back up your claim? > > YOU lied. > > YOU get to provide the evidence. > > THATS how it works, liar. > > <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> > > No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. > > Now stop your trolling and bugger off. Cheers, Alan Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] >> >> <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> >>> Profit has little to do with the Telecommunications Charter which obliges >>> Telstra to provide a satisfactory level of service to ALL Australians, no >>> matter where they are located. >> Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra >> for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. > Wrong again RodBot. Right, as always. > http://www.telstra.com.au/universalservice/policy.htm > To ensure that all people in Australia have reasonable access to standard > telephone services and payphones, the Government has established a universal > service obligation. Pity it aint imposed on JUST telstra, liar. Its funded by all telcos in proportion to their turnover and the USO is tendered for, fuckwit. > The universal service obligation was incorporated in the > Telecommunications Act 1997 and now the Telecommunications (Consumer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (iii) prescribed carriage services > Read it and weep you pig ignorant fool. Nothing to weep about, fuckwit, it doesnt say that TELSTRA is obliged to do that, fuckwit. >>>>> As for your satellite comment - take a reality check RodBot. The service >>>>> is heavily subsidised by the government. >>>> Lie. >>> Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to the contrary? >> YOU lied. >> YOU get to provide the evidence. > Read and weep - > http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/hibis/default.asp Nothing even remotely resembling anything like HEAVILY there, liar. And it says nothing about those operations going bust without that subsidy, in fact the subsidy is peanuts, MUCH less than they spend on cars etc, fuckwit. >> THATS how it works, liar. >>>>> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford >>>>> satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. >>>> Lie, the subsidy is peanuts in the costs of any decent rural operation. > The subsidy for an outright purchase of the equipment will ceas on 20 Sept > this year. And we wont see everyone in the bush going broke on that date, fuckwit. > It's costing the government too much. The cost is peanuts to the customer, MUCH less than they spend on a single car, fuckwit, let along f.cking great machinery. >>> Okay big boy. Where's your evidence to back up your claim? >> YOU lied. >> YOU get to provide the evidence. >> THATS how it works, liar. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. > > Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra > > for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. > > Wrong again RodBot. > http://www.telstra.com.au/universalservice/policy.htm YOU are wrong, Rod is right The USO hasnt been imposed on Telstra for years, it has been TENDERED for. > Read it and weep you pig ignorant fool. None of the above said anything about Telstra, did it? > The subsidy for an outright purchase of the equipment will ceas on 20 Sept > this year. It's costing the government too much. Rubbish. They had a budget for HIBIS and its been reached. Simple >> > Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra >> > for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The USO hasnt been imposed on Telstra for years, it has been TENDERED for. Tendered for by whom pray tell? >> Read it and weep you pig ignorant fool. > > None of the above said anything about Telstra, did it? Michael, did you fail basic reading? From Telstra's own site re USO - "To ensure that all people in Australia have reasonable access to standard telephone services and payphones, the Government has established a universal service obligation. The universal service obligation was incorporated in the Telecommunications Act 1997 and now the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 (the Act). It is designed to ensure that all people in Australia, no matter where they live or conduct business, have reasonable access on an equitable basis to: (i) standard telephone services; (ii) payphones; and (iii) prescribed carriage services (of which none have been prescribed); each of which is classified as a separate service obligation. " Futhermore it goes onto say - "The Minister has determined that Telstra is the primary universal service provider for the whole of Australia in respect of the service obligations dealing with standard telephone services, payphones and prescribed carriage services. In fulfilling its universal service obligation, Telstra will comply with the relevant requirements of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999." >> The subsidy for an outright purchase of the equipment will ceas on 20 > Sept >> this year. It's costing the government too much. > > Rubbish. They had a budget for HIBIS and its been reached. Simple Who's budget Michael? Let's get specific now that you've chucked your 2c worth into the thread. > >> > Another pig ignorant lie. The USO aint been imposed on telstra > >> > for years and years now. No wonder you got the bums rush. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tendered for by whom pray tell? Anyone who is a CSP can tender. Of course certain CSPs like to cherrypick . . . > Futhermore it goes onto say - > > "The Minister has determined that Telstra is the primary universal service > provider for the whole of Australia in respect of the service obligations > dealing with standard telephone services, payphones and prescribed carriage > services. After Telstra won the tender. Because they were the only company to tender. So now the govt pays them to act out the USO role. Telstra is not a charity > >> The subsidy for an outright purchase of the equipment will ceas on 20 > > Sept [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Who's budget Michael? Let's get specific now that you've chucked your 2c > worth into the thread. The govt's budget for HIBIS > Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > > YOU get to provide the evidence. The cost of installation of a typical 1 way or 2 way satellite broadband service without subsidy is almost $1,700. With HiBIS subsidy it's a mere $129. Now that's some subsidy. Without it the average family or individual could never afford it or at least justify its expense. http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/2way/256_64-500MB/defa ult.asp No telco would provide a $1700 service for $129 unless the difference was been made up somehow. The government subsidy pays the difference. Not only that but it continues to subsidise the ongoing access costs too. If you don't qualify for the subsidy the cost of the service is significantly higher. http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/hibis/ shows who qualifies for the subsidy, and it ain't big business customers. > THATS how it works, liar. Me no tell lies RodBot. It's you who is the troll. > <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> > > No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>> Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote >>>>>>>> I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] >> >> YOU get to provide the evidence. > The cost of installation of a typical 1 way or 2 way satellite > broadband service without subsidy is almost $1,700. Peanuts. Plenty spend that much on a decent TV, fuckwit. > With HiBIS subsidy it's a mere $129. Now that's some subsidy. Peanuts. Plenty spend that much on a decent TV, fuckwit. > Without it the average family or individual could never afford it or at least > justify its expense. Pig ignorant drivel when plenty of those spend that on a TV liar. > http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/2way/256_64-500MB/defa ult.asp > No telco would provide a $1700 service for $129 unless the difference was been > made up somehow. The government subsidy pays the difference. I never said that there wasnt a subsidy, fuckwit. I JUST said that you claim that >>>>> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford >>>>> satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. is a lie when plenty spend that much on a TV and much more on a car. > Not only that but it continues to subsidise the ongoing access costs too. Lie. > If you don't qualify for the subsidy the cost of the service is significantly > higher. > http://www.bigpond.com/internet-plans/broadband/satellite/hibis/ > shows who qualifies for the subsidy, and it ain't big business customers. Pity your lied when you claimed >>>>> No one except the very rich and large companies could afford >>>>> satellite telephony or internet access if the subsidy was pulled. >> THATS how it works, liar. > Me no tell lies You've just proved you lied, fuckwit. <reams of puerile sh.t even a bum should be able to do better> No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. > Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 222 lines] > > No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. Roddly Doddly. Sure you aren't supposed to be taking some medication? Go back and read what you wrote over the past few posts in this thread. You've contradicted yourself several times. I can see it is pointless trying to have a discussion with someone who says black is white one minute and changes it back again the next. You need professional help. Try getting some. Some terminal fuckwit that even telstra gave the bums rush > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> Bartholemew I Buttfinger <bart@butt.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> I can't imagine that they are going to be a big seller.. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 219 lines] >> >> You've just proved you lied, fuckwit. <reams of desperate attempts to bullshit its way out of its lies even a bum should be able to do better flushed where it belongs> Whoops, nothing left. No wonder even telstra gave it the bums rush, right out the door. Alan said.... > public transport etc.). Fully privatise telecommunications in the bush > and the country folk might as well shut up shop, move to the cities and > go on the dole. And the rest of Australia relies on imported food, and who'll run and maintain the essential services that have production out in rural areas, such as gas, power, etc.? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.