 |
 | 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 / January 2006A Creep who SMS Spammed me. Here are his details...
Hi all I received an SMS spam after placing an advertisment in the Trading Post. I called the guy who sent me the SMS, who admitted that he got my number from the trading post. He was promoting a free seminar on a money making scheme. I don't know who would want to be in business with a jerk who SMS spams people. Since he had the ordacity to SMS Spam me, I would like to give you the oportunity to Spam him back. His name is Richard (on the SMS) and his number is 0404 867 501. so how much will this "sms" cost me? do your own dirty work, unless you want to pay for someone else to do it for you : Hi all : [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : : His name is Richard (on the SMS) and his number is 0404 867 501. > so how much will this "sms" cost me? Whatever your carrier charges for SMS >> so how much will this "sms" cost me? > > Whatever your carrier charges for SMS Thanks for that. > >> so how much will this "sms" cost me? > > > > Whatever your carrier charges for SMS > > Thanks for that. You are most welcome, Horry. The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - which was incorrect. >>>> so how much will this "sms" cost me? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are most welcome, Horry. Polite too. > The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > which was incorrect. People who send me SMSs are charged a "premium SMS" price because of my reputation for quick and informative replies. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 13:51:36 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > > The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > > which was incorrect. > > People who send me SMSs are charged a "premium SMS" price because of my > reputation for quick and informative replies. If I allow you to charge me for receiving your usenet replies, will they become more informative? No need for an increase in the reply speed though. > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 13:51:36 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If I allow you to charge me for receiving your usenet replies, will they > become more informative? To be Frank, I'm really not sure. Let's give it a shot. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 13:59:48 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > To be Frank, I thought you were Horace? > I'm really not sure. Let's give it a shot. How much? > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 13:59:48 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I thought you were Horace? Eh? >> I'm really not sure. Let's give it a shot. > > How much? 10 cents a line (not including blank lines and quoted material)? On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:03:43 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>>>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Eh? You said you wanted to be Frank. I thought you were Horace??!! > >> I'm really not sure. Let's give it a shot. > > > > How much? > > 10 cents a line (not including blank lines and quoted material)? I can't be sure it's worth it, as I'm not sure how much the informativeness will increase. Can you please give me a sample? > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:03:43 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I can't be sure it's worth it, as I'm not sure how much the > informativeness will increase. Can you please give me a sample? Yes. On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:08:24 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>>>>>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Yes. Ok. Let me know when. > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:08:24 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Ok. Let me know when. Will do.  Signature20 cents On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:16:29 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>>>>>>>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Will do. At this rate, you owe me 20c. > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:16:29 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > At this rate, you owe me 20c. How, pray tell, did you work that one out? It seems rather strange to me. Signature40 cents On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:16:25 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>>>>>>>>>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > How, pray tell, did you work that one out? It seems rather strange to > me. None of your posts have been informative (although I must admit they have been quick), so I am being ripped off. For every non informative post, you owe me 10c per line. > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:16:25 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > been quick), so I am being ripped off. For every non informative post, you > owe me 10c per line. [Horace Reply: OK] On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:24:52 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > been quick), so I am being ripped off. For every non informative post, you > > owe me 10c per line. [Horace Reply: OK] That increased it to 10c per character..... > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 15:16:25 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their > many personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > have been quick), so I am being ripped off. For every non informative > post, you owe me 10c per line. Half an hour later and I'm still recovering from the shock of, and my disappointment at, Josh's response. How dare he? HOW DARE HE demean Horry in this way? SignatureKwyj On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:22:23 +1100, Kwyjibo (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "premium SMS" price - which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Half an hour later and I'm still recovering from the shock of, and my > disappointment at, Josh's response. Glad I could disappoint you. > How dare he? HOW DARE HE demean Horry in this way? Horry enjoys being demeaned. That's why he's into S&M. > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:22:23 +1100, Kwyjibo (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Horry enjoys being demeaned. That's why he's into S&M. Saph & Monty? On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 17:09:31 +1030, Horace Wachope . (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The implication was that it would be at some kind of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "premium SMS" price - which was incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Saph & Monty? Some things are better left to innuendo, Horace. > >>> Whatever your carrier charges for SMS > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > People who send me SMSs are charged a "premium SMS" price because of my > reputation for quick and informative replies. I noticed your post was quick and informative. Send me your mobile number so I can text you in future, for quick and informative replies. >>>>> Whatever your carrier charges for SMS >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I noticed your post was quick and informative. That was an aberration. They normally round and polish a preceeding post. SignatureKwyj >>>>>> Whatever your carrier charges for SMS >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That was an aberration. > They normally round and polish a preceeding post. That's only when I'm helping out Pits. On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:18:22 GMT, Michael (or one of their many personalities) said...... > > >> so how much will this "sms" cost me? > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The implication was that it would be at some kind of "premium SMS" price - > which was incorrect. What if they send you an MT billed reply? > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:18:22 GMT, Michael (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What if they send you an MT billed reply? Now there is an interesting idea! > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > His name is Richard (on the SMS) and his number is 0404 867 501. I also just received an SMS spam after placing a Trading Post ad. It's definitely not the same guy, but I wonder if they picked up my mobile no. from the same place. The spam message was a premium chat message costing $5.50 for each pair of SMS'. Has anyone else had spam like this? I rang Telstra to complain, but the sender had left off one of the numbers although it was a 1300 xxx xxx, and they couldn't/wouldn't trace it. I'm p***** off with this - it's a work number and I don't want the hassle of having to delete spam off the mobile. I get enough from email. It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. What could the TP, possibly do? If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. > >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since > >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. > > What could the TP, possibly do? Make everyone jump through a couple of hoops before the number is shown on screen. Wouldn't stop the spammers, but it would slow them down a I guess. >>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since >>> these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shown on screen. Wouldn't stop the spammers, but it would slow them > down a I guess. Its quite possible to make getting the number hard enough with the number of requests per minute per ip to make it hard enough to scarf up numbers by spammers to see them lose interest. >> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since >> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Make everyone jump through a couple of hoops before the number is shown on >screen. Wouldn't stop the spammers, but it would slow them down a I guess. Goes to show how out of date I am.....thought the TP was a paper. :) If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't be in it. >>> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since >>> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If this was a perfect world, we, probably, wouldn't > be in it. Unfortunately I don't know for sure that it was TP that they got my number from. The message came from +19773366, which doesn't mean anything to me. Anyone here have any ideas? There is also a 130065970 number, which is incomplete, for help. Anyone have any thoughts on how to find the missing number? >>>> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since >>>> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > incomplete, for help. Anyone have any thoughts on how to find the missing > number? OK, I now have the name and contact telephone for the spammer. What can I do about it? Who do I report them to? Rod >>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> 130065970 number, which is incomplete, for help. Anyone have any >> thoughts on how to find the missing number? > OK, I now have the name and contact telephone for the spammer. > What can I do about it? Absolutely nothing. > Who do I report them to? No one. What they have done aint illegal, stupid. >>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No one. What they have done aint illegal, stupid. Is spamming now legal, Rod? >>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >> No one. What they have done aint illegal, stupid. > Is spamming now legal, Rod? What he did has never been illegal. >>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What he did has never been illegal. Is charging someone for something they don't want and didn't order legal? >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> What he did has never been illegal. > Is charging someone for something they don't want and didn't order legal? They dont do that, they dont hold a gun to your head and force you to do anything with that SMS. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:05:05 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well > >>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What he did has never been illegal. How come carsales.com.au were found in breech of the Spam Act and fined for doing something like this a few months ago? http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Car-firm-fined-for-sending- spam/2005/04/05/1112489491022.html > Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> What he did has never been illegal. > How come carsales.com.au were found in breech of the Spam Act > and fined for doing something like this a few months ago? Different matter entirely. > http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Car-firm-fined-for-sending- > spam/2005/04/05/1112489491022.html On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:50:29 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well > >>>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Different matter entirely. Er, why? They harvested phone numbers from "classified advertisements" to advertise a commercial service. If anything, carsales.com.au are more in the right than this guy because they were selling a related service. > On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:50:29 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >> Different matter entirely. > Er, why? > They harvested phone numbers from "classified advertisements" to > advertise a commercial service. If anything, carsales.com.au are more > in the right than this guy because they were selling a related service. Pathetic, really. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:54:04 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as > >>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Pathetic, really. Come on Rod, haven't had an argument with you for years and you've already given up! > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:54:04 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Come on Rod, haven't had an argument with you for years and you've > already given up! Pathetic, really. On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:41:21 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Pathetic, really. True, true. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:41:21 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. Pathetic, really. On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:31:06 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Pathetic, really. The fun? > >>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well > >>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Is spamming now legal, Rod? Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? > Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? Cronulla? John > > Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? > > Cronulla? We are talking in the context of "spam" >> >>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >> >>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? When they charge you for the priveledge of receiving it unsolicited. >>> >>>>>> On 17 Jan 2006 04:31:53 -0800, "Spokes" >>> >>>>>> <spokesman123@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > When they charge you for the priveledge of receiving it unsolicited. See Whirlpool here: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=446360 > > "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fn0Af.221670$V7.182385@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >>> >>>>> "brian w edginton" <edgo1@REMOVETHISbigpond.com> wrote in message news:75lqs15dmhv272ln13bauaj4sihkl4tsoh@4ax.com... > >>> >>>>>> On 17 Jan 2006 04:31:53 -0800, "Spokes" > >>> >>>>>> <spokesman123@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > See Whirlpool here: > http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=446360 interesting thread, I checked back on my bill with B and found that 22/12 I received an sms costing $3.18 + gst. I recall getting it and wondering who had sent it but just deleted it - now I have a better idea. Have asked for a refund >>>>>>>>>> On 17 Jan 2006 04:31:53 -0800, "Spokes" >>>>>>>>>> <spokesman123@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > See Whirlpool here: > http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=446360 Pig ignorant drivel. It aint called whirlfool for nuffin. >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well >>>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? > When they charge you for the priveledge of receiving it unsolicited. No they dont. There is no charge whatever if you ignore it. > >>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well > >>>>>>>>>> since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > No they dont. There is no charge whatever if you ignore it. Incorrect. Have you never heard of Premium SMS (MT messages)? Idiot >>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as >>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> No they dont. There is no charge whatever if you ignore it. > Incorrect. Correct. > Have you never heard of Premium SMS (MT messages)? Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends you one, after they get the number out of the TP, fuckwit. > Idiot Dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as > >>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and annoying [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends > you one, after they get the number out of the TP, fuckwit. You need to read more in Whirlpool, Rod.' There has been a recent dodge with a crooked content provider sending Premium SMS MT messages and many customers have been stung >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> >>> Have you never heard of Premium SMS (MT messages)? >> Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends >> you one, after they get the number out of the TP, fuckwit. > You need to read more in Whirlpool, Rod.' It aint called Whirlfool for nuffin, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit child. > There has been a recent dodge with a crooked content provider sending > Premium SMS MT messages and many customers have been stung Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends you one, after they get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit child. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit > child. Poor Rod Speed - he can't believe that he's wrong yet again ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Poor Rod Speed - he can't believe that he's wrong yet again ... No I'm not. There is no legal obligation to pay a cent in that situation and only a fool like you would be stupid enough to pay that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > No I'm not. There is no legal obligation to pay a cent in that > situation and only a fool like you would be stupid enough to pay that. Unfortunately the amount is billed by your mobile operator, not the spammer. The mobile operator then pays the spammer. Many people have had difficulties claiming back the amount. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >>> >>> Poor Rod Speed - he can't believe that he's wrong yet again ... >> No I'm not. There is no legal obligation to pay a cent in that situation and >> only a fool like you would be stupid enough to pay that. > Unfortunately the amount is billed by your mobile operator, not the spammer. Pity that you STILL dont have to pay for an SMS that shows up that way. > The mobile operator then pays the spammer. Many people have had difficulties > claiming back the amount. More fool them. Its completely trivial to f.ck over the mobile telco using the TIO in that situation. Rod wrote: >> No I'm not. There is no legal obligation to pay a cent in that >> situation and only a fool like you would be stupid enough to pay that. > > Unfortunately the amount is billed by your mobile operator, not the > spammer. The mobile operator then pays the spammer. Many people have > had difficulties claiming back the amount. I had an unsolicited spam SMS sent to my mobile just before Xmas. My online billing account in the "calls yet to be billed" section listed it at $3.50. I lodged a complaint with Telstra who reversed the charge. I can only presume that they'll not pay the service provider or if he's been paid, at that cost to the provider's bill. In Whirlpool, where I discovered that others had copped this, and not all of them Telstra Mobile customers, they too had their money refunded. Some did report issues. Not sure overall, though, how it all panned out. Whatever, maybe the provider's relying on only a small minority remembering to check their bills, and thus the majority cops it sweet. Might encourage them to repeat the exercise. If they do that, then really, the authorities should step in and grind these pricks into the dust. SignatureCopy from one, it's plagiarism; copy from two, it's research. On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:36:25 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends you one, after they > get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit child. Aside from the fact that you said to just ignore it and now say to complain to your carrier Rod, it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless he is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people are on. MT billing only works on-net. > Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> after they get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny >> cleaning fuckwit child. > Aside from the fact that you said to just ignore it I just said ignore the SMS, not ignore any CHARGE for it. > and now say to complain to your carrier Rod, I never ever said anything like that. > it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless he > is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people are on. God knows what this crap is about. > MT billing only works on-net. Irrelevant to what was being discussed. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:53:08 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > I just said ignore the SMS, not ignore any CHARGE for it. But you said: >> Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? > > When they charge you for the priveledge of receiving it > unsolicited. No they dont. There is no charge whatever if you ignore it. > > and now say to complain to your carrier Rod, > > I never ever said anything like that. How do you propose he doesn't pay the PRSMS cost then? Minus the cost from his bill every month for the rest of their life? > > it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless he > > is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people are on. > > God knows what this crap is about. It's fairly clear. You know that you can't tell which carrier someone is with from their number these days, don't you? > > MT billing only works on-net. > > Irrelevant to what was being discussed. I know. It was an added point to the argument. Perhaps it won't appear on his bill after all if it wasn't sent on-net. > Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >> >> I just said ignore the SMS, not ignore any CHARGE for it. > But you said: >>> Since when has sending an SMS been illegal? >> When they charge you for the priveledge of receiving it unsolicited. > No they dont. There is no charge whatever if you ignore it. >>> and now say to complain to your carrier Rod, >> I never ever said anything like that. > How do you propose he doesn't pay the PRSMS cost then? Get the mobile telco to remove it and if they are stupid enough to refuse to do that, use the TIO to make them do that. > Minus the cost from his bill every month for the rest of their life? Wot if he doesnt actually have a life ? >>> it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless he >>> is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people are on. >> God knows what this crap is about. > It's fairly clear. No it isnt. > You know that you can't tell which carrier someone > is with from their number these days, don't you? How is that relevant to what is being discussed ? >>> MT billing only works on-net. >> Irrelevant to what was being discussed. > I know. It was an added point to the argument. Perhaps > it won't appear on his bill after all if it wasn't sent on-net. Or maybe that's just plain wrong. On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:57:22 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well since these spammers are abusing the site and [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Get the mobile telco to remove it and if they are stupid enough > to refuse to do that, use the TIO to make them do that. IE, complain to the carrier? > > Minus the cost from his bill every month for the rest of their life? > > Wot if he doesnt actually have a life ? He could move in with you! > >>> it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless he > >>> is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people are on. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No it isnt. Yes it is. > > You know that you can't tell which carrier someone > > is with from their number these days, don't you? > > How is that relevant to what is being discussed ? See below. > >>> MT billing only works on-net. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or maybe that's just plain wrong. Nope, sorree. > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:57:22 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >> Get the mobile telco to remove it and if they are stupid enough >> to refuse to do that, use the TIO to make them do that. > IE, complain to the carrier? You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwit children ? >>> Minus the cost from his bill every month for the rest of their life? >> Wot if he doesnt actually have a life ? > He could move in with you! Pathetic, really. >>>>> it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless >>>>> he is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> No it isnt. > Yes it is. No it isnt. >>> You know that you can't tell which carrier someone >>> is with from their number these days, don't you? >> How is that relevant to what is being discussed ? > See below. Completely useless, as always. >>>>> MT billing only works on-net. >>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed. >>> I know. It was an added point to the argument. Perhaps >>> it won't appear on his bill after all if it wasn't sent on-net. >> Or maybe that's just plain wrong. > Nope, sorree. Pathetic, really. On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post as well since these spammers are abusing the [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwit children ? In that case, care to explain how you "never ever said anything like" complaining to the carrier, Rod? > >>> Minus the cost from his bill every month for the rest of their life? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pathetic, really. Indeed. > >>>>> it's fairly unlikely that this guy is getting much revenue unless > >>>>> he is freakishly guessing the carriers that all of these people [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No it isnt. Sorree, tis. > >>> You know that you can't tell which carrier someone > >>> is with from their number these days, don't you? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Pathetic, really. I note you haven't actually said I was wrong, just "or maybe". That's commendable, Rod. > On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] >> >> Pathetic, really. > I note you haven't actually said I was wrong, just "or maybe". That's > commendable, Rod. Pathetic, really. >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many >> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > Pathetic, really. Hey, I think Rod is a broken record. >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many >>> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > > Hey, I think Rod is a broken record. Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought. Or anything else at all, either. >>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many >>>> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > > Or anything else at all, either. Not even mindless w.nking? SignatureKwyj >>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their >>>>> many personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > Not even mindless w.nking? Nar, obviously snapped its dick off long ago. >>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their >>>>>> many personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > > Nar, obviously snapped its dick off long ago. Who said I was talking about *his* dick? SignatureKwyj >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:43:41 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their >>>>>>> many personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > > Who said I was talking about *his* dick? Pathetic, really. On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:32:25 +1100, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post as well since these spammers are abusing the [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > > Pathetic, really. True. You'd think at least you could take a position one way or the other. > Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends you one, after they > > get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit child. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > getting much revenue unless he is freakishly guessing the carriers that > all of these people are on. MT billing only works on-net. No, its doesnt. On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:24:10 GMT, Michael (or one of their many personalities) said...... > > Pity that you dont get to pay anything if someone sends you one, after > > they get the number out of the TP, you silly little dunny cleaning fuckwit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, its doesnt. Yes, it does. On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:23:05 +1030, (or one of their many personalities) said...... > > Unfortunately I don't know for sure that it was TP that they got my number > > from. The message came from +19773366, which doesn't mean anything to me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OK, I now have the name and contact telephone for the spammer. Who is the service provider? > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:23:05 +1030, (or one of their many personalities) > said...... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Who is the service provider? The more relevant information is contained in the whirlpool link. Rod (NOT Speed) > >>> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since > >>> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > incomplete, for help. Anyone have any thoughts on how to find the missing > number? Yes, add the digits 0-9 to the number/ > >> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since > >> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Goes to show how out of date I am.....thought the TP was a paper. :) It is a paper (and website). Owned by TELSTRA!! > > >> >It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since > > >> >these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It is a paper (and website). Owned by TELSTRA!! Conspiracy theory, yay! > It wouldn't be a bad idea to complain to Trading Post as well since > these spammers are abusing the site and annoying customers. What a stupid comment. It is not illegal to READ the mobile numbers in the trading post ads! Have you got any bright ideas on how to fix the problem? Why don't you get your mates at Telstra to help Rod and the others? Perhaps TP could introduce a method to help stamp out the problem. > Have you got any bright ideas on how to fix the problem? Why > don't you get your mates at Telstra to help Rod and the others? > Perhaps TP could introduce a method to help stamp out the problem. Bit hard with a printed newspaper. > Have you got any bright ideas on how to fix the problem? Why don't you > get your mates at Telstra to help Rod and the others? > Perhaps TP could introduce a method to help stamp out the problem. You call the content provider like you always do >> Have you got any bright ideas on how to fix the problem? Why don't >> you get your mates at Telstra to help Rod and the others? >> Perhaps TP could introduce a method to help stamp out the problem. > > You call the content provider like you always do Not as f.cking clue, as always. Since Rod was not provided the number of the content provider, what is he supposed to do? > Since Rod was not provided the number of the content provider, what is > he supposed to do? Its on his bill, and available from his SP. It's an incoming SMS...and not a Premium SMS either. How can it appear on his bill? (you really don't have a clue about some things don't you?) What can your friends at Telstra advise now? > It's an incoming SMS...and not a Premium SMS either. How can it appear > on his bill? (you really don't have a clue about some things don't > you?) If it originated from 19xxxxxxxxxx as you advised, its a Premium SMS, fool |
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.