 |
 | 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 / Providers / Cingular / March 2007Anyone else get TXT Message Spam from Cingular lately?
Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging turned off. Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg >Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >turned off. > >Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg None here.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >>turned off. >> >>Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg > >None here. Likely because you currently allow txt messages. They arrogant bast_rds at Cingular say "We didnt send SPAM, we sent an administreative message" I said "Were you trying to sell me something extra" "Yes" "Then its SPAM" ================= You now have to request that your account be modified not to receive "Administrative txt messages"; next time they'll have yet another name for it so they can violate their own Privacy Rules. > >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging > >>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Then its SPAM" Boy, that taught them, didn't it? Happy I never them. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" > >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging > >>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "Then its SPAM" Happens to me all the time, and yes, I have text messaging turned OFF for all my lines. You will never, ever hear John Navas acknowledge that something like this ever happened to him. It's no doubt happened--Cingular sends "administrative" spam for all sorts of things--but the cognitive dissonance that would set up in Navas's brain would cause it to explode. Therefore, the fuse kicks in and it's like he never even saw the matter happen. Navas is excellent at innocently claiming that none of these things ever happen to him. >> >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >> >>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >You will never, ever hear John Navas acknowledge that something like >this ever happened to him. It's no doubt happened-- Nope, wrong yet again. >Cingular sends >"administrative" spam for all sorts of things--but the cognitive >dissonance that would set up in Navas's brain would cause it to explode. The only message Cingular has sent me in months was when I got my new 3G SIM for my new Moto RAZR V3xx. >Therefore, the fuse kicks in and it's like he never even saw the matter >happen. > >Navas is excellent at innocently claiming that none of these things ever >happen to him. Only in your childish dreams. Grow up. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >turned off. > >Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg If you have registered for OLAM there is a specific section for how they can contact you for marketing. You may well have told them that text messaging from them was OK. Under any circumstances just uncheck the box. I have received a couple of these messages. They all start off with the phrase "Cingular Free Message" or something like that. That means you are not paying from them. All of them also said that to stop them sinply reply "STOP". I would assume that that message is also free. Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say no. So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop. >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care >of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop. Well said. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >>turned off. >> >>Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg > >If you have registered for OLAM Nope > there is a specific section for how >they can contact you for marketing. You may well have told them that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you are not paying from them. All of them also said that to stop them >sinply reply "STOP". I would assume that that message is also free. Yesterday's SPAM had no such option. >Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and >that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say >no. I had 3 years ago. Txt messaging was disabled on my account, but now SPAM is redefined as "Administrative Message". >So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care >of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop. I called in and asked not to received "Administrative Messages" that may work till they play another semantic word game and call SPAM something else again. >>>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >>>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Yesterday's SPAM had no such option. If yesterday's message did not have option described above then it probably wasn't from Cingular. The few that I have received from Cingular were very clear in their origin. If it wasn't from Cingular then call and bitch like hell at them. If enough people who get true spam call and do this to all of the carriers then maybe they'll decide they should do something about it. Good luck >>Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and >>that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that may work till they play another semantic word game >and call SPAM something else again. >>>>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging >>>>turned off. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >enough people who get true spam call and do this to all of the >carriers then maybe they'll decide they should do something about it. It most definitely was form Cingular, and they proudly proclaimed their SPAM as an "Administrative mnessage", but it had no opt out message in it. >Good luck > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>that may work till they play another semantic word game >>and call SPAM something else again. I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my Treo was updated for daylight savings time. Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my >Treo was updated for daylight savings time. >Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet. One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out. >>I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my >>Treo was updated for daylight savings time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my >phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out. This is quite DIFFERENT from the SPAM I received by text message which only wanted to sell txt and photo messaging, and had no way listed to stop future such SPAM, and was sent to a cell phone where txt messaging had been disabled (and was still showing as such in Cingular's records). You sure are working hard to defend the undefendable. >>One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this >>type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >in Cingular's records). You sure are working >hard to defend the undefendable. No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly accepted definition. You have an existing business relationship with Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact you regarding that business relationship. If you don't want such communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else. If you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this >>>type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And > think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor. It's like the Do-Not-Call registry. Anyone you currently do business with can still call you, even though you're on the do-not-call list. >>>> One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this >>>> type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's like the Do-Not-Call registry. Anyone you currently do business with > can still call you, even though you're on the do-not-call list. The do not call list is a joke. SBC told me there is no way to enforce it. All they offered to do was change my number. Which is no way the fault of SBC. I was getting fax machine tones in my ear at all hours of the day and night. My number is unlisted. But I found out that 5 years ago that my number was a fax machine number. :( SNIP >The do not call list is a joke. SBC told me there is no way to enforce >it. All they offered to do was change my number. Which is no way the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >My number is unlisted. But I found out that 5 years ago that my number >was a fax machine number. :( I think it is interesting how different people have had different results with the Do Not Call List. In my case I signed up before the list became active. Over the past year or two I have seen other comments similar to yours so it does seem like this list works well for some and not at all for others. My experience has been: I had 2 calls (both from local companies) the first month of it being in place. Also I had voicemail a couple of months ago from one other company, not national. So in my case the DNC list has worked great. To be honest I really didn't expect it to work but it apparently has for me. Now if the congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every charity under the sun I would really be happy. > SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every > charity under the sun I would really be happy. In my experience., the Do Not Call list has worked well, EXCEPT for the incessant Indian telemarketers trying to sell web services. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" Buzzing in Late, but "No I haven't gotten any such Msg from Cingular and like the Original poster. In fact, I don't know that I ever get anything from Cingular, though I'd be annoyed if I did. But in my case, Text Messages are active and I'd tolerate a text message over an actual phone call. If I had text messaging turned off and was charged for a message they sent, even if it was a penny, I'd be pretty pissed. But I don't think they charge for internal messages. I love the Do No call list. I went from getting calls at least twice a week to absolutely nothing. MCI, who I was technically using, because they owned the 10-10-220 people, called all the time. But I filed a compliant on the do not call website and never heard from them again On a side note, I have allstate and Allstate person (or some group they hired) called me one day to sell me their roadside assistance program. I let the lady give me the pitch and then said, I wasn't interersted. Where she pissed me off, is with the generic telemarktting crap of " But sir, it's only $1 for the first 2 months, so let's go ahead and get that started and you can look over the paper work to decide if it's right for you". Nothing sets me off more than a telemarketer thinking they are just going to sign me right on up like I'm a mindless moron. After I told her to buzz off, I called Allstate and gave them an earful and made the usual threat that, even though I've been with Allstate for 10 years, if I get another telemarketing style call trying to sell me something, I have no problems switching over to Progressive or Geico in a heartbeat. They gave me the usual "we're very sorry, won't happen again..blah blah blah" Had they said it was an "Administraive call' and that I would get them from time to time, I probably would have switched over to someone else. I don't mind FYI calls, e-mails, snail mail text messages. But call and talk to me like a mindless sheep and I'll go all Hulk rage on ya :) > SNIP > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every > charity under the sun I would really be happy. >So in my case the DNC list has worked great. ... Me too. And now I've cut the landline cord, which has dropped my telemarketing calls to zero, yet another reason to do that. :) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Me too. And now I've cut the landline cord, which has dropped my > telemarketing calls to zero, yet another reason to do that. :) There's something very comforting about 48 volts on a twisted pair, especially when disaster strikes and cell networks are all but unusable. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> Me too. And now I've cut the landline cord, which has dropped my >> telemarketing calls to zero, yet another reason to do that. :) > >There's something very comforting about 48 volts on a twisted pair, >especially when disaster strikes and cell networks are all but unusable. I've found little real difference between landline and cellular in times of disaster. If anything, I think cellular will be more reliable than landline in the future. But both are vulnerable -- for those that really care about staying in touch, the only real options are satphone and shortwave radio. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this >>>type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly >accepted definition. By the John navas definition only. Unsolicited attempt to sell services = SPAM + . In years as a Cingular customer never before March 9, 2007 had I received a "Administrative Message" by txt on my cell phone. It was plainly a SPAM message as all it did was direct me to a Cingular website to learn about buying txt or photo messaging from my cell phone; a service I asked to be disabled in July of 2004, and Cingular CSRs confirmed that my account showed that txt messaging was turned off. Cinglar never-the-less violated my privacy and its own privacy rules by sending me the SPAM txt message, and lamely trying to CYA by calling it an "Administrative Message". Any 12 of my peers (except Navas) would conclude it was SPAM. Heavens forfend Cingular use an insert with my next bill. +. I was NEVER given the opportunity to opt out. +. I never opted in to receive same. +. The message received on March 9, was clearly not Administrative, as if I had not received it or acted upon that message, my account would not have been affected in any way, however the SPAM failed to give receipient option to not receive such anymore, a clear violation of Federal Law. (i.e.) reply with a "CANCEL" to stop receiving administrative messages. A true Administrative Message would be like the notice I received from DirecTv telling me my units WOULD be affected if they hadn't received the recent updates to handle the new longer Daylight Savings Time. +. I have now asked that my account be configured to NEVER receive Adminsitartive txt Messages, but fear Cingular will invent some new name for SPAM, and automatically opt me in to receive such; as it improperly just did for the SPAM I received on March 9. +. Cingular refused to offer any compensation for its outrageous, illegal actions; and the time and energy it took me to discover what was happening. I HAVE MY OPTIONS HERE. +. Cingular has clearly been disingenuous and dishonest in dealing with me on this matter. > You have an existing business relationship with >Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact >you regarding that business relationship. I had text messaging tuned off on my account, and they over rode it to SPAM me. > If you don't want such >communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else. That is certainly an option. > If >you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And >think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor. It's Cingular's unique interpretation that's in question. >>No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite >>how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly >>accepted definition. > >By the John navas definition only. Unsolicited attempt to sell >services = SPAM Incorrect on both counts. >> If >>you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And >>think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor. > >It's Cingular's unique interpretation that's in question. It's your unique (personal) interpretation that's in question. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_%28electronic%29> Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, which are universally undesired. Read those words carefully. Pay particular attention to "abuse", "bulk", and "universally". In 2002 and 2003, frequent users of cell phone text messages began to see an increase in the number of unsolicited (and generally unwanted) commercial advertisements being sent to their cell phones through text messaging. In the United States, this use is regulated by the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Read those laws carefully. Cingular isn't violating them, not only because it has a business relationship to you, but also because it's not charging for those messages. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite >>>how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send > unsolicited bulk messages, which are universally undesired. That fits perfectly what Cingular sent. Thank you. SPAM !! > >I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my > >Treo was updated for daylight savings time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my > phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out. Yes, this was fine for me. Appreciated the heads-up, even though I already took care of it. Thousands probably wouldn't have, otherwise. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my > Treo was updated for daylight savings time. > Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet. Got the same from them for my Treo 750, as well as a text message. I don't consider that spam. I do get a commercial message from them which isn't tech releated, honestly it doesn't bother me, I just delete it. Life's too short the fret over it. Since I use Cingular and they don't charge me or it doesn't come off my basic tm plan and we do have a business relationship I consider it fair, as well as getting like one every other month or every month it's no over done. BTW, I do think the one for the wrestling thing was sorta redneckish. > Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and > that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say > no. One of the following is true: 1. One day I woke up, tripped over my slippers, and went tumbling into the Do Not Call List. There's no way out, I'm trapped forever. 2. I went out of my way to find out about the Do Not Call List, made a special effort to contact the list, and deliberately entered my phone number, in order to tell telemarketers not to contact me by phone. If the first is true, you may have a valid point. If the second is true, then anyone who telemarkets to me by phone is going out of his way to countermand my wishes. Whether that entity has a right to do so is irrelevant. You sound like someone who thinks it's okay to walk up and start beating another person until and unless they say "uncle". You could make a really good living walking up to private conversations and giving those involved a good sales pitch in the middle of their chat. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and >> that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > way to countermand my wishes. Whether that entity has a right to do so > is irrelevant. Except that the law was not written that way. Your intended outcome would not supercede the regulation. The law allows exceptions- the do-not-call list is not the end all, be all that many people wrongly think it is. > clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >> Whether that entity has a right to do so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not supercede the regulation. The law allows exceptions- the do-not-call > list is not the end all, be all that many people wrongly think it is. You may have missed my last sentence. The fact that I am able to fart loudly in church, and probably not even get kicked out for it, doesn't mean it's not excessively annoying and downright rude. The same goes for the telesleaze. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Whether that entity has a right to do so [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > even get kicked out for it, doesn't mean it's not excessively annoying > and downright rude. The same goes for the telesleaze. Understood, but legislating annoying and rude behavior would require another new arm of the government to handle the volume. > clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Understood, but legislating annoying and rude behavior would require > another new arm of the government to handle the volume. While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation and hard work into giving them permission to abuse their relationships with their customers. This is not a case of needing special legislation to make them conform to the rules, which your comment might address, but one of going out of their way to please the telesleaze operations. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > might address, but one of going out of their way to please the > telesleaze operations. Again understood, but I don't see how the "Telesleaze operators" were pleased by this. There are only a few exceptions to the DNC: - non-profit organizations - political calls (you don't actually expect them to cut off their own noses, do you?) - companies with which you have had a working business relationship in the last ? years (I don't remember the timeframe) Most companies (Cingular included) do give you the ability to opt-out of scenario three, which is interestingly enough the only exception that you can opt to exclude. Personally, I find the "public service calls" from G Dubya and Babs Streisand around election time to be much more obnoxious and intrusive, and yet I can't tell them not to call. I fail to see where the telemarketers were given any slack. If you're getting calls from someone who doesn't meet one of the exclusions above, reprt them to the FCC. There were some big and well publicized fines handed out when the national DNC was first instituted. As time went on, people stopped reporting telemarketers as much. I have yet to get any calls from anyone but the local ARC store and a ton of politicians at election time (and I've been on the list since its inception). I don't get any calls from any of my service providers because I did request them to take me off thier calling lists. I haven't had to tell anyone twice. > There are only a few exceptions to the DNC: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > scenario three, which is interestingly enough the only exception that > you can opt to exclude. I believe that's required by law. I do NOT believe they'd do it if it wasn't required by law. A lot of these companies will NOT do so if you use the wrong language, e.g. "take me off your list", "quit calling me"; holding exactly to the letter of the law, they will blast you with calls until you precisely ask to be put *onto* their do-not-call list. > Personally, I find the "public service calls" > from G Dubya and Babs Streisand around election time to be much more > obnoxious and intrusive, and yet I can't tell them not to call. I agree this is a travesty. I have resolved to vote against any candidate for any office who spams my phone, regardless of how much I might have wanted that person in office. So far I have done that. > I fail to see where the telemarketers were given any slack. If you're > getting calls from someone who doesn't meet one of the exclusions above, > reprt them to the FCC. The few who've called me without legal permission were very, very good at hiding the origins of their calls. Believe me, if I thought I had enough on any one of them to take them into small claims court, I'd be there in a flash for my $500. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> Personally, I find the "public service calls" >> from G Dubya and Babs Streisand around election time to be much more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >candidate for any office who spams my phone, regardless of how much >I might have wanted that person in office. So far I have done that. That's how a market works, much more effective than regulation. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >to make them conform to the rules, which your comment might address, >but one of going out of their way to please the telesleaze operations. I disagree -- the TCPA is reasonable and balanced. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to >>include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree -- the TCPA is reasonable and balanced. It's heavily weighted against the person who does not want to receive calls. It was deliberately made so by the efforts of the Direct Marketing Association and others. "Reasonable" would be "call me only if you have permission, or your call is urgent to me." Unreasonable is "my phone is every bozo's dedicated advertising medium." TCPA enacted the latter into law. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >>>While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to >>>include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >calls. It was deliberately made so by the efforts of the Direct >Marketing Association and others. I disagree. >"Reasonable" would be "call me only if you have permission, or your >call is urgent to me." Unreasonable is "my phone is every bozo's >dedicated advertising medium." TCPA enacted the latter into law. In your opinion. My opinion differs. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and >> that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >good living walking up to private conversations and giving those involved >a good sales pitch in the middle of their chat. Did you flunk reading comprehension in school. I said only that if the message was from Cingular then it was easy to stop. As far as saying I think it is OK to just go up and start beating somebody then I invite you to come up to me and even intimate that you are going to do something. I can assure you that my knee will end up causing you to speak with a higher pitched voice than mine LOL. Have a great day. > Did you flunk reading comprehension in school. All right, since you can't comprehend what I wrote, we'll settle on the ad-hominems instead. Unlike you, I do remember the rules of punctuation they taught me in second grade, and third grade, and fourth grade, and fifth grade, and sixth grade, and so on for many years. Specifically, I remember the rule that says that one punctuates a question with a question mark. Just a little reminder to go back and actually pass second grade. SignatureMartians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html> >> Did you flunk reading comprehension in school. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Just a little reminder to go back and actually pass second grade. Good one! > Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging > turned off. > > Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg Mine has some "wappush" (text spam) buried in the message and it is from some Yahoo! ad ingrate. The words Cingular appear so you thinik it from them, but it isn't on mine. If you click to find out or to unsubscribe, it calls the ingrate and then you get free phone text spam you pay for life. Don't reply to the message if you see wappush. You've been warned! B~ |
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
|
©2009 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.