From: Chris Blunt on
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
<tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> andy wrote:
>>
>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>>
>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code. Works most times.
>
>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should have
>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe has
>been received by the misuse of my number, however trivial the amount that I
>am expected to pay.

Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.

Chris
From: tim.... on

"Chris Blunt" <mail(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s235t5pgroe55ri92galnn60f2r9m9fp7a(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
> <tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> andy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
>>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
>>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
>>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>>>
>>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code. Works most times.
>>
>>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should
>>have
>>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe
>>has
>>been received by the misuse of my number, however trivial the amount that
>>I
>>am expected to pay.
>
> Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
> the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.

Why should they involve me in expense at all?

The cost should fall to the person invading my life with his spam. If he
finds it profitable to send, this should not be because some of the costs of
running his business are involuntarily paid by other people.

tim



From: David Kennedy on
tim.... wrote:
>
> The cost should fall to the person invading my life with his spam. If he
> finds it profitable to send, this should not be because some of the costs of
> running his business are involuntarily paid by other people.

If this really excites you - as it seems too - then phone them on their
freephone number and ask them to stop.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com
From: alexd on
On 25/04/10 11:21, tim.... wrote:
> "Chris Blunt"<mail(a)nospam.com> wrote in message

>> Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
>> the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.

> Why should they involve me in expense at all?

This is starting to sound reminiscent of a thread in this august forum a
few weeks ago, entitled "giffgaff: thieving, lying, scum".

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm(a)ale.cx)
13:52:11 up 16 days, 3:18, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.20, 0.14
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all
From: andy on
On 25 Apr, 11:21, "tim...." <tims_new_h...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Chris Blunt" <m...(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:s235t5pgroe55ri92galnn60f2r9m9fp7a(a)4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
> > <tims_new_h...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> andy wrote:
>
> >>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
> >>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
> >>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
> >>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>
> >>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code.  Works most times.
>
> >>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should
> >>have
> >>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe
> >>has
> >>been received by the misuse of my number,  however trivial the amount that
> >>I
> >>am expected to pay.
>
> > Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
> > the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.
>
> Why should they involve me in expense at all?
>
> The cost should fall to the person invading my life with his spam.  If he
> finds it profitable to send, this should not be because some of the costs of
> running his business are involuntarily paid by other people.
>
> tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe, but you seem to be on a different subject

The OP has a contractual arrangement with the two companies named, and
their terms like thousands of others will have stated that they may
from time to time send info about other products in the group, which
they feel the customer may be interested in

.... and that users can opt into or out of receiving such info, and
almost certainly that they can define by which methods this may or may
not happen

Users may overlook or get confused by these terms, or perhaps firms
sometimes make an error in assuming there would be interest, but that
doesn't matter too much as the decision given doesn't have to be
final, and can be modified

That is why such messages contains info on how to opt out of receiving
any more.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Mobiles for VOIP
Next: Tethering and Samsung GT-B2100