Vodaphone locks phones?

>>> Companies do not dictate *****ing,
>>
>> They do with how they ***** their name, ****wit.
>
> But they don't get their names out of the dictionary, dickhead.

No one said they dick, ****wit

>>> they can use whatever they like in their corporate logos,
>>
>> And their name too, ****wit.
>
> Which is what I said, dickhead.

No, it wasnt

>>> uh huh. A typical use of the classic 'ad hominem' response.
>>
>> It aint ad hominem, its completely accurate in your case, ****wit.
>
> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the person by calling them names,
> dickhead.

Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.

He calls a spade a spade, he's more than happy to call me a ****wit, should
the need arise

---

› See More: Vodaphone locks phones?

On Tue, 5 Tevet 5767 17:13 Michael translated the ancient runes thusly:

>>>> Companies do not dictate *****ing,
>>>
>>> They do with how they ***** their name, ****wit.
>>
>> But they don't get their names out of the dictionary, dickhead.
>
> No one said they dick, ****wit
>
>>>> they can use whatever they like in their corporate logos,
>>>
>>> And their name too, ****wit.
>>
>> Which is what I said, dickhead.
>
> No, it wasnt

Yes, it was.
>
>>>> uh huh. A typical use of the classic 'ad hominem' response.
>>>
>>> It aint ad hominem, its completely accurate in your case, ****wit.
>>
>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the person by calling them names,
>> dickhead.
>
> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.

No, he's not. What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing. Unfortunately,
too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in their names and thus
insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct. It is indeed correct,
but only for the company, not for general useage. Phone is still *****ed
phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus dictionary, or properly telephone or 'phone.

>
> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than happy to call me a ****wit,
> should the need arise

And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody, since he
usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating technique.

(Note to Roddles:- Ad hominem is Latin, and means an attack on the person
rather than a response to the debate.)

Kate
--
"Job tvoyjemadj!"
-Obergefreiter Porta 27 Panzer Z.B.v

>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the person by calling them names,
>>> dickhead.
>>
>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.
>
> No, he's not. What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing. Unfortunately,
> too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in their names and thus
> insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct. It is indeed correct,

Of course its correct, "fbyuefbbfbwefbew" is a valid company name also.
It doesn't have to ***** anything

> but only for the company, not for general useage. Phone is still *****ed
> phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus dictionary, or properly telephone or
> 'phone.

Who said fone=phone?

>> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than happy to call me a ****wit,
>> should the need arise
>
> And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody, since
> he
> usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating technique.

Rubbish

Kate <[email protected]> wrote
> Michael wrote

>>>>> Companies do not dictate *****ing,

>>>> They do with how they ***** their name, ****wit.

>>> But they don't get their names out of the dictionary, dickhead.

>> No one said they dick, ****wit

>>>>> they can use whatever they like in their corporate logos,

>>>> And their name too, ****wit.

>>> Which is what I said, dickhead.

>> No, it wasnt

> Yes, it was.

No it wasnt. Most of the logos dont even have any name in them.

>>>>> uh huh. A typical use of the classic 'ad hominem' response.

>>>> It aint ad hominem, its completely accurate in your case, ****wit.

>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the
>>> person by calling them names, dickhead.

>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.

> No, he's not.

Corse he is, you are a ****wit.

> What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

In spades when you are such a ****wit that you split
hairs about how they choose to ***** their name.

> Unfortunately, too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in
> their names and thus insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct.
> It is indeed correct, but only for the company, not for general useage.

They never ever say a thing about general use, ****wit.

> Phone is still *****ed phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus
> dictionary, or properly telephone or 'phone.

Irrelevant to what is used in company names, ****wit.

>> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than
>> happy to call me a ****wit, should the need arise

> And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody,

I accurately described you, ****wit.

> since he usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating technique.

> (Note to Roddles:- Ad hominem is Latin, and means an
> attack on the person rather than a response to the debate.)

No news to me, ****wit.

And I wasnt attacking anyway, just accurately describing a silly little ****wit.

On Wed, 6 Tevet 5767 06:09 Michael translated the ancient runes thusly:

>>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the person by calling them
>>>> names, dickhead.
>>>
>>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.
>>
>> No, he's not. What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.
>> Unfortunately, too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in their
>> names and thus insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct. It is
>> indeed correct,
>
> Of course its correct, "fbyuefbbfbwefbew" is a valid company name also.
> It doesn't have to ***** anything

Nope, it doesn't, just pretty stupid not to ***** anything.

>> but only for the company, not for general useage. Phone is still *****ed
>> phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus dictionary, or properly telephone or
>> 'phone.
>
> Who said fone=phone?

hehehehe In which case, Vodafone has buggerall to do with the 'phone
industry. So what do you think fone means?
>
>>> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than happy to call me a ****wit,
>>> should the need arise
>>
>> And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody, since
>> he
>> usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating technique.
>
>Rubbish

Yup, that's Roddles.

Kate
--
"Job tvoyjemadj!"
-Obergefreiter Porta 27 Panzer Z.B.v

On Wed, 6 Tevet 5767 08:39 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly:

<snip lots>
>>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the
>>>> person by calling them names, dickhead.
>
>>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.
>
>> No, he's not.
>
> Corse he is, you are a ****wit.

heheheh Can't even ***** 'course', ****wit.
>
>> What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.

As are you, ****wit.
>
> In spades when you are such a ****wit that you split
> hairs about how they choose to ***** their name.
>
>> Unfortunately, too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in
>> their names and thus insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct.
>> It is indeed correct, but only for the company, not for general useage.
>
> They never ever say a thing about general use, ****wit.
>
>> Phone is still *****ed phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus
>> dictionary, or properly telephone or 'phone.
>
> Irrelevant to what is used in company names, ****wit.

So is Roddles, Inc, ****wit

>>> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than
>>> happy to call me a ****wit, should the need arise
>
>> And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody,
>
> I accurately described you, ****wit.
>
>> since he usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating
>> technique.
>
>> (Note to Roddles:- Ad hominem is Latin, and means an
>> attack on the person rather than a response to the debate.)
>
> No news to me, ****wit.
>
> And I wasnt attacking anyway, just accurately describing a silly little
> ****wit.

As am I, ****wit.

Kate
--
"Job tvoyjemadj!"
-Obergefreiter Porta 27 Panzer Z.B.v

[email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
> I wanted a Nokia 1600, does Vodaphone lock these? Can i unlock it
> manually for free?

They used to unlock for free.

The ****s now charge you for the privilage.

Why bother if you are in UK you can get a SIM Free for 5 pence less
that a vodafone contract 1600 at Amazon

Mal

Kate <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the
>>>>> person by calling them names, dickhead.

>>>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.

>>> No, he's not.

>> Corse he is, you are a ****wit.

> heheheh Can't even ***** 'course'

Wasnt even using that word, ****wit.

>>> What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.

>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> As are you

I wasnt the one making a spectacular fool of itself
proclaiming about what I was pedantic about, ****wit.

>> In spades when you are such a ****wit that you split
>> hairs about how they choose to ***** their name.

>>> Unfortunately, too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in
>>> their names and thus insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is
>>> correct. It is indeed correct, but only for the company, not for
>>> general useage.

>> They never ever say a thing about general use, ****wit.

>>> Phone is still *****ed phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus
>>> dictionary, or properly telephone or 'phone.

>> Irrelevant to what is used in company names, ****wit.

>>>> He calls a spade a spade, he's more than
>>>> happy to call me a ****wit, should the need arise

>>> And I call it a ****ing shovel, so what? He just insults everbody,

>> I accurately described you, ****wit.

>>> since he usually hasn't got a ****ing clue about proper debating technique.

>>> (Note to Roddles:- Ad hominem is Latin, and means an
>>> attack on the person rather than a response to the debate.)

>> No news to me, ****wit.

>> And I wasnt attacking anyway, just accurately describing a silly little ****wit.

On Thu, 7 Tevet 5767 05:47 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly:


>
>>> Corse he is, you are a ****wit.
>
>> heheheh Can't even ***** 'course'
>
> Wasnt even using that word, ****wit.

Oh? That's the way you usually ***** it, ****wit.

>>>> What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.
>
>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>>> irrelevant.
>
>> As are you
>
> I wasnt the one making a spectacular fool of itself
> proclaiming about what I was pedantic about, ****wit.

Being just pedantic is not making a fool of oneself, but attacking all and
sundry by calling them ****wit is, ****wit.

<rest snipped since you didn't reply to that>

Kate
--
"Job tvoyjemadj!"
-Obergefreiter Porta 27 Panzer Z.B.v

Kate <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> Corse he is, you are a ****wit.

>>> heheheh Can't even ***** 'course'

>> Wasnt even using that word, ****wit.

> Oh?

Fraid so.

> That's the way you usually ***** it

Wrong, as always.

Its a contraction of a different work, ****wit.

You get to like that or lump it, as always.

>>>>> What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.

>>>> You have always been, and always will
>>>> be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>>> As are you

>> I wasnt the one making a spectacular fool of itself
>> proclaiming about what I was pedantic about, ****wit.

> Being just pedantic is not making a fool of oneself,

Proclaiming about it certainly is, ****wit.

> but attacking all and sundry by calling them ****wit is

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, ****wit.

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 6 Tevet 5767 08:39 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly:
>
> <snip lots>
>>>>> Nope, start losing an argument, attack the
>>>>> person by calling them names, dickhead.
>>
>>>> Sorry Kate, Rod is right, you are a ****wit.
>>
>>> No, he's not.
>>
>> Corse he is, you are a ****wit.
>
> heheheh Can't even ***** 'course', ****wit.

You idiot. Learn your players before you get in the game.

Their *****ing varys from person to person

>>> No, he's not. What I am is pedantic about correct *****ing.
>>> Unfortunately, too many companies use deliberate mis-*****ings in their
>>> names and thus insist that as it is a 'Company Name' it is correct. It
>>> is
>>> indeed correct,
>>
>> Of course its correct, "fbyuefbbfbwefbew" is a valid company name also.
>> It doesn't have to ***** anything
>
> Nope, it doesn't, just pretty stupid not to ***** anything.

Majority of company names would not be found in a dictionary

>>> but only for the company, not for general useage. Phone is still *****ed
>>> phone not 'fone' in a Brit/Aus dictionary, or properly telephone or
>>> 'phone.
>>
>> Who said fone=phone?
>
> hehehehe In which case, Vodafone has buggerall to do with the 'phone
> industry. So what do you think fone means?

It means nothing, because a company name means nothing.

What does the "Voda" part mean, then?

Michael wrote:

> What does the "Voda" part mean, then?

The first two letters from "voice" and "data" actually.

John

"John Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael wrote:
>
>> What does the "Voda" part mean, then?
>
> The first two letters from "voice" and "data" actually.

interesting.

the point for whatsherface was, is that voda is not a word, either

>
> John