Vodaphone locks phones?

Hello,
I wanted a Nokia 1600, does Vodaphone lock these? Can i unlock it
manually for free?

vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I wanted a Nokia 1600, does Vodaphone lock these? Can i unlock it
> manually for free?

Learn how to spell. There is NO such thing as Vodaphone!!!!!!


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

On Sat, 25 Kislev 5767 00:03 Simon Templar translated the ancient runes
thusly:

> vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I wanted a Nokia 1600, does Vodaphone lock these? Can i unlock it
>> manually for free?
>
> Learn how to spell. There is NO such thing as Vodaphone!!!!!!
>
Actually, he's right. It's Vodafone that can't spell!

Kate vk4xyl
--
"Job tvoyjemadj!"
-Obergefreiter Porta 27 Panzer Z.B.v

history lesson for the kiddies :-)
Vodafone
Vo ice + Da ta + Phone = Vodafone (fonically) ;-)
Kate wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Kislev 5767 00:03 Simon Templar translated the ancient runes
> thusly:
>
>
>>vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>I wanted a Nokia 1600, does Vodaphone lock these? Can i unlock it
>>>manually for free?
>>
>>Learn how to spell. There is NO such thing as Vodaphone!!!!!!
>>
>
> Actually, he's right. It's Vodafone that can't spell!
>
> Kate vk4xyl

On Mon, 27 Kislev 5767 19:53 kcoj translated the ancient runes thusly:

> history lesson for the kiddies :-)
> Vodafone
> Vo ice + Da ta + Phone = Vodafone (fonically) ;-)

Umm if you put those together you get 'Vodaphone', and it's phonically. It's
an annoying Seppo 'marketspeak' technique to replace the 'ph' with 'f' that
is unfortuantely invading both the UK and Aus.

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

"Kate" <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4586e9b9$0$5746$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> On Mon, 27 Kislev 5767 19:53 kcoj translated the ancient runes thusly:
>
>> history lesson for the kiddies :-)
>> Vodafone
>> Vo ice + Da ta + Phone = Vodafone (fonically) ;-)
>
> Umm if you put those together you get 'Vodaphone', and it's phonically.
> It's
> an annoying Seppo 'marketspeak' technique to replace the 'ph' with 'f'
> that
> is unfortuantely invading both the UK and Aus.

Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.

THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company

On Tue, 28 Kislev 5767 12:11 Michael translated the ancient runes thusly:

>
> "Kate" <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4586e9b9$0$5746$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> On Mon, 27 Kislev 5767 19:53 kcoj translated the ancient runes thusly:
>>
>>> history lesson for the kiddies :-)
>>> Vodafone
>>> Vo ice + Da ta + Phone = Vodafone (fonically) ;-)
>>
>> Umm if you put those together you get 'Vodaphone', and it's phonically.
>> It's
>> an annoying Seppo 'marketspeak' technique to replace the 'ph' with 'f'
>> that
>> is unfortuantely invading both the UK and Aus.
>
> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.
>
> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company

And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their company name, a
typical corporate decision to misspell a word. Just like 'Donut King' can't
spell 'doughnut'. Just because it's their legal name doesn't make it
correct spelling.

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

>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.
>>
>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company
>
> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their company name, a
> typical corporate decision to misspell a word. Just like 'Donut King'
> can't
> spell 'doughnut'. Just because it's their legal name doesn't make it
> correct spelling.

By definition, it is.

****wit.

On Fri, 1 Tevet 5767 06:03 Michael translated the ancient runes thusly:

>>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.
>>>
>>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company
>>
>> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their company name, a
>> typical corporate decision to misspell a word. Just like 'Donut King'
>> can't
>> spell 'doughnut'. Just because it's their legal name doesn't make it
>> correct spelling.
>
> By definition, it is.

Not by the dictionary, it's not. Companies do not dictate spelling, they can
use whatever they like in their corporate logos, but the OED is still the
definitive repository of correct spelling.

> ****wit.

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

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

Kate <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Michael wrote

>>>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.

>>>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company

>>> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their
>>> company name, a typical corporate decision to misspell a
>>> word. Just like 'Donut King' can't spell 'doughnut'. Just
>>> because it's their legal name doesn't make it correct spelling.

>> By definition, it is.

> Not by the dictionary, it's not.

They are completely irrelevant to company names, ****wit.

> Companies do not dictate spelling,

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

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

And their name too, ****wit.

> but the OED is still the definitive repository of correct spelling.

Not with company names it isnt, ****wit.

Same with people's names too, ****wit.

>> ****wit.

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

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

On Fri, 1 Tevet 5767 11:57 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly:

> Kate <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Michael wrote
>
>>>>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.
>
>>>>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company
>
>>>> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their
>>>> company name, a typical corporate decision to misspell a
>>>> word. Just like 'Donut King' can't spell 'doughnut'. Just
>>>> because it's their legal name doesn't make it correct spelling.
>
>>> By definition, it is.
>
>> Not by the dictionary, it's not.
>
> They are completely irrelevant to company names, ****wit.

That's what I said, dickhead.
>
>> Companies do not dictate spelling,
>
> They do with how they spell their name, ****wit.

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

>> they can use whatever they like in their corporate logos,
>
> And their name too, ****wit.

Which is what I said, dickhead.
>
>> but the OED is still the definitive repository of correct spelling.
>
> Not with company names it isnt, ****wit.

That's what I said, it's marketspeak, mis-spelling deliberately to get the
****wits to buy their junk, dickhead.

> Same with people's names too, ****wit.

I'd noticed that dickhead.

>>> ****wit.
>
>> 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.

Now FROAD

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

Kate <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Kate <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Michael wrote

>>>>>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.

>>>>>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company

>>>>> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their
>>>>> company name, a typical corporate decision to misspell a
>>>>> word. Just like 'Donut King' can't spell 'doughnut'. Just
>>>>> because it's their legal name doesn't make it correct spelling.

>>>> By definition, it is.

>>> Not by the dictionary, it's not.

>> They are completely irrelevant to company names, ****wit.

> That's what I said

Lying, as always.

And YOU brought up dictionarys, ****wit child.

>>> Companies do not dictate spelling,

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

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

Must be one of those rocket scientist ****wit children.

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

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

> Which is what I said

Lying, as always.

>>> but the OED is still the definitive repository of correct spelling.

>> Not with company names it isnt, ****wit.

> That's what I said,

Lying, as always.

And YOU brought up dictionarys, ****wit child.

> it's marketspeak, mis-spelling deliberately
> to get the ****wits to buy their junk

Nope, so they get to have exclusivity with that spelling, ****wit child.

>> Same with people's names too, ****wit.

> I'd noticed that

Obvious lie.

>>>> ****wit.

>>> 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

Nope, it aint ad hominem, its completely accurate in your case, ****wit child.

> Now FROAD

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****wit child.

On Fri, 1 Tevet 5767 19:38 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes thusly:

<lotsa snip>
>> Now FROAD
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****wit child.

No doubt. Now please pay attention to my sig, ****wit child.

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

Kate <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Tevet 5767 19:38 Rod Speed translated the ancient runes
> thusly:
>
> <lotsa snip>
>>> Now FROAD
>>
>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****wit child.
>
> No doubt. Now please pay attention to my sig

Pathetic, really.

"Kate" <vk4xyl2@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:458aed40$0$9774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> On Fri, 1 Tevet 5767 06:03 Michael translated the ancient runes thusly:
>
>>>> Its not 'marketspeak', its their legal company name.
>>>>
>>>> THEY get to decide how to spell it, because THEY own the company
>>>
>>> And they decided to use the marketspeak version as their company name, a
>>> typical corporate decision to misspell a word. Just like 'Donut King'
>>> can't
>>> spell 'doughnut'. Just because it's their legal name doesn't make it
>>> correct spelling.
>>
>> By definition, it is.
>
> Not by the dictionary, it's not. Companies do not dictate spelling, they
> can
> use whatever they like in their corporate logos, but the OED is still the
> definitive repository of correct spelling.

A company can call itself "hferuifhuiferuifhufrehfriue" - and by definition,
that is the correct spelling of their company name.

Vodafone call themself "Vodafone" - and by definition, that is the correct
spelling of their company name.