Telstra linesmen ready the tin snips for CDMA network

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Core2Duo <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> More farmers will die from bee stings.

>>> You sure will, if your first phone call is to the PUB instead of 000

>> Pity that its just a tad hard to tell the ambulance where to go
>> when you are in the middle of some paddock and have just
>> knocked down a tree with some bees in it and the medication
>> you need to save your life happens to be at the pub.

> Rod, you should always ring 000 first

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to tell 000 where you are when
its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?

---

› See More: Telstra linesmen ready the tin snips for CDMA network

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Core2Duo <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Core2Duo <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> More farmers will die from bee stings.

>>> You sure will, if your first phone call is to the PUB instead of 000

>> His phone call to the PUB did not even work, and could have saved his life it if did.

>> You've not taken into account the actual circumstances.
>> Typical of you.

> Thats very true, because I'm not aware of the actual circumstances

Thats always been obvious.

He was pushing some trees over well away from any roads, in the middle
of some paddock, with a dozer, with the bees in one of the trees he pushed over.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:00:31 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>> Telstra's chief executive, Sol Trujillo, refused last week to
>>>>> reveal the number of customers still using the CDMA network, giving
>>>>> rise to speculation a significant number still exist. But he did say
>>>>> that the CDMA customers contributed less than 3 per cent of total
>>>>> mobile revenue of $3.19 billion.
>>
>>>> seeing many of them are (like mine) used on the very occasional foray
>>>> into non-GSM territory, that probably means around half a million subs
>>>> still.
>>
>>> No, substantially less than that.
>>
>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>That's true, its commercial in confidence.

What a lame excuse. CIC is really about information you have from *others* that
you are bound not to reveal because you obtained it under privelege. Tel$tra's
own data on the number of CDMA subs isn't in that category.

Tel$tra have that information, it is *their* information, they can reveal it any
time they like. They are only serving their own lame NextG transition arguments
by not revealing the huge size of the residual CDMA fleet, figuring that
revealing the truth would torpedo their arguments that CDMA users are flocking
to NextG.

>>> And most of them are non-viable CDMA services with $0 credit which will
>>> be disconnected at the end of the month
>>
>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>As avive

Whatever that is.

As above.

>> If the numbers were anything like what you claim, the mexican ****wit
>> wouldnt have any reason to not actually say what the numbers actually are.
>
>They are CIC so of course he wouldnt reveal them

Crap. See above.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:33:55 +1100, "Kwyjibo" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"rebel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> trying to find that elusive spot where NextG works?
>
>That's not Telstra's fault.
>Men have been trying to find the G spot for decades. Few that I know have
>succeeded.

Not THAT elusive spot, the NEXT G-spot ;-)

And clearly in appointing the mex and his amigos, the board didn't ask them if
THEY could find it. Or they lied (again).

Will Kemp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:20:57 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Core2Duo <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>>> More farmers will die from bee stings.
>>
>>>>> You sure will, if your first phone call is to the PUB instead of
>>>>> 000
>>
>>>> Pity that its just a tad hard to tell the ambulance where to go
>>>> when you are in the middle of some paddock and have just knocked
>>>> down a tree with some bees in it and the medication you need to
>>>> save your life happens to be at the pub.
>>
>>> Rod, you should always ring 000 first
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
>> had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to tell 000 where you are when
>> its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?
>
> He thinks the bush is all neatly divided up into streets, complete
> with road signs and house numbers - like Melbourne (well, apart from
> the road signs and house numbers, that is).

I doubt he's quite that bad, but he clearly has never tried to tell someone
like 000 where he is in someones paddock well away from the road etc.

All you can ever do is say its fred's place etc, and thats not normally
any use to anyone except those down the pub or your mate etc.

"rebel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:00:31 GMT, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Telstra's chief executive, Sol Trujillo, refused last week to
>>>>>> reveal the number of customers still using the CDMA network, giving
>>>>>> rise to speculation a significant number still exist. But he did say
>>>>>> that the CDMA customers contributed less than 3 per cent of total
>>>>>> mobile revenue of $3.19 billion.
>>>
>>>>> seeing many of them are (like mine) used on the very occasional foray
>>>>> into non-GSM territory, that probably means around half a million subs
>>>>> still.
>>>
>>>> No, substantially less than that.
>>>
>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>>
>>That's true, its commercial in confidence.
>
> What a lame excuse. CIC is really about information you have from *others*
> that
> you are bound not to reveal because you obtained it under privelege.

Wrong.

> Tel$tra's
> own data on the number of CDMA subs isn't in that category.
>

How would you know? You've already shown that you dodn't even understand
what CIC is in the first place.

> Tel$tra have that information, it is *their* information, they can reveal
> it any
> time they like.

They *can*, but don't have to.

--
Kwyj.

"Will Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:43:32 +0800, rebel wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:33:55 +1100, "Kwyjibo"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rebel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> trying to find that elusive spot where NextG works?
>>>
>>>That's not Telstra's fault.
>>>Men have been trying to find the G spot for decades. Few that I know
>>>have succeeded.
>>
>> Not THAT elusive spot, the NEXT G-spot ;-)
>
> That's the one. Everyone knows where it's supposed to be, but it never
> seems to work when you're there!

And, much like the G spot, I don't really care if it works or not.

--
Kwyj.

Kwyjibo <[email protected]> wrote
> rebel <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>> Telstra's chief executive, Sol Trujillo, refused last week to
>>>>>>> reveal the number of customers still using the CDMA network,
>>>>>>> giving rise to speculation a significant number still exist.
>>>>>>> But he did say that the CDMA customers contributed less than 3
>>>>>>> per cent of total mobile revenue of $3.19 billion.

>>>>>> seeing many of them are (like mine) used on the very occasional
>>>>>> foray into non-GSM territory, that probably means around half a
>>>>>> million subs still.

>>>>> No, substantially less than that.

>>>> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

>>> That's true, its commercial in confidence.

>> What a lame excuse. CIC is really about information you have from *others* that you are bound not to reveal because
>> you obtained it under privelege.

> Wrong.

>> Tel$tra's own data on the number of CDMA subs isn't in that category.

> How would you know?

Its obvious. That system is being turned off, ****wit.

> You've already shown that you dodn't even
> understand what CIC is in the first place.

And you have just shown that you dont have a clue about what telstra can do with
that info any time they like, just like they can with the numbers now using NextG too.

>> Tel$tra have that information, it is *their* information, they can reveal it any time they like.

> They *can*, but don't have to.

But when they do with the numbers using the NextG system, and dont with
the number who havent bothered to change to the NextG system for whatever
reason, only a fool would be stupid enough to buy the lie that they cant say
how many are still on the cdma system because that info is CIC, ****wit.

AND its only a stupid dunny cleaning ****wit child that even claims that anyway.

>> Rod, you should always ring 000 first
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
> had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to tell 000 where you are when
> its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?

You can give them a locality, better than nothing. Better to have an
ambulance out looking for the exact location rather than nothing.

Your next call can be to the pub
>
>

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Rod, you should always ring 000 first

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
>> had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to tell 000 where you are when
>> its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?

> You can give them a locality,

Completely ****ing useless, guaranteed to see him dead.

> better than nothing.

The alternative aint nothing, ****wit. Its ringing up
someone who knows were you say you are is.

> Better to have an ambulance out looking for the exact location rather than nothing.

The alternative aint nothing, ****wit.

> Your next call can be to the pub

Your first call should be to someone who can understand where you are, ****wit.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Rod, you should always ring 000 first
>
>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever
>>> had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to tell 000 where you are when
>>> its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?
>
>> You can give them a locality,
>
> Completely ****ing useless, guaranteed to see him dead.
>
>> better than nothing.
>
> The alternative aint nothing, ****wit. Its ringing up
> someone who knows were you say you are is.

You arent limited to one phone call (hopefully)

>> Better to have an ambulance out looking for the exact location rather
>> than nothing.
>
> The alternative aint nothing, ****wit.
>
>> Your next call can be to the pub
>
> Your first call should be to someone who can understand where you are,
> ****wit.

Disagree.
>
>

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:03:47 GMT "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Your first call should be to someone who can understand where you
> > are, ****wit.
>
> Disagree.

Brave man.

Under no circumstances is anybody allowed to disagree with Our Roddles.

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

>>>>> Rod, you should always ring 000 first

>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a ****ing clue. How do you propose to
>>>> tell 000 where you are when its in fred's back paddock where you're pushing some trees over ?

>>> You can give them a locality,

>> Completely ****ing useless, guaranteed to see him dead.

>>> better than nothing.

>> The alternative aint nothing, ****wit. Its ringing up someone who knows were you say you are is.

> You arent limited to one phone call (hopefully)

Yep, but it makes no sense to call 000 first when you wont be able
to tell them where to go in a way that will be any use to them.

Makes a lot more sense to have someone who knows where to go
show up with what is required to avoid you dying and then get them
to whistle up the ambulance while they are on the way to the one who
got stung by the bees and who is now incapable of talking to 000 etc.

>>> Better to have an ambulance out looking for the exact location rather than nothing.

>> The alternative aint nothing, ****wit.

>>> Your next call can be to the pub

>> Your first call should be to someone who can understand where you are, ****wit.

> Disagree.

And thats why you only ever get to clean the dunnys and
never ever get to have anything to so with 000 services.

>> You arent limited to one phone call (hopefully)
>
> Yep, but it makes no sense to call 000 first when you wont be able
> to tell them where to go in a way that will be any use to them.
>
> Makes a lot more sense to have someone who knows where to go
> show up with what is required to avoid you dying and then get them
> to whistle up the ambulance while they are on the way to the one who
> got stung by the bees and who is now incapable of talking to 000 etc.

OK. Seems like a reasonable argument.