Is Veteran's Day a holiday?

well?

---

› See More: Is Veteran's Day a holiday?

Yes it is.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Reggie Degger <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Oscar_Lives" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>well?
>
> Yes.
>
> Are your minutes going to be free on that holiday? No.
>
> Are your minutes going to be free on Thanksgiving? No.
>
> Are your minutes going to be free on Christmas? No.
>
> Are your minutes going to be free on any holiday that doesn't fall on a
> Saturday or Sunday? No.
>
> Is somebody going to ask this very same question again in a few weeks? Yes.
>
> Is the answer going to be any different? No.
>
> Is there anything that can be done about this? No.
>

Is there anything that SHOULD be done about this? No.

- --
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at [email protected].

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBj4pJ1p0e3NXsrtERAg3+AJ4vwgGKYR17Vtx0Q/VbKBUwYyqTqgCfZdfD
9ZeoJYhs6eE3SpNSxw32UfQ=
=q37D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Oscar_Lives burbled to the world:

> well?


Not for me, I'll be working as usual.

Chris

--

Oh life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea.
And love is a thing that can never go wrong
And I am Marie, of Rumania.
---Dorothy Parker

>Yes it is.
>

But you still use minutes if you use your cell phone. I suspect that this is
what is actually being asked.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

Reggie Degger wrote:

> How on earth do you figure? If suggesting to SPCS that they make major
> holiday minutes off-peak minutes can result in lower monthly bills for us
> (and a selling point for them), what possible reason is there not to do so?

Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.

Sure, it's a selling point. The question is whether it's a big enough selling
point to justify doing it.

> Are you accustomed to settling for what's offered in business negotiations
> (and if so, can you let me know if you ever sell your house)?

Are you aware that in most consumer situations (with the exceptions of
purchasing cars and houses) there isn't any negotiation? If you talk to Sprint
Business and are bringing them a number of lines that your company will use,
sure, maybe you can work a deal with your business rep. If you're on a consumer
contract, my guess is that you'll have no luck negotiating.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Reggie Degger wrote:

>
> How on earth do you figure? If suggesting to SPCS that they make major
> holiday minutes off-peak minutes can result in lower monthly bills for us
> (and a selling point for them)

How? At present, I'm well within my plan minutes. If these holidays
get lumped into the N&W bucket, it makes absolutely no difference to me
at all. My bills stays the same, and the only difference is that I have
more unused peak minutes. The difference would also not be enough to
allow me to drop to a lower plan.

I would bet that most people who have any inkling of how to effectively
manage a plan (going over is always a stupid idea, when bumping up to a
higher plan is almost always a smarter, cheaper choice) would fail to
see the benefits. If you average maybe, 1 holiday a month, the benefit
spread out over 12 billing cycles is insignificant.

You COULD argue that you would be encouraged to talk more on a holiday,
but on Veteran's Day I just don't see myself calling up the family just
to wish them a happy Veteran's Day. And besides, I'm still working that
day, holiday or not, and sure as hell won't have time to gab to friends
on a cell phone.

Absolutely no financial gain. Big deal.

> Are you accustomed to settling for what's offered in business
> negotiations (and if so, can you let me know if you ever sell your
> house)?


No, I'm simply accustomed to not making mountains out of molehills. Do
you know ANYTHING about effective negotiation? To demand a pyrrhic
victory over something that fails to benefit you in any way risks the
dilution of your credibility in future attempts at negotiation over more
meaningful issues. It makes you out to be a nitpicker, dilutes efforts
to gain credibility on more important points, and increases the
likelihood of deadlock.

To use your example, I doubt you're going to make much headway buying
anyone's house if you're going to haggle over ridiculous things like
trying to lower the asking price because there's an oil spot in the
driveway that a little Speedy Dry and cat litter would soak right up.
It's a meaningless detail that doesn't deserve intense debate. As a
seller, I might even be inclined to simply thank you kindly and move on
to the next bid, knowing I'm not getting anywhere with you.

I tend to complain about things that are actually a detriment to me. No
free minutes on Veteran's Day isn't the end of world for me... it
doesn't even ***** financial ruin or more money out of my pocket. In
fact, typing out this message has probably cost me more in the tiny
number of calories my fingers have burned punching keys on a keyboard,
than no free minutes on a thousand veteran's days would cost me out of
pocket.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Reggie Degger wrote:

>>Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.
>
>
> Well, the knowledge that Sprint PCS is bringing in a marginally smaller
> amount of revenue on Thanksgiving Day would certainly make the turkey and
> cranberry sauce taste like ashes in *my* mouth. <eyeroll>

Actually, I'm not convinced that revenue is the problem... it probably
won't change very much at all. The big problem is intercarrier access
costs. Sprint PCS still has to play ball with the LECs in local markets
to connects its lines, and those costs, unlike your plan, don't change
depending on whether you call on a holiday or not. People making more
long distance calls costs them money, even if that's not reflected
directly in your bill. And guess when people make more calls? When
it's "free," of course.

Higher costs mean, obviously, that rates could rise. So yes, you could
have your free holidays, but might expect to pay say, a dollar or two
more per month to subsidize the cost. Knowing how much you ***** about
holidays, I'm sure you'll just *love* higher rates. In fact, I bet
you're not with Verizon because their rates are higher and because you
get nickle-and-dimed for things like data access. They do that
because... stay with me now... their costs are higher, BECAUSE they do
things (or at least used to, not sure if they still do) like free
unlimited holidays.

> I'm a consumer of Sprint's services, not an
> investor in the company. Their "revenues" are of no more concern to me than
> my personal income is to them, except insofar as it would be slightly
> inconvenient for one of us to find a new provider/client should the other go
> belly-up.

Is this a diplomatic way of saying your credit is bad?


>
>
>>Sure, it's a selling point. The question is whether it's a big enough selling
>>point to justify doing it.
>
>
> And if it is a big enough selling (or retention) point, they will.

Not if it isn't cost effective. If you gave someone a choice between
holidays with unlimited minutes that they wouldn't otherwise use, or
lower rates, I bet people would pick the latter.

> And if
> it isn't, they won't. Either way, there is no earthly reason for us not to
> request it of them.

I agree. So, maybe you should write a letter to Sprint instead of
whining here about it. Maybe if enough people express their opinions,
they'll perceive it as worth the increased costs.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Reggie Degger wrote:
> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Reggie Degger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How on earth do you figure? If suggesting to SPCS that they make major
>>>holiday minutes off-peak minutes can result in lower monthly bills for us
>>>(and a selling point for them), what possible reason is there not to do so?
>>
>>Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.
>
>
> Well, the knowledge that Sprint PCS is bringing in a marginally smaller
> amount of revenue on Thanksgiving Day

Well, that's the thing. We don't know that it's _marginally_ smaller. If Sprint
figures the loss in revenue would be more than made up by a larger number of
people using the service on peak days, maybe they'd do the free holidays.

> cranberry sauce taste like ashes in *my* mouth. <eyeroll> What in heaven's
> name are you talking about? I'm a consumer of Sprint's services, not an
> investor in the company.

???!!!

*I* don't care. *Sprint* probably cares, and that's why they haven't done it.

> Their "revenues" are of no more concern to me than
> my personal income is to them, except insofar as it would be slightly
> inconvenient for one of us to find a new provider/client should the other go
> belly-up.

Wow. How incredibly shortsighted of you. I wasn't suggesting you should care, I
was suggesting a potential reason that Sprint doesn't do off-peak billing on
holidays. Verizon does, but Verizon's a bit more expensive than Sprint when you
compare similar plans between carriers, so IMHO it's all a wash.

> And if it is a big enough selling (or retention) point, they will. And if
> it isn't, they won't. Either way, there is no earthly reason for us not to
> request it of them.

Point out where I said you shouldn't ask.

>>Are you aware that in most consumer situations (with the exceptions of
>>purchasing cars and houses) there isn't any negotiation?
>
> I'm aware that many consumers, like you and Mr. Veldhouse, labor under the
> delusion that companies have the last and final word in setting the market
> price for the goods and services they offer.

OK. You go visit a consumer electronics store, then, and haggle with them over
the price of a TV or computer or home theater system. Come back and tell us how
far you get.

Usually, vendors are more likely to negotiate with businesses because
businesses represent a larger and more steady stream of income.

> consumers', and to your, detriment. You might be surprised at what
> concessions companies will make to you, if you only speak up and make it
> clear that you regard their asking price as a starting point. No, I'm not
> suggesting that you haggle with the cashier at the Piggly Wiggly over the
> price of cigarettes and melons, but almost anything else is fair game.

Well, you're certainly welcome to try. I'm telling you that in many cases, you
won't get far.

>>If you talk to Sprint
>>Business and are bringing them a number of lines that your company will use,
>>sure, maybe you can work a deal with your business rep. If you're on a consumer
>>contract, my guess is that you'll have no luck negotiating.
>
> Your guess, in my case, would be wrong.

I'm not talking about customer retention deals, either.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Isaiah Beard wrote:

> Actually, I'm not convinced that revenue is the problem... it probably
> won't change very much at all. The big problem is intercarrier access
> costs. Sprint PCS still has to play ball with the LECs in local markets
> to connects its lines, and those costs, unlike your plan, don't change
> depending on whether you call on a holiday or not.

That *does* affect revenue. If they're being charged and can't deduct airtime
minutes, they are less likely to make up that cost.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:

>Reggie Degger wrote:
>> Steve Sobol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Reggie Degger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How on earth do you figure? If suggesting to SPCS that they make major
>>>>holiday minutes off-peak minutes can result in lower monthly bills for us
>>>>(and a selling point for them), what possible reason is there not to do so?
>>>
>>>Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.
>>
>>
>> Well, the knowledge that Sprint PCS is bringing in a marginally smaller
>> amount of revenue on Thanksgiving Day
>
>Well, that's the thing. We don't know that it's _marginally_ smaller. If Sprint
>figures the loss in revenue would be more than made up by a larger number of
>people using the service on peak days, maybe they'd do the free holidays.

Correct. That's all I was trying to say.

>> cranberry sauce taste like ashes in *my* mouth. <eyeroll> What in heaven's
>> name are you talking about? I'm a consumer of Sprint's services, not an
>> investor in the company.
>
>???!!!
>
>*I* don't care. *Sprint* probably cares, and that's why they haven't done it.

That's *possibly* why they haven't done it. Other possible reasons why they
haven't done it include corporate intransigence, poor customer feedback
tracking, or not enough people asking for it. There is, of course, nothing
that can be done by anybody outside of SPCS about those first two reasons
I've listed, but in case it's the third, an uptick in customer comments on
the issue could and very likely would result in Sprint's reconsidering their
policy.

>> Their "revenues" are of no more concern to me than
>> my personal income is to them, except insofar as it would be slightly
>> inconvenient for one of us to find a new provider/client should the other go
>> belly-up.
>
>Wow. How incredibly shortsighted of you.

How on earth do you figure? To be "shortsighted" is to ignore the possible
negative long-term consequences of an action or situation in favor of
short-term gain. I've already pointed out that there are no possible
negative long-term consequences *to me or to any other consumer*. There are
possible negative consequences *to Sprint* should they lose money on the
deal, but as I pointed out before, these are of no more concern to me than
my personal finances are to them.

>I wasn't suggesting you should care, I
>was suggesting a potential reason that Sprint doesn't do off-peak billing on
>holidays. Verizon does, but Verizon's a bit more expensive than Sprint when you
>compare similar plans between carriers, so IMHO it's all a wash.

It's a wash to me, too. To those who really want off-peak billing on
holidays, it may not be. And remember, there's no particularly compelling
reason to believe that Verizon's higher rates are due to off-peak billing on
holidays.

> > And if it is a big enough selling (or retention) point, they will. And if
>> it isn't, they won't. Either way, there is no earthly reason for us not to
>> request it of them.
>
>Point out where I said you shouldn't ask.

I didn't say that you said that. Veldhouse did; it was his initial point
that I was addressing when you joined in.

>>>Are you aware that in most consumer situations (with the exceptions of
>>>purchasing cars and houses) there isn't any negotiation?
>>
>> I'm aware that many consumers, like you and Mr. Veldhouse, labor under the
>> delusion that companies have the last and final word in setting the market
>> price for the goods and services they offer.
>
>OK. You go visit a consumer electronics store, then, and haggle with them over
>the price of a TV or computer or home theater system.

I guess I didn't make it clear enough last time: I *have* done just that,
quite a few times.

>Come back and tell us how
>far you get.

Pretty darned far. To the tune of several hundred dollars in some cases. I
don't mean to imply that *every* store will play along; a few of them have
strict price policies that salesmen and lower-level managers can't override.
But not all of them do, by far. If you didn't know that before, well, now
you know. For goodness' sake, don't be annoyed at me just because I pointed
it out.

>Usually, vendors are more likely to negotiate with businesses because
>businesses represent a larger and more steady stream of income.
>
>> consumers', and to your, detriment. You might be surprised at what
>> concessions companies will make to you, if you only speak up and make it
>> clear that you regard their asking price as a starting point. No, I'm not
>> suggesting that you haggle with the cashier at the Piggly Wiggly over the
>> price of cigarettes and melons, but almost anything else is fair game.
>
>Well, you're certainly welcome to try. I'm telling you that in many cases, you
>won't get far.

And I'm telling you that in many cases, I have. You're guessing. I'm
telling you what happened. Again, don't shoot the messenger.

>>>If you talk to Sprint
>>>Business and are bringing them a number of lines that your company will use,
>>>sure, maybe you can work a deal with your business rep. If you're on a consumer
>>>contract, my guess is that you'll have no luck negotiating.
>>
>> Your guess, in my case, would be wrong.
>
>I'm not talking about customer retention deals, either.

Then you're not talking about negotiating, because that's exactly what
customer retention deals are.

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Reggie Degger wrote:
>
>>>Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.
>>
>>
>> Well, the knowledge that Sprint PCS is bringing in a marginally smaller
>> amount of revenue on Thanksgiving Day would certainly make the turkey and
>> cranberry sauce taste like ashes in *my* mouth. <eyeroll>
>
>Actually, I'm not convinced that revenue is the problem... it probably
>won't change very much at all.

Very good. That was precisely my point, or one of them.

> The big problem is intercarrier access
>costs. Sprint PCS still has to play ball with the LECs in local markets
>to connects its lines, and those costs, unlike your plan, don't change
>depending on whether you call on a holiday or not.

Nor do those costs change depending on whether I call at 6:59 P.M., 7:59
P.M., 8:59 P.M., or 9:01 P.M. Yet Sprint, like every other carrier on the
market, sees fit to adjust its peak/off-peak charges to customers based on
factors *other* than LEC connecting costs. The constant cost (to Sprint) of
connection does not deter them from changing off-peak starting times to win
or retain customers. Why on earth, then, would it deter them from making
changes one way or the other when it comes to holidays?

> People making more
>long distance calls costs them money, even if that's not reflected
>directly in your bill. And guess when people make more calls? When
>it's "free," of course.

Of course. Which is exactly why no wireless carrier would ever be so
reckless as to encourage widespread "free" calling by customers by offering
them, say, "free" nights and weekends...oh, wait, what's that? They all do?
There goes that argument.

>Higher costs mean, obviously, that rates could rise. So yes, you could
>have your free holidays, but might expect to pay say, a dollar or two
>more per month to subsidize the cost. Knowing how much you ***** about
>holidays, I'm sure you'll just *love* higher rates.

I've never in my life *****ed about holidays. Perhaps in your general
confusion you've also managed to confuse me with somebody else?

> In fact, I bet
>you're not with Verizon because their rates are higher and because you
>get nickle-and-dimed for things like data access.

I'm not with Verizon because they provide zero signal in my neighborhood.
Please do yourself a favor and stay away from racetracks, as your "bets"
don't seem to be paying off as of late.

> They do that
>because... stay with me now... their costs are higher, BECAUSE they do
>things (or at least used to, not sure if they still do) like free
>unlimited holidays.

You commit the fallacy of _petitio principii_, my man. You assert what
ought to be proved, namely that Verizon's higher rates are substantially due
to free holiday minutes rather than investments in infrastructure, labor
costs, advertising, phone subsidies....

> > I'm a consumer of Sprint's services, not an
>> investor in the company. Their "revenues" are of no more concern to me than
>> my personal income is to them, except insofar as it would be slightly
>> inconvenient for one of us to find a new provider/client should the other go
>> belly-up.
>
>Is this a diplomatic way of saying your credit is bad?

No. It was an explanation, in very plain English, of the basic business
fact that if A does business with B, A does not care a whit whether the deal
is beneficial to B except to the extent that if B is so adversely affected
by the terms of the deal that B goes out of business, A is mildly and
temporarily inconvenienced--and vice versa.

My FICO scores are in the high 700s, by the way; thanks for asking.

>>>Sure, it's a selling point. The question is whether it's a big enough selling
>>>point to justify doing it.
>>
>>
>> And if it is a big enough selling (or retention) point, they will.
>
>Not if it isn't cost effective.

Yes; that was implicit in my very next sentence, and I quote: "And if it
isn't, they won't."

> If you gave someone a choice between
>holidays with unlimited minutes that they wouldn't otherwise use, or
>lower rates, I bet people would pick the latter.

You finally win a bet. On the other hand, if you offer somebody a choice
between unlimited holiday minutes at $X, and no holiday minutes at $X, they
will certainly pick the former. What you don't seem to understand is that
such a choice is entirely feasible. Markets and pricing are a bit more
complex than you seem to think they are; offering more of a given good or
service for the same price does not necessarily translate immediately to
lower revenues, nor does offering more of a good or service while maintainig
revenue at a fixed level necessarily require increasing the price.

>> And if
>> it isn't, they won't. Either way, there is no earthly reason for us not to
>> request it of them.
>
>I agree. So, maybe you should write a letter to Sprint instead of
>whining here about it.

Not only have I not "whined" about it here, I haven't even expressed an
opinion on whether Sprint should offer free holiday minutes. That you think
otherwise betokens a certain sloppiness in your thinking and/or your
reading. My argument was with Mr. Veldhouse's contention that folks who
want holiday minutes shouldn't do anything about it.

> Maybe if enough people express their opinions,
>they'll perceive it as worth the increased costs.

Yes, that's precisely what I have been saying all along. Congratulations on
finally comprehending that.

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>Reggie Degger wrote:
>
>>
>> How on earth do you figure? If suggesting to SPCS that they make major
>> holiday minutes off-peak minutes can result in lower monthly bills for us
>> (and a selling point for them)
>
>How? At present, I'm well within my plan minutes. If these holidays
>get lumped into the N&W bucket, it makes absolutely no difference to me
>at all. My bills stays the same, and the only difference is that I have
>more unused peak minutes. The difference would also not be enough to
>allow me to drop to a lower plan.
>
>I would bet that most people who have any inkling of how to effectively
>manage a plan (going over is always a stupid idea, when bumping up to a
>higher plan is almost always a smarter, cheaper choice) would fail to
>see the benefits. If you average maybe, 1 holiday a month, the benefit
>spread out over 12 billing cycles is insignificant.
>
>You COULD argue that you would be encouraged to talk more on a holiday,
>but on Veteran's Day I just don't see myself calling up the family just
>to wish them a happy Veteran's Day. And besides, I'm still working that
>day, holiday or not, and sure as hell won't have time to gab to friends
>on a cell phone.
>
>Absolutely no financial gain.

Not to you, no. Which means that this discussion doesn't really concern
you. The question was, should people to whom holiday minutes are important
ask Sprint for them? I say yes. You say...well, what *do* you say?

> Big deal.

No kidding. And if it isn't a big deal to you (it isn't to me, either, for
the record), you certainly have no reason to get worked up about it one way
or the other.

> > Are you accustomed to settling for what's offered in business
> > negotiations (and if so, can you let me know if you ever sell your
> > house)?
>
>
>No, I'm simply accustomed to not making mountains out of molehills. Do
>you know ANYTHING about effective negotiation? To demand a pyrrhic
>victory over something that fails to benefit you in any way risks the
>dilution of your credibility in future attempts at negotiation over more
>meaningful issues. It makes you out to be a nitpicker, dilutes efforts
>to gain credibility on more important points, and increases the
>likelihood of deadlock.
>
>To use your example, I doubt you're going to make much headway buying
>anyone's house if you're going to haggle over ridiculous things like
>trying to lower the asking price because there's an oil spot in the
>driveway that a little Speedy Dry and cat litter would soak right up.
>It's a meaningless detail that doesn't deserve intense debate. As a
>seller, I might even be inclined to simply thank you kindly and move on
>to the next bid, knowing I'm not getting anywhere with you.

Well, this is all very, erm, interesting (<eyeroll>)...but we're not talking
about negotiations over a house. We're talking about customers of a
wireless provider asking that provider to match what other providers already
provide. This may or may not be something that Sprint is willing to do, but
either way I seriously doubt that Sprint is going to walk off in a huff like
an exasperated homeowner. Jeez, talk about making mountains out of
molehills!

Reggie Degger wrote:

> Then you're not talking about negotiating, because that's exactly what
> customer retention deals are.

I understand that. That's an exception, and I don't think most carriers do it
(at least not officially, some may do it unofficially).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Reggie Degger wrote:

>> The big problem is intercarrier access
>>costs. Sprint PCS still has to play ball with the LECs in local markets
>>to connects its lines, and those costs, unlike your plan, don't change
>>depending on whether you call on a holiday or not.
>
>
> Nor do those costs change depending on whether I call at 6:59 P.M., 7:59
> P.M., 8:59 P.M., or 9:01 P.M.

Correct. However, these are deemed "off peak" for a reason. In the
analysis of most cell carriers, this is when airtime dies down, and
fewer calls are made on the network (hence, fewer tariffs). As such,
Sprint and other cell carriers determined these times were
cost-effective to let go as unlimited.

Are holidays "off peak?" Your insistence that these times should be
free indicates otherwise. In fact, people are probably MORE likely to
call on holidays than on regular peak times. The result is a bigger hit
to revenue than the customary off peak periods because more people are
completing calls, meaning more tariffs.


> Of course. Which is exactly why no wireless carrier would ever be so
> reckless as to encourage widespread "free" calling by customers by offering
> them, say, "free" nights and weekends...oh, wait, what's that? They all do?
> There goes that argument.

See above. But it seems to me like now you're arguing for the
elimination of the off-peak minutes altogether. So let's do it.


>
>>Higher costs mean, obviously, that rates could rise. So yes, you could
>>have your free holidays, but might expect to pay say, a dollar or two
>>more per month to subsidize the cost. Knowing how much you ***** about
>>holidays, I'm sure you'll just *love* higher rates.
>
>
> I've never in my life *****ed about holidays.

http://tinyurl.com/4w4pp
http://tinyurl.com/48eez

Those sure as hell imply you're dissatisfied about the situation. So
were you *****ing, or were you just being a general troll for the hell
of it then and you get your rocks off on it?

Oh wait, looking at your posting history, you're just being a troll!
Looks like the only mistake I've made here is stroking your richly
undeserved ego. So I'll not waste my time on the rest of your
ridiculous post; trolls simply aren't worth my time.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.