Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: castellan <castellan@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:03:06 GMT
On 2005-09-12, Lena <lenagainster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> and see how misleading it is before spouting off your comments about
> how "simple, clear and not at all difficlut to understand". Try poking
> in a VZW number that you know does NOT have "IN" calling, and see what
> happens. The website will tell you they are IN. They may be IN, but
> they do not have "IN" calling. That is the issue and that is why the
> webpage is faulty.
>
Exactly. My line doesn't have IN, because i got it a few years ago.
Its not on my statement either, however this webpage says I've got it.
Thats nice if someone ELSE has IN and is calling me, but its certainly
not telling me the truth when it says *I* have IN
--
Sick of USENET postwhores? Trolls? Flamers?
Read the Killfile FAQ for Newsgroups to learn
how to filter their drivel straight to /dev/null
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaqhtm.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Quick
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- References:
- "IN" calling revisited
- From: Lena
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Isaiah Beard
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Lena
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Lena
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Proconsul
- Re: "IN" calling revisited
- From: Lena
- "IN" calling revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: "IN" calling revisited
- Next by Date: Re: Buying a new phone as an already subscribed Verizon customer.
- Previous by thread: Re: "IN" calling revisited
- Next by thread: Re: "IN" calling revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|