🚀 go-pugleaf

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:23:19 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:35:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If refusing to use data services because of the price is an acceptable
>>>>> solution for you, why does the same not apply for text messages?
>>>>
>>>>Well there is one difference, the data rates are high because the 
>>>>capacity is very limited (the same reason the carriers went from 
>>>>unlimited to a 5GB cap on their data plans) and they couldn't handle the 
>>>>demand if data were lower priced, so they set prices at what they 
>>>>believe to be the amount where the network will be close to maximum 
>>>>capacity, i.e. they could not handle 4x the data at 1/4 the price, at 
>>>>least at this time.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that's why the rates for data are what they are, but
>>> it still seems somewhat hypocritical for the OP to refuse to use data
>>> services because of the rates, and then pitch such a hissy fit about
>>> text rates with his baseless accusations of price fixing.
>>
>>Pointing out that 20 cents is a bit high for a service that costs
>>0.3 cents is not a "hissy fit".
>
> Then how about this?
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107616/

Lame - and you apparently don't even understand what the title means:
"Much ado about nothing" has a double meaning in Elizabethan English,
where the word "nothing" was slang for the female sex organs. Try
<http://shakespeare-comedies.suite101.com/article.cfm/title_of_much_ado_about_nothing>
for details.

It is quite obvious that you are not capable of a serious discussion.

-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB