SMS Spam Fight

[Deenem]

But you did not say that, you said you have "proof". And I asked for this "proof".

Last chance.... please point out the post where I said I claimed to have any sort of proof of anything?

The reason I'm getting so angry is because you seem to thing it's OK to just pull to some arbitrary statment out your arse and then make the claim that I made this statement and that I must present some sort of proof to back it up. I didn't even make the statement in the first place, so how could I possibly have proof?

I didn't make any of the statements that you are attampting to claim that I made. Unless your able to produce a quote, from me, where I make these statements that you're trying to attribute to me then please retract the false claims that you've been making about what I was supposed to have said.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yes, I have very conclusive proof.

The fact that there is no global opt-out list proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the cell phone companies have refused to implement a global opt-out list.

What more proof do you want?

There we go Deenem, you claimed to have conclusive proof.
And the "proof" you provided is not proof, that is as you say, an opinion.

 

[Deenem]

There we go Deenem, you claimed to have conclusive proof.
And the "proof" you provided is not proof, that is as you say, an opinion.

Absolutely correct; There is currently no global opt-out list, therefore based on that proof I can conclude that the cell providers have not implemented a global opt-out list?

I'm quite happy to claim that I have absolutely unquestionable, incontrovertble, undeniable proof that there is no global opt-out list (and I didn't even have to speak to anyone at Vodacom to find that proof). My proof of the claim that there is no global opt-out list is the that fact that there is no global opt-out list.


Is there a global opt-out list or not?

If there is a global opt-out list then I'm lying through my teeth.
If there isn't a global opt-out list then I have proof the the cell providers haven't implemented a global opt-out list (which in my opinion is because they're afraid of losing their revenues)

Please point out the error in my logic?

vodacom3g has somehow pulled out of his rear end, the claims that:
a) I have spoken to someone at Vodacom about this, which I have not, nor claimed to do
b) This non-existant person at Vodacom told me they refuse to implemet a global opt-out list, see point a) above

 

[ToxicBunny]

No, see that is an opinion that you're putting forward. It is not proof that the operators refuse to implement one.

Lack of something is not proof of refusal.

Nobody here is denying there is no global opt-out list... we're just challenging you on the claims of proof that the operators are refusing to implement one.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Because we don't have global opt-out lists. The cellphone companies refuse to implement them.

If they did the problem would be solved.

And this is the post where you claim the cell phone companies refuse to implement them.

It is a fairly good logical connection that since you have proof (as per a different post) and are saying that the cellphone companies refuse to implement them, that someone at one of the operators has informed you as such.

 

[Deenem]

And this is the post where you claim the cell phone companies refuse to implement them.

... is my opinion , obviously, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that that if my opinion disagrees with that of the almighty forum sponsors, then it's no longer welcome around here. (And before you start asking me to proove that statement, that was actually me expressing my opinion once again.)

You really are over-exerting youself, jumping through all those hoops to try and arrive at your incorrect conclusion that I said I'd spoken to anyone at Vodacom. I have never made any claim, nor ever tried to imply in any sort of round-about, convoluted way to have ever had any contact with any person at Vodacom in this regard.

 

[Deenem]

No, see that is an opinion that you're putting forward. It is not proof that the operators refuse to implement one.

Lack of something is not proof of refusal.

Nobody here is denying there is no global opt-out list... we're just challenging you on the claims of proof that the operators are refusing to implement one.

Oh for goodness sake, for the last time.

I have never made any claim that the someone at Vodacom informed me that they refuse to implement a global opt-out list.

Is there anything about that statement that confuses you in any way? Any words that you don't understand? Any subtleties that might confuse you? Anything at all that might lead you to jump to the wrong conclusions?

Anything at all, just let me know and I will clear up the confusion for you.

 

[ToxicBunny]

This has nothing to do with forum sponsors, or anything conspiracy theory like that. This has to do with attacking a company/companies and claiming proof when none actually exists.

I am not the only person who came to the same conclusion based on your posts Deenem. You implied you had spoken to someone at a cellphone company by stating that they refused to implement a Global Opt-Out list. This is not jumping through hoops or anything of the sort, it is a simple logical deduction.

 

[apogeeza]

I am not the only person who came to the same conclusion based on your posts Deenem.

I came to the same conclusion too.

Why say "... they refuse to ..." when you can't prove that they have in fact refused? And lack of its existence is not evidence of their refusal ...

Because we don't have global opt-out lists. The cellphone companies refuse to implement them.

If they did the problem would be solved.

Please provide your proof that they have indeed refused to implement them ... Thanks.

 

[Deenem]

This has nothing to do with forum sponsors, or anything conspiracy theory like that. This has to do with attacking a company/companies and claiming proof when none actually exists.

Then why is it so hard to express an opinion that disagrees with the forum sponsors official line?

I am not the only person who came to the same conclusion based on your posts Deenem. You implied you had spoken to someone at a cellphone company by stating that they refused to implement a Global Opt-Out list. This is not jumping through hoops or anything of the sort, it is a simple logical deduction.

You didn't come to the conclusion based on *my* posts, go and read my posts again. You came to your conclusion based on what vodacom3g claimed I had posted, specifically that:
a) I had spoken to someone at Vodacom. I didn't even mention Vodacom in any of the posts I made (prior to the derailment)
b) I had proof in the form of emails, phone records, etc of having spoken to someone at Vodacom. Again, something that he just made up on the spot.
c) the person I spoke to at Vodacom told me that they refuse to implement a global opt-out.

All three of the above statements were made by initially by vodacom3g, immediately followed by a demand that if *I* was going to make these statements then I better have proof.

I didn't make those claims. The only person that brought up all three points was vodacom3g. I never posted anything remotely close to what he said I was saying.

How can you just make up some totally false statement, attribute it to someone else, and then turn around and demand that if they're going to make those statements then they better have some proof. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Deenem]

I came to the same conclusion too.

Why say "... they refuse to ..." when you can't prove that they have in fact refused? And lack of its existence is not evidence of their refusal ...

I'm sorry, but I have no control over what conclusions you jump to. You can jump to as many conclusions as you want to, but don't try and tell me that I said something that I clearly didn't say.

 

[ProSMS]

I came to the same conclusion too.

Why say "... they refuse to ..." when you can't prove that they have in fact refused? And lack of its existence is not evidence of their refusal ...

I agree, there is no proof that Vodacom refused to implement a Global Opt-out list for premium rated services.

Let's rather focus on whether a Global Opt-out list for all premium rate services is a good idea. I certainly think it is, and the network operators should be lobbied to implement this.

 

[Deenem]

Please provide your proof that they have indeed refused to implement them ... Thanks.

You'd like me to prove my opinion?

How do you suggest I go about doing that? Would you like a sworn statement that it is in fact my opinion?

If I went off to the police station and got an signed affidavid that said:

"It is my opinion that the cellphone companies are refusing to implement global opt-out lists to protect their revenue stream"

would that be sufficient proof for you?

 

[Deenem]

I agree, there is no proof that Vodacom refused to implement a Global Opt-out list for premium rated services.

Let's rather focus on whether a Global Opt-out list for all premium rate services is a good idea. I certainly think it is, and the network operators should be lobbied to implement this.

Agreed, at the very least what I would want was the following:

1 - Never subscribe me to any premium rate content.

2 - Never send me any once off premium rate content.

3 - Block me from sending anything to premium rate services. (Competion numbers, Highveld club VIP, etc.)

4 - Never send me 'Please call me's

5 - Never send me commercial SMS's. (this is the difficult one we discussed yesterday, basically it would be meaningless without legislation, but at least reputable companies would have the abilty to know which customers they could send SMS to)

 

[apogeeza]

... but don't try and tell me that I said something that I clearly didn't say.

You originally said:

The cellphone companies refuse to implement them.

when you should have said:

It is my opinion that the cellphone companies refuse to implement them.

Huge difference.

"It is my opinion that the cellphone companies are refusing to implement global opt-out lists to protect their revenue stream"

Thank you. Case closed. Next thread.

 

[Deenem]

You originally said:
when you should have said:
Huge difference.

Whatever, if you really want to nit-pick over semantics then be my guest.

Apparently you have the supernatural(1) ablity to see the one time I failed to qualify my statement as an opinion, by you missed the five hundred(2) other times I qualified the statement. Amazing how you manage to do that, very convenient indeed.


(1) Irony, you are not in fact in possession of supernatural abilities.
(2) A figure of speech. , not actually five hundred.

 

[ProSMS]

5 - Never send me commercial SMS's. (this is the difficult one we discussed yesterday, basically it would be meaningless without legislation, but at least reputable companies would have the abilty to know which customers they could send SMS to)

Firstly the WASPA Code does not allow cold calling via SMS. You may only communicate via SMS with existing clients (6months).

"Never send me commercial SMS's". This should exclude operational messages from businesses such as logon confirmations, updates on existing business processes, appointment confirmations, meeting notifications, booking numbers, event reminders etc. etc.. It should only include promotional SMS's eg. Come and test drive the new Audi A7 etc.

It should be the responsibility of each company to check the "no promotional SMS" database. The carriers of the messaging traffic should not interfere with the message traffic in any way and respect the privacy and confidentiality of both the sender and receiver. They should only act once there is proof of an infringement.

 

[Deenem]

I think, right now, every parent with a pre-teen child wants option 1-3.

Every parent has a story about R100 airtime that they loaded and then dissapeared in a few days, and that child got punished and the phone got taken away for a week, then they loaded another R100.... etc.

A few parents I know just gave up and now the kid doesn't have a phone anymore.

As far as point 5, I agree it's only ever going to be a preference. My worst offender is Pick 'n Pay. I cycle and somehow Pick 'n Pay has got hold of my number because they sponsor most of the races. Now I get a spam SMS from them at least once a week, It's annoying, and it would be really convenient to add my number to an opt-out list to let them know that I didn't want to reciev anything from them.

 

[ProSMS]

I think, right now, every parent with a pre-teen child wants option 1-3.

A few parents I know just gave up and now the kid doesn't have a phone anymore.

This is desperately needed. I am one of those parents delaying giving my kids a phone because premium billings can not be blocked, and I work in the industry!

I think the first mobile operator that offers the ability to block premium services will gain many new clients.

When it comes to premium subscription services, I very much doubt whether this is legal, as children are not allowed to enter into contracts, and a subscription is essentially a contract.

As far as point 5, I agree it's only ever going to be a preference. My worst offender is Pick 'n Pay. I cycle and somehow Pick 'n Pay has got hold of my number because they sponsor most of the races. Now I get a spam SMS from them at least once a week, It's annoying, and it would be really convenient to add my number to an opt-out list to let them know that I didn't want to reciev anything from them.

Agreed.

Using a database from an event for subsequent promotional messages is very bad practice, and it will undermine the usage of SMS for events in the long term. Used correctly, SMS is ideal for event notifications DURING the event.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

ProSMS: I think the first mobile operator that offers the ability to block premium services will gain many new clients.

Well until a year ago CellC was the only network that did no offer billing (OBS). When they started OBS (we where the first WASP to do it) there was no diff in the subscription base.

But as a parent I agree and that is why VC is leading the way. I'm not so sure what knowledge I may share here, but things are changing and they have the best policy towards this industry. I know, my callcenter (unsubscribe) app is deployed at their head office and no other network is interested having access to it.