 P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | controversial or unsavory-- how about LEGAL / NORMAL freaking this is a legal normal surgical procedure.
its only controversial to people who want to ban it, not to the peopl who would have recieved the messages.
freaking insane.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
|
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | said by P Ness:freaking this is a legal normal surgical procedure. its only controversial to people who want to ban it, not to the peopl who would have recieved the messages. freaking insane. I completely agree. Since it is strictly an opt-in situation, then they should not be blocking anything. Now if the organization starts sending people these SMS messages when they did not opt-in, then Verizon should be able to step in and cut them off.
THis is just the first step in moving away from network neutrality and providers starting to censor what they think should be because they don't get anything from it.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
 PlaceboPremium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL | Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here?
So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable.
Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network?
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | I believe in the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded. I believe in freedom of speech and as a world leader, I think we are civilized enough to 'agree to disagree' on the topics we may personally feel is against our moral standpoint. Education, not suppression, is the way.
--
{Insert Something Witty Here} |
|
ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
2 edits | reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here? So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? If the people that pay for service from Verizon opt-in to receive the SMS messages, then yes, they should be forced to allow such messages. I PAY Verizon to receive the content that I want. They should have no say so, unless illegal, in what content is delivered to my phone.
THis is along the lines as to you paying for cable tv service and the cable company blocking programs on any of the channels that they deem as something you shouldn't watch.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Verizon just wants to avoid a slippery slope here. If they give any political or ideological organization a platform, then they will eventually have to give them all a platform. Today it would be NARAL, tomorrow it might be NAMBLA, the next day it might be the Westboro Baptist Church ...
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here? So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? Uhh, yeah. What is the next step, Verizon Wireless won't let you accept calls from an organization it doesn't agree with? No difference between that and an SMS that you sign up for.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:Seriously? Are you really feigning outrage here? So what if it's legal. That doesn't mean that everyone feels it's morally acceptable. Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? as long as its legal what would be the harm since I am requesting the information, its not spam that was sent.
besides this might not be how the majority of verizon users feel, but the 10 man board of directors, or the 3 man policy board, ect...
i feel the Catholic church is an evil orginization that is corupted to its core, from years of killing, wars and molestation of children. so if i was the one making the decisions on the filtering on verizon then would you then have NO problem with anything from them being filtered, how about i kick them off and not allow ANY call traffic that originates from a church or catholic orginization.
start to see the problem here yet?
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to pnh102
So? If you opt-in, then the content is irrelevant to Verizon (or should be) |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I agree... I should be able to receive messages from whoever I want (assuming they're not terrorists).
Whether its abortion, p0rn, warez, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc.
If VZW or any carrier decides for me that I shouldn't receive a message that I expect to see, then there is an issue.
What happens if I set up my travel plans with American Airlines (worst airlines out there), to SMS me my flight schedule changes, and Verizon decides to block them.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
PlaceboPremium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL | reply to ropeguru
I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!!
See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL.
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
| reply to Placebo
My issue with this, and thankfully I am no longer a Verizon customer, is not that they are running their business as they see fit (though I disagree with how they are doing it). My problem is that if I was a customer and I didn't agree with these business practices I cannot terminate my contract without penalty AND if enough businesses (at least the major providers, such as Verizon, Sprint, etc) chose to follow this, I would be left with few options.
This is similar to Walmart not selling products (cds/dvds) that they do not find "fitting" of their image. Spend your money somewhere else, if you can. |
|
ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:I want 200 HD channels from Dish Network. In fact, I'm paying them over $100 per month. Give me what I want!!!! See, doesn't that sound a little ridiculous? It doesn't matter if you are the one "opting in". What matters is the fact that Verizon doesn't want to provide access to their network to NARAL. Dude, you are clueless... You are using an analogy for something that Dish doesn't even offer.
Debating with people like you is useless because you will constantly use information that has no bearing on what is being discussed.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to P Ness
This is murder of a child pure and simple, who will stand up for the rights of the children? We expend more effort to save the whales and Owls then we do to save our own children, no wonder we have so many disturbed kids running amok.
There are better ways of accomplishing birth control then killing a child.
Interestingly enough those who call themselves pro-choice actually are not, they only advocate the killing of babies they offer no alternatives of which many are available. Another point lost on most people these days, the original pro-abortion (pro-murder) position came from planned parenthood, which the founders in particular Margaret Sanger, advocated abortion as a means towards reducing the number of babies from minorities, in effect Sanger pushed her abortion agenda in the inner cities, areas inhabited by minorities, this in of its self should be enough to cause people to raise in arms, ridding this country of this very contentious and morally reprehensible organization |
|
PlaceboPremium
join:2005-12-14
Huntley, IL | reply to ropeguru
For NARAL to send the messages, it requires Verizon to provide access to thier network. Verizon chooses not to provide access. Would you expect Verizon to provide access to ANY organization?
I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". Dish Network offers local HD channels throughout the country--I'm pretty sure they offer over 100 channels throughout the country. I can't get all 100. Is my analogy so off base?
--
Who wants an orange whip? Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips. |
|
ReneM
join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD | reply to stevephl
Mute point! Abortion is legal in the US and protected by the constitution and as long as the supreme court doesn't overturn RvW you have to live with it. I know, the constitution, the Bill of Rights, it's a b!tch, but that's what separates us from Irak, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and so forth. |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:Are you telling me that Verizon should be forced to give ANY organization access to its network? With the customer's permission, of course. That's what you pay them for.
What universe are you from? |
|
P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | reply to stevephl
said by stevephl:This is murder of a child pure and simple, who will stand up for the rights of the children? We expend more effort to save the whales and Owls then we do to save our own children, no wonder we have so many disturbed kids running amok. There are better ways of accomplishing birth control then killing a child. Interestingly enough those who call themselves pro-choice actually are not, they only advocate the killing of babies they offer no alternatives of which many are available. Another point lost on most people these days, the original pro-abortion (pro-murder) position came from planned parenthood, which the founders in particular Margaret Sanger, advocated abortion as a means towards reducing the number of babies from minorities, in effect Sanger pushed her abortion agenda in the inner cities, areas inhabited by minorities, this in of its self should be enough to cause people to raise in arms, ridding this country of this very contentious and morally reprehensible organization your Opinion... not that of everyone that uses verizon.
sorry go preach elsewhere because if it was opinion based then we would prob not even have rock and roll right now.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| reply to Placebo
said by Placebo:F I'd argue that I'm not "clueless". I'd argue that your brain fell out of your right ear. |
|
PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to stevephl
quote:
Interestingly enough those who call themselves pro-choice actually are not, they only advocate the killing of babies they offer no alternatives of which many are available.
Everytime we try to teach kids about birth control and safe s-x, the prolifers come in and say that we are corrupting the children.
People spend an enormous amount of energy and resources arguing over abortion when it is simply the result of a larger issue which continues to be ignored by most Americans.
You want to end abortion? Then its time for society to step up and redefine how it will approach relationships and s-x. |
|
