 MaccawolfPremium
join:2001-02-20
Hillsdale, NJ
kudos:6 | reply to en102
Re: Sketchy said by en102:Exactly. It wasn't part of the terms mentioned as acceptable OR prohibited. Since it wasn't mentioned at all, one would assume that it is ok. while I personally agree with you, the law is
"ignorance is no excuse of the law"
BTW, you know what happens when you ASSUME, don't you?
--
Mom and Crockett...... I miss you both! |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by Maccawolf:BTW, you know what happens when you ASSUME, don't you? You get hit with a higher rate?  |
|
 fancydancerPerception is realityPremium
join:2002-08-28
Springfield, IL | reply to Maccawolf
said by Maccawolf:while I personally agree with you, the law is "ignorance is no excuse of the law" I agree with your quote, but if ATT omitted to say it was allowed or prohibited, then it is not a "law"
--
Thank you for keeping this a work-free environment! |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | said by fancydancer:said by Maccawolf:while I personally agree with you, the law is "ignorance is no excuse of the law" I agree with your quote, but if ATT omitted to say it was allowed or prohibited, then it is not a "law" True. And even if it were explicitly stated, it would be a "Term of Service," not a law. But I'm splitting hairs. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Maccawolf
When there was no 'law', AT&T essentially allowed it. Typically AT&T and many others tend to blanket cover themselves (i.e. 'anything other than WAP / MMS / SMS covered by MEdia Net is forbidden, such as VoIP, p2p, or anything 'we' deem bad'.
This is something that I would have expected out of AT&T.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
