how-to block ads
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to asdfdfdf
Re: Oh really?
Ahh, a PROFESSIONAL astroturfer we have here..
Your problem, of course, is that you make a false statement at the beginning, and then attempt to support it by offering an alternative.. Tricky... did your handler give you a sheet to use? I've worked with enough dickless marketing guys to recognize their writing style.
"The bell executive statements say google, etc are FREELOADERS". Well, DUH, but that statement is incorrect. Please explain exactly how they are 'freeloaders', they are paying for an internet connection.
The remains of your argument are based on the fact that you have defined google as a freeloader, and you are offering options for the telcos. Of course, you initial statement is pointless, so everything you say after that is meaningless noise.
Please tell your handlers to give you a better script next time. | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Wow. Though I admit to being less than impressive in the male anatomy department, I'm hurt more by the claim that I write like a marketing drone. You're missing my point. I know I only have myself to blame, since I continue to post as anonymous, but I have a long posting history as asdfdfdf and it in no way suggests I am a bell apologist.
I don't define google as a freeloader. Key management people at the different bocs have defined them this way. I am using their own words to explain how the claims that their apologists use, namely that there is no intention to alter the nature of the present internet but only to "offer an enhanced service", don't make any sense within the context of the comments the executives are making.
Apparently I am failing miserably in trying to use the bocs own words against them. | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to G_Poobah
Let me try again.
Boc management says that, as the internet is presently organized, google, et al are freeloaders. They say that they do not intend to allow this freeloading to continue. How can they then claim that they have no intention of altering the present nature of the internet? These statements are contradictory. Aren't the original statements more likely to accurately represent their real intentions than the later reassurances that they didn't mean what they said? | |
|
