[asterisk-biz] Obtaining DIDs

[Mark]

trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:

>On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 01:10 -0600, Mark wrote:
>  
>
>>I doubt that! See how you "own" the DID when a shifty seller drops out 
>>of DIDx! DIDx does not protect the buyer when a seller leaves the DIDx 
>>syste.
>>
>>    
>>
>they claim they do in their faq, where if it doesnt work for the month
>due to that you get a refund or something.  I recall a post from linda I
>think on that not that long ago.
>
>Most carriers can change your did at will, broadvoice for example
>changed someones tollfree for no aparent reason, information of that was
>posted to this list about the same time as the comments on their faq,
>maybe a month ago.
>  
>
Most COULD , but how many WOULD?

>
>
>  
>
>>attempting to use scare tactics against me for excercising my rights of 
>>free speech based solely on the facts of my experience with their 
>>    
>>
>
>you should reread the constitution, you dont have an absolute right to
>speech in america, private entities can curtail that freely, think of a
>movie theater where you can be removed if you talk during the movie.
>Then there are other limitations, such as you cant yell 'fire' in a
>crowded theater, etc.
>
>The first amendment is a limitation on the government not a priviledge
>granted to you, its a symantic difference but one that need to be
>understood if you want to understand the meaning and intent of the
>amendment.  
>
>And lastly something that most people dont seem to understand is that a
>right to speech doesnt guarantee a right to be heard.
>
>  
>

I am not in a PRIVATE movie theater, I am in a PUBLIC FORUM that anyone 
can join.. Those of you who do not DEFEND your rights will let them 
erode away for all. The Constitution of the US (where I am not located 
anyway, nor was I when I made my comments) superceedes ALL other laws in 
the USA. In fact, freedom of expression by way of internet posts has 
been upheld as one of the most protected forms of expression available 
by the US Supreme Court. Furthermore thre is NEVER anything wrong with 
what one BELIEVES to be true. I BELIEVE all of my statements, and have 
adequate proof to back my statements.

>  
>
>>organization. This "notice" was served via email which I do not believe 
>>is a valid form for serving a legal notice in any US State, although I 
>>am not an attorney, so I may be wrong.
>>
>>    
>>
>It is providing it is delivered to the correct person.  You can
>obviously try to challenge it as 'defective service' but by doing that
>you admit that you infact got it.  But its too late to try to say that
>you didnt get it now, your post that you were infact served is now
>archived all over the net :)  assuming it was actually service and not
>just a more informal notice.
>
>To prove this is accepted by the courts, well sorta (I dont recall the
>exact cite, but google does have it indexed somewhere) a lawyer
>challenged notice in court saying the email was lost (he didnt appear in
>the first place) - he wasnt saying it wasnt sent, because he cant prove
>that, only saying that he never received it - something no one else can
>prove under normal circumstances.  This was last summer iirc.
>
>  
>

Thyey failed to include any signature as well. I was served nothing of 
any value.

>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
>asterisk-biz mailing list
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006
>  
>