OT: warning about 194040 scam

On Thu, 4 May 2006 23:34:12 +1000, "Spankalogical Protocol"
<spank@protocol.com> wrote:

>
>"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:4459f89b$0$7532$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> never imagined that it was possible for a company to charge me for sending
>> an SMS to me. If anyone's wondering how they can do that apparently it's
>in
>> the fine print on the tele and when you first send them a message you are
>> agreeing to subscribe to a paid service.
>>
>
>That is correct. It's very fine print, but it is there.
>
>Betcha they catch a lot of kids out.
>
>

Apparently if you call their helpline and complain in writing, stating
that the victim was a child, they will refund all moneys immediately
in order to avoid a precedent-setting legal case against them.
They are operating on a fine line and don't mind refunding some
moneys to keep going...
-Andrew M

The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer - no way
any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

David - who wonders how many people fall for the 'free ring tone' ads, which in
small print that you dont have time to read results in you subscribing to $20
or $30 of ring tones a week

Michael C wrote:

> I wouldn't normally send SMSs into competitions but I saw one on the box the
> other day

The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer - no way
any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

David - who wonders how many people fall for the 'free ring tone' ads, which in
small print that you dont have time to read results in you subscribing to $20
or $30 of ring tones a week

Michael C wrote:

> I wouldn't normally send SMSs into competitions but I saw one on the box the
> other day

The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer - no way
any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

David - who wonders how many people fall for the 'free ring tone' ads, which in
small print that you dont have time to read results in you subscribing to $20
or $30 of ring tones a week

Michael C wrote:

> I wouldn't normally send SMSs into competitions but I saw one on the box the
> other day

"quietguy" <quietguy@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote in
message
news:445AA697.19BD753A@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com...
> The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer -
> no way
> any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

That's not a warning sign at all. Lots of competitions have rediculously
easy questions to answer. They don't claim you win by getting the q right,
just that you get entered in the draw.

Michaek

"quietguy" <quietguy@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote in
message
news:445AA697.19BD753A@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com...
> The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer -
> no way
> any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

That's not a warning sign at all. Lots of competitions have rediculously
easy questions to answer. They don't claim you win by getting the q right,
just that you get entered in the draw.

Michaek

"quietguy" <quietguy@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote in
message
news:445AA697.19BD753A@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com...
> The warning sign is that the questions are ridiculously easy to answer -
> no way
> any prizes are going to given for answering such simple questions

That's not a warning sign at all. Lots of competitions have rediculously
easy questions to answer. They don't claim you win by getting the q right,
just that you get entered in the draw.

Michaek

"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:445a0390$0$4539$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Yes, an interesting business tactic. Flash up what amounts to a legal
> contract on TV aimed at children designed purely to suck them into paying
> for way more than they bargained for. I can't beleive it's a legal
business
> practice.
> In any case it's highly unethical and TV and Music industries need a big
> kick up the arse for allowing it.

AND the Government for refusing to outlaw the practice!
I certainly wouldn't fall for it, but I can sure see how kids could be
easily suckered in.
What a great business model! I'd put them all up against a wall with a
blindfold

MrT.

"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:445a0390$0$4539$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Yes, an interesting business tactic. Flash up what amounts to a legal
> contract on TV aimed at children designed purely to suck them into paying
> for way more than they bargained for. I can't beleive it's a legal
business
> practice.
> In any case it's highly unethical and TV and Music industries need a big
> kick up the arse for allowing it.

AND the Government for refusing to outlaw the practice!
I certainly wouldn't fall for it, but I can sure see how kids could be
easily suckered in.
What a great business model! I'd put them all up against a wall with a
blindfold

MrT.

"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:445a0390$0$4539$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Yes, an interesting business tactic. Flash up what amounts to a legal
> contract on TV aimed at children designed purely to suck them into paying
> for way more than they bargained for. I can't beleive it's a legal
business
> practice.
> In any case it's highly unethical and TV and Music industries need a big
> kick up the arse for allowing it.

AND the Government for refusing to outlaw the practice!
I certainly wouldn't fall for it, but I can sure see how kids could be
easily suckered in.
What a great business model! I'd put them all up against a wall with a
blindfold

MrT.