1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Verizon Wireless Fraud? BEWARE!!!

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by John, Jan 3, 2004.

  1. John

    John Guest

    hmmmm,

    what is the part of the word prorating that you don't understand??????

    oh, an IQ of over 80 is required to answer. So don't answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    John


    Justin wrote:
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:24:11 GMT]:
    >
    >>gad!!!!
    >>
    >>it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for ANY AVERAGE of 300 and 400 to be less
    >>than 300!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    >
    >
    > Prorating doesn't average anything, you moron



    › See More: Verizon Wireless Fraud? BEWARE!!!
  2. Dr. Know

    Dr. Know Guest

    There you go giggling like a little schoolgirl again, I fear you are close to
    yet another breakdown. You really should stop using that LVRC as mouthwash, you
    know it does bad things to your personality.

    Dr. Know

    John wrote:

    > hee hee
    >
    > you are delusional! nobody should ever make an appointment with you
    > if they value themselves!!!!!!!!!!!! But you know that don't you!!!!
    >
    > John
    >
  3. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF798AE.3050509@earthlink.net...
    > hee hee
    >
    > you are delusional! nobody should ever make an appointment with you
    > if they value themselves!!!!!!!!!!!! But you know that don't you!!!!
    >
    > John


    You're just upset because he charged a fortune to get your head out of your
    ass- he needed the 'deep digging' tools.
  4. "John" wrote:
    > Any lawyer
    > or agent of the law wishing to pursue this case may contact me for

    complete
    > details.


    John:
    You may wish to run those Complete Details by the NG participants. Some of
    them are quite knowledgeable.

    Without the particulars, it is not possible to assist you. Your billing
    cycle dates, plus the date you switched, are the keys to understanding
    whether there is a problem.

    Just speculating as a lay person, I suspect you will find that VZW closed
    out your previous billing cycle on the date of the plan switch. Your next
    invoice probably will show a different date--along with your full allotment
    of minutes.

    For instance, if you switched on the 15th day of the billing cycle, you had
    only 150 minutes (half of the 300). If your call volume was heavy at the
    start of the period, and you cut it off before you could let a lighter
    end-of-cycle call pattern create a correction, you will be charged for
    overage.

    Unfortunately for those of us living in a "measured service" world, this
    kind of math did not come up in the fifth grade. We're Old Dogs, and this is
    a New Trick. :)

    -Paul-
    _____________________________
    Although today's Landline service is based upon
    a flat rate per month, this was not always
    the case. The first telephone systems charged
    on a per-call basis. Operators sometimes made 2-cents per call handled. On
    a busy switchboard, this could
    add up to REAL money!
  5. John

    John Guest

    oh yes I do, to human beings!

    etiquette for morons, no I don't know that!

    John


    Justin wrote:
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:35:14 GMT]:
    >
    >>:)
    >>
    >>I am quite secure in my knowledge of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.
    >>Theoretical Chemistry, Xray Crystallography, and the like.
    >>
    >>Do you know why the twin paradox is not a paradox at all??????

    >
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > Do you know how to act like a human being? I didn't think so.
    >
    > Or, do you know the correct ettiquette for posting on USENET? No.
  6. John

    John Guest

    don't extrapolate your insignificance in life with my success.

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF78631.20709@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>oh, and I HAVE SUED people in tha past. 100% success rate!
    >>

    >
    >
    > And we're so happy for you- I'm sure being able to supplement your welfare
    > check comes in handy from time to time.
    >
    >
  7. John

    John Guest

    ah, reality ensues, you are a wise one... IQ above 80!!!!!
    congratulations!

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    > news:slrnbvf2mm.3uv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    >
    >>John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:30:41 GMT]:
    >>
    >>>you are the stupid one!

    >>
    >>IKYABWAI

    >
    >
    > lmao
    >
    >
  8. John

    John Guest

    uh oh, another IQ below 80.

    sorry for you,
    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF78568.7000904@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>I cannot accept stupidity. theirs or yours!

    >
    >
    > Why accept it when you live in it.
    >
    > You are a moron.
    >
    >
  9. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF78C16.10708@earthlink.net...
    > I've been on a first name basis with 15 to 20 Natural Science Nobel prize
    > winners over the past 30 years. I'm not ashamed to admit I don't know
    > something less than their work.


    So what does that make YOU??? A genious or something?

    Give me a break!



    God Bless America!

    Bob the Printer


    Our web pages are located at:
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/
  10. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF79BDB.7040509@earthlink.net...
    > don't extrapolate your insignificance in life with my success.
    >


    Oh, but you don't give me enough credit, you lowly nerd- I've crapped more
    intelligent things than you , and your sense of self-importance is humorous
    at best. I can speak from direct knowledge when I say that you are in way
    over your head in this group. Unlike you, the people of this group have no
    need to lie about their successes, or boast of their acheivements.
  11. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF79800.3060402@earthlink.net...
    > :)
    >
    > I am quite secure in my knowledge of Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.
    > Theoretical Chemistry, Xray Crystallography, and the like.
    >


    But you don't know diddly squat about cellphone service agreements!
  12. John

    John Guest

    :)

    interesting piece of crap. I know when to use condescending skills and
    reality. And my staff love me, but they have real skills!

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF78094.3050406@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>I'm betting on the Attorney's General.
    >>
    >>Not the Verizon card carrying imbeciles that also post here.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Better to be one of those than a bitchy, condescending, piece of crap with
    > absolutely no people skills.
    >
    >
  13. John

    John Guest

    not at all. resonable man had provided millons in compensation. you have to
    learn more about him!

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF79212.70309@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>I focus on what a reasonable man (legal criterion) would accept as
    >>non fraudlent billing.

    >
    >
    > Then you need to find a new reasonable man- the one who's advising you is
    > full of shit.
    >
    >
  14. Justin

    Justin Guest

    John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:45:23 GMT]:
    > hmmmm,
    >
    > what is the part of the word prorating that you don't understand??????


    To divide, distribute, or assess proportionately.



    The word average is missing.
  15. Justin

    Justin Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:37:31 GMT]:
    >
    > "Bill Rubin" <billrubin@prodigy.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF7959F.720BA4C0@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>
    >> You know I was sort of agreeing with you, but not I think you're
    >> totally off base. Are you saying that if I have a 300 minute
    >> plan and switch halfway through the month to a 400 minute plan,
    >> that all I should expect to be allowed on my full month bill is
    >> 200 minutes, and that the number of minutes you had been allowed
    >> on your old plan no longer apply? That makes absolutely no
    >> sense. The best case you can make is that they split the bill by
    >> plan, and they list all of the calls made before the switchover
    >> with a prorated amount of minutes from the old plan, and the
    >> same for the new plan.
    >>
    >> Bill

    >
    > His logic does make sense. The problem is, we are missing all of the key
    > data- when in the billing cycle the switch was made, and when in the billing
    > cycle the minutes were used. There are some possible scenarios that would
    > make the billing correct- we just don't have enough info to go on.


    Like, for instance, he got the last 5 days prorated and made all those
    minutes of calls in those last 5 days of his cycle.
  16. John

    John Guest

    thank you!

    I'll take that to the bank!

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF78934.4080603@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>thank you for the vote of FRAUD!!!!!!!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Can I vote too? I vote that you are the most obnoxious thing to hit Usenet
    > in a while.
    >
    >
    >
  17. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF79D24.5040606@earthlink.net...
    > :)
    >
    > interesting piece of crap.


    Don't give yourself that much credit.

    > I know when to use condescending skills and
    > reality. And my staff love me, but they have real skills!


    Well, I would hope someone would have real skills- you show a complete lack
    of any.
  18. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF7956A.4010006@earthlink.net...
    > gad!!!!
    >
    > it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for ANY AVERAGE of 300 and 400 to be less
    > than 300!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >
    > save me from the stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    >
    > please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >
    > please invoke your BRAIN before posting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    You clearly do not embrace the concept of prorating John!

    And you are fighting a losing battle on this newsgroup so why don't you just
    cease and desist instead of proving that you are indeed a DICKHEAD!


    God Bless America!

    Bob the Printer


    Our web pages are located at:
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/
  19. Justin

    Justin Guest

    John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:54:37 GMT]:
    > uh oh, another IQ below 80.


    So in one post you say his IQ is above 80, and then you say it isn't.

    Do you have a short term memory?
  20. John

    John Guest

    there you go listening to the little voices in your head again. But you
    know you are ineffectual don't you!

    John

    Dr. Know wrote:
    > There you go giggling like a little schoolgirl again, I fear you are
    > close to yet another breakdown. You really should stop using that LVRC
    > as mouthwash, you know it does bad things to your personality.
    >
    > Dr. Know
    >
    > John wrote:
    >
    >> hee hee
    >>
    >> you are delusional! nobody should ever make an appointment with you
    >> if they value themselves!!!!!!!!!!!! But you know that don't you!!!!
    >>
    >> John
    >>

    >

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?