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

    ok.

    but there is NO WAY that 300 and 400 can be averaged to less than
    300 uless FRAUD is involved. Gonna make me rich!

    :)

    John


    Real Estate Agent wrote:
    > "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!
    >
    >



    › See More: Verizon Wireless Fraud? BEWARE!!!
  2. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF7A0E8.8080501@earthlink.net...
    > but when I am legally right, I win big!
    >


    Too bad that won't happen here. For such a useless nerd, you don't know
    very much about something as simple as proration. Makes me think you are a
    nerd wannabe.
  3. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF79FFA.9030607@earthlink.net...
    > don't exptrapolate your incompetence with my competence. I've made a lot

    of
    > money suing the incomptent. It is like taking candy from a baby.
    >


    Oh, but you have shown your own incompetence with your childish rantings.
    You have proven that you do not know what you speak of, and have also shown
    your own inclusion in the 'under 80' IQ club you are so willing to taunt
    people with. Your lies are transparent.
  4. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF79FFA.9030607@earthlink.net...
    > don't exptrapolate your incompetence with my competence. I've made a lot

    of
    > money suing the incomptent. It is like taking candy from a baby.
    >


    Oh, but you have shown your own incompetence with your childish rantings.
    You have proven that you do not know what you speak of, and have also shown
    your own inclusion in the 'under 80' IQ club you are so willing to taunt
    people with. Your lies are transparent.
  5. "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnbvf8d9.42k.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:13:14 GMT]:
    > > but when I am legally right, I win big!
    > >

    >
    > And when you're legally retarded?


    He spouts his crap in Usenet groups.
  6. John

    John Guest

    there is NO MATHEMATICAL scenario that can average 300 and 400 and
    come up with less than 300! Take some Math!!!!!

    John

    Justin wrote:
    > 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.
  7. "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnbvf8d9.42k.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:13:14 GMT]:
    > > but when I am legally right, I win big!
    > >

    >
    > And when you're legally retarded?


    He spouts his crap in Usenet groups.
  8. John

    John Guest

    ah, someone, show some skills, at least you recognice that that is NOT YOU!

    John


    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "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.
    >
    >
  9. John

    John Guest

    ah, but this is just the groundwork for a class action suit!

    millions to be had!

    John

    Bob the Printer wrote:
    > "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/
    >
    >
    >
    >
  10. John

    John Guest

    my memory is based on intelligence, your point is??????????????????

    John

    Justin wrote:
    > 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?
  11. Justin

    Justin Guest

    John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:22:50 GMT]:
    > there is NO MATHEMATICAL scenario that can average 300 and 400 and
    > come up with less than 300! Take some Math!!!!!


    Once again moron, it's NOT AVERAGED

    It's prorated.

    Once the old plan ends you LOSE ALL UNUSED MINUTES.

    And then you get the prorated minutes from the 400 minute plan
  12. John

    John Guest

    yes. and they all agreed with me!

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    > news:slrnbvf7h6.42k.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    >
    >>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?

    >
    >
    > He probably had to call of his Nobel scientist friends to get a rational
    > opinion.
    >
    >
  13. John

    John Guest

    I am not litigous! only when corporations are stupid! I gave them
    a chance. they declined! now I prosper!

    John


    Bob the Printer wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF78337.5000505@earthlink.net...
    >
    >
    >>and laywers will jump on it... billions to be made here!!!!!

    >
    >
    > From you perhaps, but not the rest of us! Why are some people so litiginous
    > nowadays?? Everyone wants to SUE!
    >
    > God, it's no wonder some things cost so much!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > God Bless America!
    >
    > Bob the Printer
    >
    >
    > Our web pages are located at:
    > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/
    >
    >
  14. Jesse McGrew

    Jesse McGrew Guest

    John wrote:

    > but there is NO WAY that 300 and 400 can be averaged to less than
    > 300 uless FRAUD is involved. Gonna make me rich!


    If you can find a document from Verizon saying they will average your
    minutes, then you might get rich. Too bad that document doesn't exist, eh?

    Jesse
  15. "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnbvf92p.42k.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:22:50 GMT]:
    > > there is NO MATHEMATICAL scenario that can average 300 and 400 and
    > > come up with less than 300! Take some Math!!!!!

    >
    > Once again moron, it's NOT AVERAGED
    >
    > It's prorated.
    >
    > Once the old plan ends you LOSE ALL UNUSED MINUTES.
    >
    > And then you get the prorated minutes from the 400 minute plan


    This is way beyond him, Justin. It proves just how ignorant he is. He's
    not even fun to play with anymore- boring and stupid aren't a good mix for
    him.
  16. John

    John Guest

    dark matter,
    matter,
    and doesn't matter


    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
    > news:slrnbvf7e4.42k.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > exactly.
    >
    >
  17. John

    John Guest

    no troll.

    building credible lawyer case. value added.


    John


    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF767BD.6030206@earthlink.net...
    >
    >
    >>I look forward to hearing from you that action is being taken. Any lawyer
    >>or agent of the law wishing to pursue this case may contact me for

    >
    > complete
    >
    >>details.

    >
    >
    > Hmmmmmmmm..........one of your later posts says that you already have your
    > lawyers looking at this. Why do you need another one to pursue this?
    >
    > Troll? Probably.
    >
    > Moron? Absolutely.
    >
    >
  18. John

    John Guest

    :)

    It must be nice to be a moron with less than an 80 IQ. Tell me, what is
    it like?

    John

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FF79F0D.6060704@earthlink.net...
    >
    >>no billing error! they confirmed that when I told them over and over and

    >
    > over
    >
    >>and over and over and over and over.... oh got it?

    >
    >
    > Yeah- I got it. You are an idiot.
    >
    >
    >
    >>But fraud is legally actionable isn't it!!!

    >
    >
    > To prove fraud, it has to be a conscious act. You haven't proved that.
    >
    >
    >>I got a piece of it!!!!!!!!

    >
    >
    > Great- so happy for you.
    >
    >
    >>laugh all you want!

    >
    >
    > I don't need to- my thirteen year old is doing the laughing for me. He
    > wants to know who the clueless moron is.
    >
    >
    >
  19. "John" <jhyNOSPAM001@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3FF7A667.2020802@earthlink.net...
    > no troll.
    >
    > building credible lawyer case. value added.
    >


    That, like all of your other posts, is nonsense.
  20. John

    John Guest

    yada yada yada,

    300 averaged with 400 cannot be less than 300. What part of mathematics
    are you challenged with?

    John

    Justin wrote:
    > John wrote on [Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:07:38 GMT]:
    >
    >>you don't understand.................................
    >>
    >>there is NO WAY that 300 to 400 can average to less than 300.

    >
    >
    > Prorating does not mean averaging.
    >
    > If your billing cycle ends on the 20th, and your prorating for the 400
    > minute plan began on the 18th, assuming a 30 day month would be 26.66
    > minutes. If you made all the calls on these two days, or you made more
    > than 26.66 minutes of calls on these two days then you went over the
    > call time allotted for those two days.
    >
    > It's THAT simple.
    >

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?