My lawyer from the firm Dewey Cheathum and Howe will be contacting you. I used my holographic reading glasses to read it while drinking Luche de Dulce coffee from Pino NM and I have a thought. Someone has to pay for that. You will be getting a commission check once my lawyer settles with Cerveceria Cuauthemoc Montezuma for your idea. Damn. Now I have to pay you a consulting fee
Jaime Solorza On May 22, 2015 6:55 AM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't believe you read it Jaime. I have never seen you do any work > without posting a picture of it. Since you provided no photographic > evidence of your reading this email thread I can't substantiate your having > read it. > > In fact, now that I think of it, I think you post more non work Tecate > photos than whomever is in charge of Tecate social media. > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Paul Stewart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Half price sale? >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Solorza >> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2015 8:20 AM >> *To:* Animal Farm >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] charging for service calls >> >> >> >> I am billing you guys a consulting fee of 100.00 an hour just to read >> this. >> >> Jaime Solorza >> >> On May 22, 2015 4:23 AM, "Shayne Lebrun" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If all service calls are chargable, but you waive where it's your fault, >> or otherwise indicated, you're an awesome business doing right by your >> customers. >> >> If you roll for free, then charge when you find the customer's been using >> the radio for target practice, you're a greedy bastard who's out to squeeze >> every last penny out of innocent, hard-working regular folk, who just made >> a simple mistake, aren't smart with all that computer stuff, and didn't >> realize that electronic equipment works best without holes in it, and >> shouldn't be punished because YOU didn't explain that to them. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett >> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:31 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [AFMUG] charging for service calls >> >> There have been some discussions at the office recently on this topic. >> One camp feels that the default action should be to charge for all >> service calls, and make an exception if necessary. The other camp feels >> that we should reserve the right to charge for a service call, but we >> should only do so if the problem is somehow the customer's fault (like >> hitting the cable with the weed whacker). The discussion in our office is >> only about fixing internet service by the way, not about fixing computers >> or other customer equipment. >> >> I was wondering what the peanut gallery thinks today. >> >> >
