On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:55 AM, David Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Honestly, people like this family drive me nuts. I think AT+T deserves to be > paid, as the family signed a contract , agreed to their terms, and then used > the product. Why should AT+T not be paid? Read your contracts, people. Sure, I've got a contract with my clients that I bill $xxx an hour. It doesn't mean I can whack them with 10,000 hours of my time! This has nothing to do with technology and is Not NF, it's OT. Just because it involves electronics doesn't make it technical. IMO, it's criminal that cellphone companies are going to have to be forced by legislation to add a "do-not-exceed" amount on their accounts to prevent people whose phone is left on, roaming, on the internet, on their baggage from racking up an amount in excess of their annual income while the phone is shipped around the world. I mean, who would WANT that feature? It's a disservice to their customers that that don't just call them up when they exceed 150% of their usual bill to say "are you aware of what you're doing?" -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
