hmmm...from that stand point....it's more likely that the company added the lawyer's fee to the loss which means the real figure is more like a few hundred.
G. "Christopher K. Neitzert" wrote: > me thinks some attorney calculated their oversubscription rate on the > bandwith into those figures by using a * when they should have used a / > > chris > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Gene wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:43:57 -0700 > > From: Gene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [BAWUG] Time Warner Nasty-gram > > > > looks more like by the "garden" > > > > G. > > > > John Foust wrote: > > > > > And the "$250,000 worth of bandwidth stolen" part is ridiculous. > > > Are they buying by the bale and estimating by the joint? > > > > > > - John > > > > > > -- > > > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > > > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > -- > > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
