Doubletalk from Verizonwireless

Take a look at this from their website:

You'll enjoy America's best, most reliable wireless network.

You can change your calling plan at any time.
As your needs change, you can change to any current calling plan. You
won't pay any additional fees and you won't have to extend your
contract.

If you ever have a problem, it becomes our problem the first time you
call.
No run-around, no hassles. If your issue can't be resolved during the
course of your first call, we'll get back to you with an answer.

Your satisfaction is guaranteed with our Test Drive program.
Now you can Test Drive our network; make calls and even try out a cool
new device. Every device you purchase from Verizon Wireless comes with
a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. And if you don't love us, take your
number to someone else within 30 days. You won't have to pay an early
termination fee, and we'll pay for any calls you've made.

You can get a free phone every two years with New Every Two.
Sign up for a calling plan of at least $34.99 and qualify for a free
phone after two years, with a two-year renewal. Or choose to apply
your New Every Two credit towards the purchase of a more expensive
phone. [close quote}

Yet when I went to their store to get rid of all that get-it-now spam
they put on my phone and to get the calendar and ringtones back, and
then to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, they tried to get me to
sign a contract --- although my contract is paid out and I'm on month-
to-month.

And the contract they demanded I sign permitted them to collect an
early termination fee of up to $175 and arbitration in the event of a
dispute. Well, having experience in law, i. e., having been a
litigation lawyer, I refused to sign it. After all, the writing
controls, NOT what they tell you. See the old hornbook Contracts Law
case, _Pines versus Perssion_ for details. And they told me that had
no effect on me since I was month-to-month. So why did I have to sign
the goddamn thing?

Lemme tell you something. Although the phone worked most of the time,
I have had a rash of overcharges and sleazy dealings from these
people, so I'm gun-shy about signing ANYTHING with them. I don't know
how many times I've had to call them to have bogus charges removed
from my bill, or had them call my land-line to tell me such and such a
charge would adversely affect my credit if I didn't pay it, only to
find out I didn't owe it -- after spending an hour or two on the phone
with these imps trying to get my account straightened out.

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:c707ad6c-d09b-4d0d-ab5d-
8895e4438eac@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> Take a look at this from their website:
>
> You'll enjoy America's best, most reliable wireless network.
>
> You can change your calling plan at any time.
> As your needs change, you can change to any current calling plan. You
> won't pay any additional fees and you won't have to extend your
> contract.
>
> If you ever have a problem, it becomes our problem the first time you
> call.
> No run-around, no hassles. If your issue can't be resolved during the
> course of your first call, we'll get back to you with an answer.
>
> Your satisfaction is guaranteed with our Test Drive program.
> Now you can Test Drive our network; make calls and even try out a cool
> new device. Every device you purchase from Verizon Wireless comes with
> a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. And if you don't love us, take your
> number to someone else within 30 days. You won't have to pay an early
> termination fee, and we'll pay for any calls you've made.
>
> You can get a free phone every two years with New Every Two.
> Sign up for a calling plan of at least $34.99 and qualify for a free
> phone after two years, with a two-year renewal. Or choose to apply
> your New Every Two credit towards the purchase of a more expensive
> phone. [close quote}
>
>

Newspeak?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:c707ad6c-d09b-4d0d-ab5d-
8895e4438eac@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> had them call my land-line to tell me such and such a
> charge would adversely affect my credit if I didn't pay it,

I LOVE it when they tell me this. My pat answer is quite simple...."So?
Is there a downside to that?"

I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon under
Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2304(a)(4)) and refused to pay the $8500 revolving
charge on the bogus Yamaha Credit Card, which is just Household Retail
Services. They threatened me once too often, so I turned it over to a
local law firm and informed them, in writing, the firm was handling my
cases with them...on law firm letterhead, of course.

After that, we tried and tried to get Yamaha or Household to ruin nearly 40
years of spotless credit. My attorney wanted a new beach house on the
Atlantic Ocean at the Isle of Palms....I had my eye on a new Mercedes S-
class long wheelbase sedan. Damn them all...they simply stopped talking to
us. I really wanted that car as we had 'em by the ass.

So, my constant string of really high-limit, pre-approved credit card spam
continues unabated. I just moved over to JP Morgan/Chase business account
when they offered me a better return (3%) on purchases and an amazing
dollar limit I'll never use, with no fees. Win-win. I use credit cards
all the time for fuel, toys, etc., because of the protection it provides,
and simply pay it off every month. I never buy what I can't pay for.
That's simply CRAZY at these rates!

I'm a terrible customer. I never give any of them a dime over the usage
balance, but that doesn't stop them from trying...(c;

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message

> I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon under
> Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2304(a)(4)) and refused to pay the $8500 revolving
> charge on the bogus Yamaha Credit Card, which is just Household Retail
> Services. They threatened me once too often, so I turned it over to a
> local law firm and informed them, in writing, the firm was handling my
> cases with them...on law firm letterhead, of course.

Not all of us can afford lawyers.

LHA wrote:
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>
>> I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon
>> under Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2304(a)(4)) and refused to pay the
>> $8500 revolving charge on the bogus Yamaha Credit Card, which is
>> just Household Retail Services. They threatened me once too often,
>> so I turned it over to a local law firm and informed them, in
>> writing, the firm was handling my cases with them...on law firm
>> letterhead, of course.
>
> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>
Oh, I'm sure Larry's law firm did this for free. Doesn't yours?

"LHA" <nobody3@yah3.edu> wrote in
news:dzasj.9924$Ch6.7673@newssvr11.news.prodigy.ne t:

>
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>
>> I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon
>> under Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2304(a)(4)) and refused to pay the
>> $8500 revolving charge on the bogus Yamaha Credit Card, which is just
>> Household Retail Services. They threatened me once too often, so I
>> turned it over to a local law firm and informed them, in writing, the
>> firm was handling my cases with them...on law firm letterhead, of
>> course.
>
> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>
>
>

I was charged $35 for the letter and about $80 in phone call charges
before he wanted to go on percentage of the take. After that, it cost me
nothing. Compare that to losing $8000+ on this pig and it was really
cheap!

Carl wrote:
> LHA wrote:
>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon
>>> under Magnusson-Moss (15USC50 2304(a)(4)) and refused to pay the
>>> $8500 revolving charge on the bogus Yamaha Credit Card, which is
>>> just Household Retail Services. They threatened me once too often,
>>> so I turned it over to a local law firm and informed them, in
>>> writing, the firm was handling my cases with them...on law firm
>>> letterhead, of course.
>> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>>
> Oh, I'm sure Larry's law firm did this for free. Doesn't yours?

My favorite part of Magnusson-Moss is the following:

**107 Designation of Representatives.

"Nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent any warrantor from
designating representatives to perform duties under the written or
implied warranty: provided, that such warrantor shall make reasonable
arrangements for compensation of such designated representatives, BUT
NO SUCH DESIGNATION SHALL RELIEVE THE WARRANTOR OF HIS DIRECT
RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE CONSUMER or make the representative a
co-warrantor." (Emphasis mine).

Have you ever seen stores that get all upset because they claim to be an
"authorized dealer" for a specific product and that their competitors
are not. Often they'll try to scare people with claims of "the
manufacturer won't honor the warranty if you buy from an "unauthorized
dealer." As long as the product isn't gray-market, the manufacturer
provides the warranty, and the choice of dealer doesn't affect the
warranty. The whole reason this part of Magnusson-Moss came into
existence was because manufacturers were dumping excess inventory
through secondary channels, then trying to get out of warranty service
by claiming that those channels weren't authorized to sell the product.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A41DF681BE2Cnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:c707ad6c-d09b-4d0d-ab5d-
> 8895e4438eac@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> had them call my land-line to tell me such and such a
>> charge would adversely affect my credit if I didn't pay it,
>
> I LOVE it when they tell me this. My pat answer is quite simple...."So?
> Is there a downside to that?"
>
> I successfully returned a new 1997 Yamaha Waverunner GP1200 lemon under

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, give it a fucking rest with your
ceaseless rants about that piece of shit PWC.

"LHA" <nobody3@yah3.edu> wrote:

> Not all of us can afford lawyers.

None of us can afford NOT to have lawyers.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47b1b09e$0$36407
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> The whole reason this part of Magnusson-Moss came into
> existence was because manufacturers were dumping excess inventory
> through secondary channels, then trying to get out of warranty service
> by claiming that those channels weren't authorized to sell the product.
>
>
Yes. It is also, under the law, that you buy within 2.5 miles of home, a
little gift to the merchants from the politicians. If there's no local
dealer, the provision turns off. I was 1.6 miles from the Yamaha
dealer..(c

Every consumer needs to read the law. It's amazingly in English, not
lawyerese. Sec 2304(a)(4) was my out. It says they have a reasonable
time (30 days in court cases), and a reasonable number of attempts (3 in
case law is normal) to fix it TO THE CONSUMER'S SATISFACTION, NOT THE
MANUFACTURER, NOT THE DEALER! Then, if they cannot, or in my case would
not, fix it, the CONSUMER, not the dealer, not the manufacturer, has the
OPTION for A) a full replacement unit...or... ALL of his money
back...not minus 15% restocking fee or any other bogus charges...every
penny. It's the CONSUMER'S CHOICE, not theirs!

Lucky for me, I was holding all the cards. No begging on my part was
necessary. I let their dealer talk me into charging the boat on the
bogus Yamaha Credit Card with no money down, no payment until September.
I bought it in Feb, returned it in August, and had not a penny invested
in it I couldn't keep. I followed the law, to the smallest period, and
waited all summer, much longer and more "attempts" to fix the major
problems. When he tried to threaten me with "storage fees" if I didn't
come pick up my BROKEN boat, at $10/day, was when I put my foot down and
said enough was enough. I took many pictures of the disassembled boat
sitting out in the mud behind the shop from the business next door to
enhance any evidence we needed.

Before leaving, I FAXED him his own copy of:


http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/.../warranty.shtm


so he would be sure to know what his responsibilities to his customers
was. Every consumer needs to read this guide...from the FTC, tasked with
its enforcement.
Notice in the guide it says they CANNOT JUST DISCLAIMER THE TWO IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, something they all try to pull. Won't wash in court. The
boat was NOT ready for sale free of defects....and wouldn't go anywhere
near as fast as the 60 MPH the salesman promised IN FRONT OF MY WITNESS!

If a VZW promises you you can do something and you can't, it violates
Magnusson-Moss. Too bad for all of us it doesn't cover SERVICE only
products. VZW is also RESPONSIBLE for the phones they sell, not "you
must call Motorola", which is nonsense.

jl wrote:
> Take a look at this from their website:
>
> You'll enjoy America's best, most reliable wireless network.
>
> You can change your calling plan at any time.
> As your needs change, you can change to any current calling plan. You
> won't pay any additional fees and you won't have to extend your
> contract.
>
> If you ever have a problem, it becomes our problem the first time you
> call.
> No run-around, no hassles. If your issue can't be resolved during the
> course of your first call, we'll get back to you with an answer.
>
> Your satisfaction is guaranteed with our Test Drive program.
> Now you can Test Drive our network; make calls and even try out a cool
> new device. Every device you purchase from Verizon Wireless comes with
> a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. And if you don't love us, take your
> number to someone else within 30 days. You won't have to pay an early
> termination fee, and we'll pay for any calls you've made.
>
> You can get a free phone every two years with New Every Two.
> Sign up for a calling plan of at least $34.99 and qualify for a free
> phone after two years, with a two-year renewal. Or choose to apply
> your New Every Two credit towards the purchase of a more expensive
> phone. [close quote}
>
> Yet when I went to their store to get rid of all that get-it-now spam
> they put on my phone and to get the calendar and ringtones back, and
> then to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, they tried to get me to
> sign a contract --- although my contract is paid out and I'm on month-
> to-month.
>
> And the contract they demanded I sign permitted them to collect an
> early termination fee of up to $175 and arbitration in the event of a
> dispute. Well, having experience in law, i. e., having been a
> litigation lawyer, I refused to sign it. After all, the writing
> controls, NOT what they tell you. See the old hornbook Contracts Law
> case, _Pines versus Perssion_ for details. And they told me that had
> no effect on me since I was month-to-month. So why did I have to sign
> the goddamn thing?
>
> Lemme tell you something. Although the phone worked most of the time,
> I have had a rash of overcharges and sleazy dealings from these
> people, so I'm gun-shy about signing ANYTHING with them. I don't know
> how many times I've had to call them to have bogus charges removed
> from my bill, or had them call my land-line to tell me such and such a
> charge would adversely affect my credit if I didn't pay it, only to
> find out I didn't owe it -- after spending an hour or two on the phone
> with these imps trying to get my account straightened out.

Not sure what silly point you are trying to make, you had a contract several
years ago, and now is extended month to month with the exact same terms as
what your original contract specified, but you want thm to give you the new
contract terms WITHOUT getting a new contract with the new provisions....

You claim you are a litigation lawyer, what where the terms of the contract
you entered into it several years ago, those extend month to month UNLESS
you enter into a new contract..... But you seem to expect that the NEW terms
for new contracts should apply to an extension of your old contract... Think
of it this way, you buy a car in 2005, now the warranty is up and you have
an extended warranty, is that an extension of your original warranty, or do
you get the same warranty as a new car?

Good point.

Remember----lawyers write the laws. They also coined the phrase "Time is
Money".

It's naive to expect protection from laws written by lawyers, without having
to PAY a lawyer.

What a racket they have---Shakespeare was really smart.

Dean


"XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A4270FAE10A6xs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90. 236...
> "LHA" <nobody3@yah3.edu> wrote:
>
>> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>
> None of us can afford NOT to have lawyers.
>
>
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project:
> http://improve-usenet.org

Dean wrote:
> Good point.
>
> Remember----lawyers write the laws. They also coined the phrase "Time is
> Money".
>
> It's naive to expect protection from laws written by lawyers, without having
> to PAY a lawyer.
>
> What a racket they have---Shakespeare was really smart.
>
> Dean
>
>
> "XS11E" <xs11e@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A4270FAE10A6xs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90. 236...
>> "LHA" <nobody3@yah3.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>> None of us can afford NOT to have lawyers.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
>> The Usenet Improvement Project:
>> http://improve-usenet.org
>
>
Pretty accurate, the most difficult thing to find is a lawyer whose
primary goal isn't to transfer wealth to themselves and is actually
interested in providing honest service.

On Feb 13, 11:40*am, "Dean" <dean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good point.
>
> Remember----lawyers write the laws. They also coined the phrase "Time is
> Money".
>
> It's naive to expect protection from laws written by lawyers, without having
> to PAY a lawyer.
>
> What a racket they have---Shakespeare was really smart.
>
> Dean
>
> "XS11E" <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A4270FAE10A6xs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90. 236...
>
>
>
> > "LHA" <nobo...@yah3.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>
> > None of us can afford NOT to have lawyers.
>
> > --
> > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> > The Usenet Improvement Project:
> >http://improve-usenet.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You! Legislators are more than 50% non-lawyers, both in Washington
and in the state capitals.

Shakespeare poked fun at lawyers, but he was dead serious in Henry
VI. He meant just the *opposite* of what he said. Otherwise, he
meant, "The SECOND thing let's do, let's kill everyone who can read
and write." Because the gang of lawyer-hating thugs (Jack Cade, Dick
Butcher) took a clerk with his inkwell and quill around his neck and
summarily hanged him from a lamp-post.

You should read more. What is the extent of your reading? Dick and
Jane?

On Feb 12, 1:48*pm, "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOS...@AkamailNOSPAM.com>
wrote:
> jl wrote:
> > Take a look at this from their website:
>
> > You'll enjoy America's best, most reliable wireless network.
>
> > You can change your calling plan at any time.
> > As your needs change, you can change to any current calling plan. You
> > won't pay any additional fees and you won't have to extend your
> > contract.
>
> > If you ever have a problem, it becomes our problem the first time you
> > call.
> > No run-around, no hassles. If your issue can't be resolved during the
> > course of your first call, we'll get back to you with an answer.
>
> > Your satisfaction is guaranteed with our Test Drive program.
> > Now you can Test Drive our network; make calls and even try out a cool
> > new device. Every device you purchase from Verizon Wireless comes with
> > a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. And if you don't love us, take your
> > number to someone else within 30 days. You won't have to pay an early
> > termination fee, and we'll pay for any calls you've made.
>
> > You can get a free phone every two years with New Every Two.
> > Sign up for a calling plan of at least $34.99 and qualify for a free
> > phone after two years, with a two-year renewal. Or choose to apply
> > your New Every Two credit towards the purchase of a more expensive
> > phone. [close quote}
>
> > Yet when I went to their store to get rid of all that get-it-now spam
> > they put on my phone and to get the calendar and ringtones back, and
> > then to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, they tried to get me to
> > sign a contract --- although my contract is paid out and I'm on month-
> > to-month.
>
> > And the contract they demanded I sign permitted them to collect an
> > early termination fee of up to $175 and arbitration in the event of a
> > dispute. *Well, having experience in law, i. e., having been a
> > litigation lawyer, I refused to sign it. *After all, the writing
> > controls, NOT what they tell you. *See the old hornbook Contracts Law
> > case, _Pines versus Perssion_ for details. *And they told me that had
> > no effect on me since I was month-to-month. *So why did I have to sign
> > the goddamn thing?
>
> > Lemme tell you something. *Although the phone worked most of the time,
> > I have had a rash of overcharges and sleazy dealings from these
> > people, so I'm gun-shy about signing ANYTHING with them. *I don't know
> > how many times I've had to call them to have bogus charges removed
> > from my bill, or had them call my land-line to tell me such and such a
> > charge would adversely affect my credit if I didn't pay it, only to
> > find out I didn't owe it -- after spending an hour or two on the phone
> > with these imps trying to get my account straightened out.
>
> Not sure what silly point you are trying to make, you had a contract several
> years ago, and now is extended month to month with the exact same terms as
> what your original contract specified, but you want thm to give you the new
> contract terms WITHOUT getting a new contract with the new provisions....
>
> You claim you are a litigation lawyer, what where the terms of the contract
> you entered into it several years ago, those extend month to month UNLESS
> you enter into a new contract..... But you seem to expect that the NEW terms
> for new contracts should apply to an extension of your old contract... Think
> of it this way, you buy a car in 2005, now the warranty is up and you have
> an extended warranty, is that an extension of your original warranty, or do
> you get the same warranty as a new car?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am afraid you have not read for comprehension. I never entered into
a new contract. All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
to-month. No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.

Hey, read this----

If I break into your house and attack you, then fall down the stairs on my
way out, I can sue you for my injuries and win.

If I drive drunk and run over a pedestrian, the cops chase me and I crash
into a tree, I can sue the police for "causing" the accident, and win.

If my neighbor comes over to borrow my chainsaw, and trips in a gopher hole
in my yard on his way back home, when he gets back home it won't be 10
minutes watching TV before an ad comes on with some sleazy dirtbag lawyer
telling he can "get the MONEY he's entitled to".

Major national Trial Lawyers associations have come out en masse opposing
Tort Reform. Abuse of the tort system costs ALL OF US, a lot. If you're so
smart, why don't you explain how anyone could justify opposing Tort
Reform---as far as I'm concerned, that's equivalent to opposing Cancer
Research.

Make no mistake, our legal system is not about justice. It's about MONEY,
period. Lawyers work for law firms, and law firms evaluate the associates
based on billable hours generated. That's the same system Roto-Rooter uses
to evaluate the guy who unclogs my toilet. Hmm, Roto-Rooter Justice....

I have friends and family who are attorneys. Most of them are unhappy
people, working a ton of hours, making a lot of money doing work they hate.

I'm afraid "lawyer-hating thug" might describe more average Americans than
you are willing to acknowledge.

I can't wait for a law firm to specialize in suing other attorneys. "If
you've been wronged by an attorney, call 1-800-SUE-ATTY and get your money
BACK".....what do you think?

Sorry, I normally don't let people push my buttons like this.

I'm taking the tinfoil hat off now. Whew.

Dean


"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:b20fd582-cf40-4b03-8209-412d1746fc7c@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 13, 11:40 am, "Dean" <dean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good point.
>
> Remember----lawyers write the laws. They also coined the phrase "Time is
> Money".
>
> It's naive to expect protection from laws written by lawyers, without
> having
> to PAY a lawyer.
>
> What a racket they have---Shakespeare was really smart.
>
> Dean
>
> "XS11E" <xs...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9A4270FAE10A6xs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90. 236...
>
>
>
> > "LHA" <nobo...@yah3.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Not all of us can afford lawyers.
>
> > None of us can afford NOT to have lawyers.
>
> > --
> > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> > The Usenet Improvement Project:
> >http://improve-usenet.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You! Legislators are more than 50% non-lawyers, both in Washington
and in the state capitals.

Shakespeare poked fun at lawyers, but he was dead serious in Henry
VI. He meant just the *opposite* of what he said. Otherwise, he
meant, "The SECOND thing let's do, let's kill everyone who can read
and write." Because the gang of lawyer-hating thugs (Jack Cade, Dick
Butcher) took a clerk with his inkwell and quill around his neck and
summarily hanged him from a lamp-post.

You should read more. What is the extent of your reading? Dick and
Jane?

On Feb 14, 1:06*pm, "Dean" <dean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey, read this----
>
> If I break into your house and attack you, then fall down the stairs on my
> way out, I can sue you for my injuries and win.

Name the caption of that case, or any such case. You won't, of
course.


>
> If I drive drunk and run over a pedestrian, the cops chase me and I crash
> into a tree, I can sue the police for "causing" the accident, and win.

Name the case and jurisdiction. You won't, of course.


<yawn>

<snip the rest of this cat's bad fiction>

jl wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:48 pm, "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOS...@AkamailNOSPAM.com>
> wrote:
>> jl wrote:
>>> Take a look at this from their website:
>>
>>> You'll enjoy America's best, most reliable wireless network.
>>
>>> You can change your calling plan at any time.
>>> As your needs change, you can change to any current calling plan.
>>> You won't pay any additional fees and you won't have to extend your
>>> contract.
>>
>>> If you ever have a problem, it becomes our problem the first time
>>> you call.
>>> No run-around, no hassles. If your issue can't be resolved during
>>> the course of your first call, we'll get back to you with an answer.
>>
>>> Your satisfaction is guaranteed with our Test Drive program.
>>> Now you can Test Drive our network; make calls and even try out a
>>> cool new device. Every device you purchase from Verizon Wireless
>>> comes with a 30-day satisfaction guarantee. And if you don't love
>>> us, take your number to someone else within 30 days. You won't have
>>> to pay an early termination fee, and we'll pay for any calls you've
>>> made.
>>
>>> You can get a free phone every two years with New Every Two.
>>> Sign up for a calling plan of at least $34.99 and qualify for a free
>>> phone after two years, with a two-year renewal. Or choose to apply
>>> your New Every Two credit towards the purchase of a more expensive
>>> phone. [close quote}
>>
>>> Yet when I went to their store to get rid of all that get-it-now
>>> spam they put on my phone and to get the calendar and ringtones
>>> back, and then to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, they tried to
>>> get me to sign a contract --- although my contract is paid out and
>>> I'm on month- to-month.
>>
>>> And the contract they demanded I sign permitted them to collect an
>>> early termination fee of up to $175 and arbitration in the event of
>>> a dispute. Well, having experience in law, i. e., having been a
>>> litigation lawyer, I refused to sign it. After all, the writing
>>> controls, NOT what they tell you. See the old hornbook Contracts Law
>>> case, _Pines versus Perssion_ for details. And they told me that had
>>> no effect on me since I was month-to-month. So why did I have to
>>> sign the goddamn thing?
>>
>>> Lemme tell you something. Although the phone worked most of the
>>> time, I have had a rash of overcharges and sleazy dealings from
>>> these people, so I'm gun-shy about signing ANYTHING with them. I
>>> don't know how many times I've had to call them to have bogus
>>> charges removed from my bill, or had them call my land-line to tell
>>> me such and such a charge would adversely affect my credit if I
>>> didn't pay it, only to find out I didn't owe it -- after spending
>>> an hour or two on the phone with these imps trying to get my
>>> account straightened out.
>>
>> Not sure what silly point you are trying to make, you had a contract
>> several years ago, and now is extended month to month with the exact
>> same terms as what your original contract specified, but you want
>> thm to give you the new contract terms WITHOUT getting a new
>> contract with the new provisions....
>>
>> You claim you are a litigation lawyer, what where the terms of the
>> contract you entered into it several years ago, those extend month
>> to month UNLESS you enter into a new contract..... But you seem to
>> expect that the NEW terms for new contracts should apply to an
>> extension of your old contract... Think of it this way, you buy a
>> car in 2005, now the warranty is up and you have an extended
>> warranty, is that an extension of your original warranty, or do you
>> get the same warranty as a new car?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I am afraid you have not read for comprehension. I never entered into
> a new contract. All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
> to-month. No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
> paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.

I wonder if *YOU* comprehend what you wrote, sure you did not enter into a
new contract, but you insist that you get the perks as if you did... point
is, a month 2 month extension of your old contract, means your old contract
extnds month 2 month with the same terms, it does *NOT* entitle you to the
benefits of what a new contract provides.....

On Feb 14, 8:12*pm, "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOS...@AkamailNOSPAM.com>
wrote:
[...]
> I wonder if *YOU* comprehend what you wrote, sure you did not enter into a
> new contract, but you insist that you get the perks as if you did... point
> is, a month 2 month extension of your old contract, means your old contract
> extnds month 2 month with the same terms, it does *NOT* entitle you to the
> benefits of what a new contract provides.....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This one does not read for comprehension either. Or even know basic
rules of grammar. I'm afraid he's been eating Tinkerbell's pixie
dust.
<ploink>

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:10:11 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>I am afraid you have not read for comprehension.

Hmm, let's see about that.

>I never entered into
>a new contract.

He never said you did.

>All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
>to-month.

I think that's what Peter said. But technically, both of you are off
on this one. You can continue your *plan* month to month, but your
contract expires, hence the phrase used often here, "I'm not under
contract."

>No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
>paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.

You wanted the benefits of a new contract without actually having to
sign one. So what VZW said was technically correct, they won't extend
your *contract* if you change *plans*, but after your contract has
expired, there's no contract to extend. If you want a new plan, you
will have to sign a new contract. Not saying I agree with it from a
business standpoint, but that's the way it works. You probably should
have requested the plan reduction while your contract was still in
effect.

On Feb 15, 12:25*pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee>
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:10:11 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I am afraid you have not read for comprehension. *
>
> Hmm, let's see about that.
>
> >I never entered into
> >a new contract. *
>
> He never said you did.
>
> >All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
> >to-month. *
>
> I think that's what Peter said. *But technically, both of you are off
> on this one. *You can continue your *plan* month to month, but your
> contract expires, hence the phrase used often here, "I'm not under
> contract."
>
> >No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
> >paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.
>
> You wanted the benefits of a new contract without actually having to
> sign one. *So what VZW said was technically correct, they won't extend
> your *contract* if you change *plans*, but after your contract has
> expired, there's no contract to extend. *If you want a new plan, you
> will have to sign a new contract. *Not saying I agree with it from a
> business standpoint, but that's the way it works. *You probably should
> have requested the plan reduction while your contract was still in
> effect.

Is there just one of you. Just one? Who understands contract law?
I am now on month-to-month. I can cancel at any time and so can
they. That is fine with me. So why should I sign an "Agreement," i.
e., a contract, in order to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, or in
order to get and pay bills on the internet? In both cases, Verizon
requires you to sign an open-ended document. WTF is that? I have
already signed a contract with them, 2 and 1/2 years ago. It expired,
so far as my two-year obligation is concerned. So why do I need to
sign another "Agreement?" I'm not signing a goddamn thing, especially
since the agreement requires me to submit to arbitration in the event
of a dispute. I have already detailed for you, in more ways than a
country boy knows how to get into town, the slick methods these
sonsabitches have of adding bogus charges to your bill.

And you know what? They're still providing services, despite my
refusal to sign their unconscionable agreement. What does that tell
you?

Now, you take a hike too, my obnoxious little toady.

Jeezus. What a bevy of pinheads! It's like my neighbor says, "I have
to deal with Verizon because of my business, but they are a pack of
rat bastards."

BTW, he (and all his truckers) just went with AT&T. And I'm about to
do the same. I have a friend in another part of the state who just
went Alltel, after exhausting his patience with Verizonwireless. So
far, he's very happy.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:06:23 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 12:25*pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:10:11 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I am afraid you have not read for comprehension. *
>>
>> Hmm, let's see about that.
>>
>> >I never entered into
>> >a new contract. *
>>
>> He never said you did.
>>
>> >All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
>> >to-month. *
>>
>> I think that's what Peter said. *But technically, both of you are off
>> on this one. *You can continue your *plan* month to month, but your
>> contract expires, hence the phrase used often here, "I'm not under
>> contract."
>>
>> >No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
>> >paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.
>>
>> You wanted the benefits of a new contract without actually having to
>> sign one. *So what VZW said was technically correct, they won't extend
>> your *contract* if you change *plans*, but after your contract has
>> expired, there's no contract to extend. *If you want a new plan, you
>> will have to sign a new contract. *Not saying I agree with it from a
>> business standpoint, but that's the way it works. *You probably should
>> have requested the plan reduction while your contract was still in
>> effect.
>
>Is there just one of you. Just one?

One of who? If you mean people who are sick of seeing people bitch
and moan about petty bullshit that they can do something about but
choose not to, I'll bet there are many.

>Who understands contract law?

Apparently, everyone but you.

>I am now on month-to-month. I can cancel at any time and so can
>they. That is fine with me. So why should I sign an "Agreement," i.
>e., a contract, in order to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, or in
>order to get and pay bills on the internet?

I'm not saying you should.

>In both cases, Verizon
>requires you to sign an open-ended document. WTF is that?

I guess it depends on your definition of "open ended." Your last one
ended, so was it "open ended" too?

>I have
>already signed a contract with them, 2 and 1/2 years ago. It expired,
>so far as my two-year obligation is concerned. So why do I need to
>sign another "Agreement?"

Then leave VZW already. I'm sure they care as much or less than we
do.

>I'm not signing a goddamn thing, especially
>since the agreement requires me to submit to arbitration in the event
>of a dispute.

I've got news for you, pal. Your last contract did, too, but I didn't
see you complaining about that. So why now?

>I have already detailed for you, in more ways than a
>country boy knows how to get into town, the slick methods these
>sonsabitches have of adding bogus charges to your bill.

No, you really haven't done anything but bitch and rant. How about
doing something about it instead of flapping your gums.

>And you know what? They're still providing services, despite my
>refusal to sign their unconscionable agreement. What does that tell
>you?

That you are still on month to month with your old contract terms.
Was this supposed to be a trick question?

>Now, you take a hike too, my obnoxious little toady.

You don't like what was said, so instead of refuting the points with
fact, you want to call names.

>Jeezus. What a bevy of pinheads! It's like my neighbor says, "I have
>to deal with Verizon because of my business, but they are a pack of
>rat bastards."

You just like to think everyone in the world is stupid just because
they don't give you the answers you want. I don't know what you call
it, but where I come from, we call it being childish.

>BTW, he (and all his truckers) just went with AT&T. And I'm about to
>do the same. I have a friend in another part of the state who just
>went Alltel, after exhausting his patience with Verizonwireless. So
>far, he's very happy.

Then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. I'm sure
they'll be more than happy to listen to your bitching and moaning.

You know, this is a very simple problem to understand. They own the
service and you want to use it. Use it under their, Verizon's,
conditions or go somewhere else. Also, if you want to discuss contract
law why would you do it on a Verizon news group?
Glenn

jl wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:25 pm, The Ghost of General Lee <gh...@general.lee>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:10:11 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am afraid you have not read for comprehension.
>> Hmm, let's see about that.
>>
>>> I never entered into
>>> a new contract.
>> He never said you did.
>>
>>> All I did was extend the old one by continuing month-
>>> to-month.
>> I think that's what Peter said. But technically, both of you are off
>> on this one. You can continue your *plan* month to month, but your
>> contract expires, hence the phrase used often here, "I'm not under
>> contract."
>>
>>> No new phone, no new contract, yet they insisted I sign a
>>> paper-writing which gave them new terms and new advantages.
>> You wanted the benefits of a new contract without actually having to
>> sign one. So what VZW said was technically correct, they won't extend
>> your *contract* if you change *plans*, but after your contract has
>> expired, there's no contract to extend. If you want a new plan, you
>> will have to sign a new contract. Not saying I agree with it from a
>> business standpoint, but that's the way it works. You probably should
>> have requested the plan reduction while your contract was still in
>> effect.
>
> Is there just one of you. Just one? Who understands contract law?
> I am now on month-to-month. I can cancel at any time and so can
> they. That is fine with me. So why should I sign an "Agreement," i.
> e., a contract, in order to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, or in
> order to get and pay bills on the internet? In both cases, Verizon
> requires you to sign an open-ended document. WTF is that? I have
> already signed a contract with them, 2 and 1/2 years ago. It expired,
> so far as my two-year obligation is concerned. So why do I need to
> sign another "Agreement?" I'm not signing a goddamn thing, especially
> since the agreement requires me to submit to arbitration in the event
> of a dispute. I have already detailed for you, in more ways than a
> country boy knows how to get into town, the slick methods these
> sonsabitches have of adding bogus charges to your bill.
>
> And you know what? They're still providing services, despite my
> refusal to sign their unconscionable agreement. What does that tell
> you?
>
> Now, you take a hike too, my obnoxious little toady.
>
> Jeezus. What a bevy of pinheads! It's like my neighbor says, "I have
> to deal with Verizon because of my business, but they are a pack of
> rat bastards."
>
> BTW, he (and all his truckers) just went with AT&T. And I'm about to
> do the same. I have a friend in another part of the state who just
> went Alltel, after exhausting his patience with Verizonwireless. So
> far, he's very happy.

On 2008-02-15, The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>>Who understands contract law?
>
> Apparently, everyone but you.

I'm still trying to figure out what a "litigation lawyer" does. I've never
heard the term. Most lawyers, by the nature of their work, are involved in
litigation, so the phrase seems ponderous and repetitive to me. JL, exactly
which legal discipline do you specialize in? (Just curious.)

>>In both cases, Verizon
>>requires you to sign an open-ended document. WTF is that?
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of "open ended." Your last one
> ended, so was it "open ended" too?

I don't think so.

There's plenty to dislike about VZW, but I think the OP has it wrong this
time.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On Feb 15, 4:44*pm, Steve Sobol <sjso...@JustThe.net> wrote:
[...]
> There's plenty to dislike about VZW, but I think the OP has it wrong this
> time.
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA * * PGP:0xE3AE35ED *www.SteveSobol.com
> Geek-for-hire. Details:http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Most corporate lawyers don't go to court. Estate lawyers and trust
lawyers don't ordinarily go to court. Patent lawyers and IP lawyers
don't go to court. Litigation lawyers do.

On 2008-02-16, jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Most corporate lawyers don't go to court. Estate lawyers and trust
> lawyers don't ordinarily go to court. Patent lawyers and IP lawyers
> don't go to court. Litigation lawyers do.

You didn't address the other point I made (the one you quoted).

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:15:19 -0800 (PST), jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>Most corporate lawyers don't go to court. Estate lawyers and trust
>lawyers don't ordinarily go to court. Patent lawyers and IP lawyers
>don't go to court. Litigation lawyers do.

Oh, so what you meant to say was "trial lawyer." OK, I'll bite, civil
or criminal?

At 15 Feb 2008 21:44:01 +0000 Steve Sobol wrote:

> I'm still trying to figure out what a "litigation lawyer" does. I've never
> heard the term. Most lawyers, by the nature of their work, are involved in
> litigation, so the phrase seems ponderous and repetitive to me.


Aren't they the guys who sue the "medical physicians?" ;-)

At 15 Feb 2008 10:06:23 -0800 jl wrote:

> Is there just one of you. Just one? Who understands contract law?
> I am now on month-to-month. I can cancel at any time and so can
> they. That is fine with me. So why should I sign an "Agreement," i.
> e., a contract, in order to reduce my minutes to 450 from 900, or in
> order to get and pay bills on the internet?

Well, I'm not an attorney, but I'd say that you already answered your own
question: "I can cancel at any time and so can they."

Apparently they're willing to "cancel you" if you attempt to change plans
without signing thier agreement.

> So why do I need to
> sign another "Agreement?" I'm not signing a goddamn thing, especially
> since the agreement requires me to submit to arbitration in the event
> of a dispute.

Did you not read the one you signed 2-1/2 years ago? I'll wager the
arbitration clause was in that one as well. I have a nearly 10-year-old
Cingular contract still kicking around that had an arbitration clause.

> I have already detailed for you, in more ways than a
> country boy knows how to get into town, the slick methods these
> sonsabitches have of adding bogus charges to your bill.

Gee willikers then, Hoss, I'll be hog-tied if I don't know why you don't
fire them faster than a country-fried steak hardens an artery...