 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / April 2004Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/167471_idtheft02.html Friday, April 2, 2004 Identity theft feared in Cingular store break-in SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF EVERETT -- More than 600 customers may have had such personal information as names, Social Security or credit card numbers stolen during a break-in last week at a Cingular Wireless store at 210 S.W. Everett Mall Way. The affected customers received letters this week alerting them to the possibility of identity or bank theft. They include customers who signed cellular phone contracts and bought products at the store. The thieves who broke in March 26 stole computers and business records from a locked storeroom that contained the information, according to John Hofer, district manager for GoWireless, Cingular's authorized agent. "We felt it was necessary as a corporation to let our customers know that this information could have been jeopardized," he said. None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a victim of fraud, he said. > Friday, April 2, 2004 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > possibility of identity or bank theft. They include customers who signed > cellular phone contracts and bought products at the store. Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know. > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse > consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know. Yes, letters, as required by law. Phone calls- not required by law, and generally not accepted as a trackable form of communication. No negligence- not actionable. > > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make > > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generally not accepted as a trackable form of communication. No negligence- > not actionable. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!! >>>Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make >>>phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!! Wow Robert, neat new sock puppet???? > Wow Robert, neat new sock puppet???? Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the insults when proven wrong. Cingular was negligent. >Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the insults >when proven wrong. > >Cingular was negligent. They were not negligent. Somebody broke in and stole the records. It isn't like they were dumped outdoors in the trash bin or something. > >Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the insults > >when proven wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like > they were dumped outdoors in the trash bin or something. They were not sufficiently secured. Theyt are required to keep them safe. By whom? From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com > They were not sufficiently secured. Theyt are required to keep them > safe. <<Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the insults when proven wrong. Cingular was negligent. >> Who cares if you think Cingular was negligent? Are you a Cingular customer? Why does it make a difference to you what they do and how they handle their business? > <<Must be one of these blind apologists for Cingular. Quick to the > insults when proven wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > customer? Why does it make a difference to you what they do and how > they handle their business? When did become the moderator of all of Usenet? <<When did become the moderator of all of Usenet? >> Wasn't trying to be a moderator. Just asking simple questions that you seem not to be able to answer. > <<When did become the moderator of all of Usenet? >> > > Wasn't trying to be a moderator. Just asking simple questions that you > seem not to be able to answer. Ole Phillipe ... err Robert M. (one of Phillipe's 60 different IDs) is the master of not answering poignant questions ... Bob > > > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make > > > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT..........WRONG!!!!! OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. Again Cingular was negligent. > OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. And where do you propose they get the numbers of those people who had been in the store and used their CC to just purchase accessories? > Again Cingular was negligent. > > OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. > > And where do you propose they get the numbers of those people who had been > in the store and used their CC to just purchase accessories? > > > Again Cingular was negligent. The same place they got their addresses to send the letters, genius. >> OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. > >And where do you propose they get the numbers of those people who had been >in the store and used their CC to just purchase accessories? > >> Again Cingular was negligent. Where did they get their addreses? > >> OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Where did they get their addreses? Would they have received any of the information intime to prevent any possibility of identity theft? >> OK, Better yet. make a phone call, and follow up with a letter. > >And where do you propose they get the numbers of those people who had been >in the store and used their CC to just purchase accessories? Probably the same place they would get the addresses for the letters. >> > > Letters? They didn't have the DECENCY to hire some Kelly girls and make >> > > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Again Cingular was negligent. why do you say that? After Berkley and Jenkins' data base was compromised, they didn't contact any of their customers to advise them. My credit card issuer closed the credit card and opened a new one. They sent me a letter notifying me that they did this AFTER they had closed the account and BEFORE they issued me a new card with the new account number on it! BJ's never mentioned anything about the problem they had either in a communication to me or a notice posted in their retail locations! >After Berkley and Jenkins' data base was compromised, they didn't >contact any of their customers to advise them. My credit card issuer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >BJ's never mentioned anything about the problem they had either in a >communication to me or a notice posted in their retail locations! Which information was compromised? If it was limited to the credit card number and did not include sufficient information for anyone to steal identities, AND if BJ's assumed all of the risk to accounts held with them, then BJ's did the proper thing. >Which information was compromised? If it was limited to the credit >card number and did not include sufficient information for anyone to >steal identities, AND if BJ's assumed all of the risk to accounts held >with them, then BJ's did the proper thing. As far as I can tell BJ's did NOTHING with respect to notifying ME, all the actions were taken by MBNA! It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent. http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/04/4/2/18427577.cfm Cellphone customers warned of ID theft Herald staff EVERETT -- Cingular Wireless is warning up to 650 local customers that their account information -- including some credit card numbers -- was stolen from a Go Wireless store in Everett last week, police said. The personal information was kept on two computers at the store, 210 SW Everett Mall Way Suite B. Burglars broke in about 3:30 a.m. March 26 and stole 28 cellphones, caused extensive damage and took the computers, said Everett Sgt. Boyd Bryant. "The records in the computers are protected by passwords, so it may be tougher to access them," Bryant said. "The company hopes that the suspects are not able to get the information from the computers." Cingular sent out letters alerting customers, but "we don't have any documented cases where someone's identity was taken (from the computers) and used to defraud them of money," Boyd said. No arrests have been made, he said. Anyone with information about the burglary is asked to call the Everett Police Department Tip Line at 425-257-8450. For more information about identity theft, visit the Everett Police Department's Web site at www.everettwa.org/police and click on prevention brochures. > > Friday, April 2, 2004 > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > phone calls? Such negligence is ACTIONABLE if any suffers adverse > consequences as a result of the multi day delay in letting folks know. > It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent. Hmmm- guess Cingular didn't need the Kelly girls after all, did they Robert? And I guess if customers did get letters from Cingular, they went WAY above and beyond for their customers- after all, it wasn't even their store. Wouldn't you agree, Robert? If you have any problems with this, Robert, have a chat with your son, the lawyer- he'll explain the total lack of liability on Cingular's part. > > It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent. > > Hmmm- guess Cingular didn't need the Kelly girls after all, did they Robert? > > And I guess if customers did get letters from Cingular, We got them from Go Wireless, not Cingular.................genius. > > > It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized agent. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We got them from Go Wireless, not Cingular.................genius. Even better, and a fact that you left out until now. Sort of a 'guilt by omission' scenario. With all that said, can you explain your rantings about Cingular liability when: -they didn't own the store. -they don't employ any of the people responsible for securing the store. -they had no connection to the break-in, other than some of their subscribers were affected. Would they be liable if the bank they do business with had the same type of break-in? So, genius- I'll be interested to hear Cingular's liability, now that all of the facts are out. And if this was a pissing match, why are you smelling like sh.t? > > > > It really wasn't a Cingular Wireless store, it wasn an authorized > agent. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > omission' scenario. With all that said, can you explain your rantings about > Cingular liability when: Uh, that wasn't me. Keep up with the conversation........genius. > -they didn't own the store. > -they don't employ any of the people responsible for securing the store. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And if this was a pissing match, why are you smelling like sh.t? > Uh, that wasn't me. Keep up with the conversation........genius. You're right- you're the moron who just sits back and offers nothing on either side- no facts, no citings- just juvenile responses that resemble the mentality of my three year old when she sticks her tongue out at her brother. I simply got my trolls confused. > > Uh, that wasn't me. Keep up with the conversation........genius. > > You're right- you're the moron who just sits back and offers nothing on > either side- no facts, no citings- just juvenile responses that resemble the > mentality of my three year old when she sticks her tongue out at her > brother. I simply got my trolls confused. You did get them confused. I am the troll who is involved in the situation.................genius > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > victim of fraud, he said. Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR lawsuits. > > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > > victim of fraud, he said. > > Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR > lawsuits. No they are not- they were broken into, and information they were legally entitled to, and obligated to maintain, was stolen from them. Only an absolute moron like you would immediately think lawsuit. But that is your answer to everything. People like you are the reason that normal people have such a hard time getting assistance form these companies. You lie, whine and take up valuable time that people with real problems could use, and when all else fails, you immediately threaten some form of legal action. You openly advocate lying to these companies in order to bypass their policies, which unfortunately become even harder to deal with because of morons like you who abuse the system. You are a classic example of 'me first- f.ck everybody else'. >> Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR >> lawsuits. > >No they are not- they were broken into, and information they were legally >entitled to, and obligated to maintain, was stolen from them. Only an >absolute moron like you would immediately think lawsuit. No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to assist any customer who suffers *ANY* loss arising from that theft. What happens if a particular customer's credit history could have been saved, but wasn't because of a week or more delay in attempting to contact that customer, his refinancing falls through? Or the car loan is denied? > >> Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR > >> lawsuits. > > > >No they are not- they were broken into, and information they were legally > >entitled to, and obligated to maintain, was stolen from them. Maintain and keep secure. Hence their liability. > Maintain and keep secure. Hence their liability. Maintained and secured in a LOCKED room in a LOCKED store. No liability, other than to notify the affected customers that a theft had occurred. Do a google on Wells Fargo- you'll see the same thing happened to them not too long ago. > >> Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR > >> lawsuits. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > contact that customer, his refinancing falls through? Or the car loan > is denied? Cingular be Customer Friendly? Or responsible, when it might cost them a few bucks. Come on. > No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to > assist any customer who suffers *ANY* loss arising from that theft. Did I miss the part where they said that they were leaving the customers out in the cold on this? >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to >> assist any customer who suffers *ANY* loss arising from that theft. > >Did I miss the part where they said that they were leaving the customers out >in the cold on this? Not permanently, but there seems to have been a lag between recognition that the theft occurred and notification to affected customers. I didn't say they were leaving the customers out in the cold, but my point was that any undue delay in providing notification increased exposure to affected customers' credit. > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cold, but my point was that any undue delay in providing notification > increased exposure to affected customers' credit. Now, let me get this straight- the information taken were things like names, addresses, SS#, and credit card #'s. Now, other than cancelling credit cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names? They (we) would have called the 3 major credit agencies and put a fraud watch on their SSN's and got their names off of the pre-approved credit card mailings list. They would have also called the SS Administration and had THEM flag the number for fraud. Yep, that's what "they" are supposed to do. I'm surprised you didn't know that, as you seem to know alot.............. maybe even everything? > > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people > have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names? > They (we) would have called the 3 major credit agencies and put a fraud > watch on their SSN's and got their names off of the pre-approved credit card [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep, that's what "they" are supposed to do. I'm surprised you didn't know > that, as you seem to know alot.............. maybe even everything? I knew all that, and unlike you, I know that the few precious days that you guys are freaking out about pale in comparison to the 30+ days it takes the credit bureaus to process the fraud alert. Nice try, though. > > They (we) would have called the 3 major credit agencies and put a fraud > > watch on their SSN's and got their names off of the pre-approved credit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > guys are freaking out about pale in comparison to the 30+ days it takes the > credit bureaus to process the fraud alert. Nice try, though. Wrong again (Nice try though) > Wrong again (Nice try though) No I'm not- but you can try to offer some PROOF, instead of just sticking your tongue out like a three year old. > > Wrong again (Nice try though) > > No I'm not- but you can try to offer some PROOF, instead of just sticking > your tongue out like a three year old. Yes, you are - but you can try to offer PROOF as to why you aren't. See genius, this is called a pissing contest, and much like you're opinion it doesn't work very well. >Now, let me get this straight- the information taken were things like names, >addresses, SS#, and credit card #'s. Now, other than cancelling credit >cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people >have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names? How about placing fraud alerts with the three credit bureaus? > > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cards (which are going to be protected anyway), just what would these people > have done about the other information in that week. Moved? Changed names? The trouble is that with a name, date of birth, and social security number, an identity thief can easily open up credit cards in the victim's name and ruin that person's credit. > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cold, but my point was that any undue delay in providing notification > increased exposure to affected customers' credit. Exactly. A Customer Friendly outfit, would have instantly hired Kelly Girls and started telephoning Customers so they would know the same day, not 3 or more days later when they got their mail. 8 days between the time of the break in and the time I rec'd the letter. > >> No they had a duty to inform their customers the *minute* they knew > >> their personal information was compromised. They also have a duty to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cold, but my point was that any undue delay in providing notification > increased exposure to affected customers' credit. > 8 days between the time of the break in and the time I rec'd the letter. The correct thing for Cingular to have done was to hire Kelley Girls and telephone every victim. Waiting days to send letters that take days for folks to receive is negligence and leaves them open to lawsuits if anything untoward happened during the interim. >> 8 days between the time of the break in and the time I rec'd the letter. > >The correct thing for Cingular to have done was to hire Kelley Girls and >telephone every victim. Waiting days to send letters that take days for >folks to receive is negligence and leaves them open to lawsuits if >anything untoward happened during the interim. Usually it is the policy for credit card companies NOT to divulge the addresses or [phone numbers of their card holders and in fact in some states it is forbidden by law for a merchant to ask a customer for these data! Of course, no matter what they did they'd be open to lawsuits. These days nothing is off limits. Proving the identity theft was directly caused by the break-in and further proving that faster notice would have prevented it would be VERY difficult to prove unless Plaintiff could show that the perpetrator obtained the information from the break-in and not from another source and that the identity theft incidents occured prior to the notice. The best indication of the validity of such a suit would be the willingness of a good lawyer to accept the case on a contingency basis. From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com >> 8 days between the time of the break in and the time I rec'd the >> letter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > days for folks to receive is negligence and leaves them open to > lawsuits if anything untoward happened during the interim. >Of course, no matter what they did they'd be open to lawsuits. These >days nothing is off limits. Proving the identity theft was directly >caused by the break-in and further proving that faster notice would have >prevented it would be VERY difficult to prove unless Plaintiff It doesn't matter. They took REASONABLE precautions to secure the information. It was not left out in the open and was not thrown out without shredding. It was locked up as it should be. >>None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a >>victim of fraud, he said. > > Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR > lawsuits. You are just a wealth of information on every topic that comes up Robert. NOT Where do you have to go to be as smart as you? Idiot > >>None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > >>victim of fraud, he said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are just a wealth of information on every topic that comes up Robert. NOT > Where do you have to go to be as smart as you? Idiot Oh ... he's more than just an idiot. He's the biggest liar on the newsgroups, he misquotes prior replies, he demunges email addresses ... and oh by the way, changes IDs faster than a speeding bullet ... He's denied having ATTWS service, yet says he's received his first bill (in this newsgroup and this newsgroup only) on December 16th. For those of you who aren't aware, here's a list of his known prior IDs, going back to last summer. Sorry if looks a bit crowded, but I send posts via plain text. Bob #USENET ID EMAIL ADDRESS ISP IP 1 A.M.amorgan@yahoo.com EL 66.32.48.90 2 Alamorgan@yahoo.com EL 66.32.48.90 3 Alias for Smith aliasforsmith@aol.com AOL 4 Bernard Sharri bernardsharri@aol.com AOL 5 BlueTooth Nowbluetoothnow@aol.com AOL 6 Bob Veldrendsbobveldrends@aol.comA OL 7 Camile Cardenascccardenas@netscape.com EL 66.32.50.20 8 Carl70015 carl70015@aol.com AOL 9 Carlos Z. czb@mts.net EL 66.32.50.172 10 CAT0NHAT cat0nhat@aol.com AOL 11 Cell Merger cellmerger@aol.com AOL 12 Chris McFarland ChrisMac@yahoo.com EL 66.32.51.239 13 David dlandsdowne@wsys.net EL 66.32.51.23 14 Dennis ddd456@mail.com EL 66.32.50.226 15 Donald dwade84@earthlink.net E L66.32.48.173 16 DSL GURU dslguru@aol.com AOL 17 HK HK22073@msn.com EL 66.32.49.221 18 J. Range jrange2@msn.com EL 66.32.49.180 19 James jkavanagh@msn.com EL 66.32.49.147 20 James Tullin jtullin23@yahoo.com EL 66.32.50.69 21 John S. jstorrs@msn.com EL 66.32.48.252 22 Jonathan jm1@brms.org EL 66.32.48.64 23 Josephjlondon@london.comEL66.32.48.147 24 Leonard lunderood@harton.com EL 66.32.51.250 25 LosAngelessLegal losangelesslegal@aol.com AOL 26 Loving Moonlight lovingmoonlight@aol.com AOL 27 Matthew Lindeen mlindeen@kryogenics.com EL 66.32.51.192 28 Michael mfrasier2@mail.com EL 66.32.49.180 29 Milton Searlis miltonsearlis@aol.com AOL 30 Monday Cellphone mondaycellphone@aol.com AOL 31 P. sluice@juice.org EL 66.32.49.170 32 P. Reality p16film@msn.com EL 66.32.48.182 33 Patrick Bosley pBosley@msn.com EL 66.32.51.103 34 PHil_Real phil_tape@email.org EL 66.32.48.182 35 Phill. pearl@oyster.com EL 66.32.49.170 36 Phillipe .p8film@hotmail.com EL 66.32.48.182 37 Phillipe2004 phil2004@sprent.com EL 66.32.49.170 38 Posting Editor postingeditor@aol.com AOL 39 PTT ReadyLink pttreadylink@aol.com AOL 40 Reginald phil2004@sprent.com EL 66.32.49.170 41 Renaldo berler@rome.univ.it EL 66.32.50.88 42 Richard R@R.com EL 66.32.48.182 43 Robert markoff@msn.com EL 66.32.49.237 44 Robert M. markoff@msn.com EL 66.32.49.155 45 Ronald phil2004@sprent.com EL 66.32.49.170 46 Sanyo Guy sanyoguy@hotmail.com EL 66.32.51.103 47 Sarah Morlan sarahmorlan@aol.com AOL 48 Sergei Kosonov skosonov@institue.ru EL 66.32.48.84 49 Sprint Secrets sprintsecrets@aol.com AOL 50 Sprint Truth sprinttruth@aol.com AOL 51 Sprintinator sprent@sprent.com EL 66.32.49.170 52 Sprintposter sprintposter@aol.com AOL 53 Stewart soconnor23@yahoo.com EL 66.32.51.248 54 Sunday Auto sundayauto@aol.com AOL 55 Thomas Aspland thomasaspland@aol.com AOL 56 Tim Harrick tim233@hotmail.com EL 66.32.50.34 57 Weekend Sunshine weekendsunshine@aol.com AOL 58 William Bays williambays@aol.com AOL 59 not at Adelphiar markoff@msn.com EL 66.32.49.237 60 not John Rigasrmarkoff@msn.com EL 66.32.49.237 > >>None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > >>victim of fraud, he said. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are just a wealth of information on every topic that comes up Robert. NOT You are entitled to your opinion. In this case Cingular could be in a world of hurt if the stolen info was used during the DAYS between when they could have notified people and when people were actually notified. Its called negligence. > Where do you have to go to be as smart as you? Idiot Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults? > Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults? Ever notice how trolls when they are proven wrong, resort to talking about insults? > > Ever notice how folks when they are proven wrong, resort to insults? > > Ever notice how trolls when they are proven wrong, resort to talking about > insults? Yes, just as I read this. >Ever notice how trolls when they are proven wrong, resort to talking about >insults? Scott, why not quit responding to ANYTHING that he writes. Before long we will see him disappear. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > > victim of fraud, he said. > > Like they'd publicize it if they knew. They are now open to MAJOR > lawsuits. What are your qualifications to make such a claim? Are you an attorney? > > > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > > > victim of fraud, he said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What are your qualifications to make such a claim? Are you an > attorney? my son is. >> What are your qualifications to make such a claim? Are you an >> attorney? > >my son is. That don't count. >> What are your qualifications to make such a claim? Are you an >> attorney? > >my son is. Do you know the definition of a shame? There was a bus full of Lawyers in Tahoe on a fishing day from a conference. On the way back to the hotel the bus went over a cliff and they all died! Do you know the definition of a crying shame? There were 3 empty seats! -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net [This followup was posted to seattle.general and a copy was sent to the cited author.] > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/167471_idtheft02.html > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > None of the customers who have contacted the company so far has been a > victim of fraud, he said. It would be nice to know if it was just customers of that store or every cingular customer.  Signature- Johnny alphascooter-verizon@yahoo.com http://www.alphascoooter.com > It would be nice to know if it was just customers of that store or every > cingular customer. The only way that could happen is if the entire Cingular customer database were loaded on that machine, and that is not going to be the case. > > It would be nice to know if it was just customers of that store or every > > cingular customer. > > The only way that could happen is if the entire Cingular customer database > were loaded on that machine, and that is not going to be the case. Most of what the agents do is web based. They won't get nearly as much off the machines as they will from the paper files that we're lifted....................genius. > > > It would be nice to know if it was just customers of that store or every > > > cingular customer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the machines as they will from the paper files that we're > lifted....................genius. Nice- didn't have anything to do with the previous post. Further proof that Darwin was right. That is, unless you are stupid enough to think that a contracted dealer has paper files on ALL CIngular customers. What? They don't? Then I guess your answer really doesn't pertain. Imagine that. > > > > It would be nice to know if it was just customers of that store or > every [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > contracted dealer has paper files on ALL CIngular customers. What? They > don't? Then I guess your answer really doesn't pertain. Imagine that. Well, they had paper files for 600 of them.........genius. > Well, they had paper files for 600 of them.........genius. And the question was asked about ALL Cingular customers...........moron. Keep up with the conversation. > > Well, they had paper files for 600 of them.........genius. > > And the question was asked about ALL Cingular customers...........moron. > > Keep up with the conversation. Your intellectual dishonesty makes you look a fool.....................genius. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.