# Fraud management



## bce4 (Nov 9, 2005)

All my directv receivers suddenly went out yesterday. When
I called directv they said that my account was referred to
special dept. and they asked me to call [Mod Edit: redacted]. When
I called that number, it was an answering machine from
[Mod Edit: redacted] from Fraud Management. I left several messages to
find out what's going on but I haven't gotten a call back
yet. I have been a loyal customer for about 10 years and
never had a problems before so I don't know why they
will hold my account. I'm getting really upset about this
because no has called us to explain what's going on. No
one seems to have an answer there. Has this happen to
anyone?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Could be related to any of these:

Running a personal account in a business?

Using one account for 2 locations?

"Moving" to get locals from another city?

Just a few thoughts as to why you were referred to the fraud dept. Without more detail from you, you're just going to have to wait for DirecTV to call you back or until you're able to connect with a live person who can answer your questions.


----------



## bce4 (Nov 9, 2005)

None of those applies to me since all our receivers 
are in our residence only. That's why I'm baffled
by their action. I know they're making a big mistake
but can't get any to explain or return any of my
calls. We did move last year but I notified
them of change of address and my bill reflect the
new address so I don't know what's going on.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

So you have the receivers from the old residence? Did you bring the dish as well?


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Obviously no one here can answer this for you. You'll need to get the straight scoop from DirecTV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah.. It could be someone else tried to use your info and set up another account or something too... You need to keep calling them...


----------



## convem24 (Mar 11, 2007)

I hate to use this since your issue should have been taken care of but emailing [email protected] will get you resolution quicker. This is basically Directv's CEO's email which goes to the office of the president. They helped me out where no one else could help. Good luck.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

I'm not implying anything, but could your problem be related to this post:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=148885


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

After reading the other post, methinks the OP is not telling the whole story....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bce4 said:


> All my directv receivers suddenly went out yesterday. When
> I called directv they said that my account was referred to
> special dept. ... I left several messages to
> find out what's going on but I haven't gotten a call back
> ...


Yesterday was New years Day and I believe DIRECTV is off today as well .. My guess is the department you need to speak with works M-F 9-5 so you may have to wait until Monday to speak to a real person.


----------



## hiker (Mar 1, 2006)

PicaKing said:


> After reading the other post, methinks the OP is not telling the whole story....


And methinks the OP is a prime candidate for the WDC club. :lol:


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

How dont you know its at his home...maybe he has a large gym at home? LOL


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

hiker said:


> And methinks the OP is a prime candidate for the WDC club. :lol:


whats WDC?


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

How do you think directv found out? i know they can always check by call back number and what else?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

bce4 said:


> All my directv receivers suddenly went out yesterday. When
> I called directv they said that my account was referred to
> special dept. and they asked me to call [Mod Edit: redacted]. When
> I called that number, it was an answering machine from
> ...


it takes days (2 - 3) to get a call back from that number. they are busy


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks, please either help or move along .. stop with the attacks already.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

convem24 said:


> I hate to use this since your issue should have been taken care of but emailing [email protected] will get you resolution quicker. This is basically Directv's CEO's email which goes to the office of the president. They helped me out where no one else could help. Good luck.


in this case you should not email the Ceo or Ellen or others. That could bury the OP even deeper.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

maybe the OP had his tel#(land phone changed) or put in another name.
Directv has caller ID on their end even if the # is blocked they still have it kind of like 911.
The telephone # you call from should match directv's computer system.
I had an issue when i called them from my cell phone once(because of a landline outage) and had to go through a lengthy screening by a csr.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

curt8403 said:


> in this case you should not email the Ceo or Ellen or others. That could bury the OP even deeper.


It is really unfortunate that you have to worry about getting "buried deeper" when you contact a company to try to get a prompt response to why your service was turned off.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm sure in a case of real fraud it would be unwise for DIRECTV to allow regular CSRs to make any comments regarding the account .. It is, after all fraud. Now assuming this is a case of mistaken identity or just dumb luck .. I don't see how the protocol can be any different. Hopefully the special department will get back to the OP quickly so that the matter can be resolved.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

I use to work with a lady whose husband was a supervisor in the fraud department at DirecTV. During a family team building event, he and I had an opportunity to discuss his job. This department deals with many different things including (and not limited to) pirated access cards, "moving", incorrect phone numbers, credit card issues (your card has been reported lost/stolen by the credit card while DirecTV is attempting to collect payment), and unusual PPV spending.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Upstream said:


> It is really unfortunate that you have to worry about getting "buried deeper" when you contact a company to try to get a prompt response to why your service was turned off.


Not to put words into Curt's mouth (or dirt or chunks of charcoal or anything else, for that matter ), but I think what he was meaning is that if the problem is really one brought on by the OP himself (giving credence to the situation being sent to the fraud department), it's not a good idea to toss it to the office of the president or vice-president. I would guess that would make his situation worse, not better.

Hopefully there is a reasonable explanation for this (such as a phone # change or something of that nature) and it can be resovled quickly.


----------



## leesweet (Jul 15, 2003)

BTW, just so people know: The 'super Caller ID' mentioned above: When you call any tollfree number, the called party gets the number you are calling from. That's because they are paying for the call. It's not exactly like '911' 'Caller ID', but something similar.

And, yes, it can't be blocked, normally.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

leesweet said:


> BTW, just so people know: The 'super Caller ID' mentioned above: When you call any tollfree number, the called party gets the number you are calling from. That's because they are paying for the call. It's not exactly like '911' 'Caller ID', but something similar.
> 
> And, yes, it can't be blocked, normally.


Unless you use Skype in which case there is no return number unless you specifically designate one.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> Not to put words into Curt's mouth (or dirt or chunks of charcoal or anything else, for that matter ), but I think what he was meaning is that if the problem is really one brought on by the OP himself (giving credence to the situation being sent to the fraud department), it's not a good idea to toss it to the office of the president or vice-president. I would guess that would make his situation worse, not better.
> 
> Hopefully there is a reasonable explanation for this (such as a phone # change or something of that nature) and it can be resovled quickly.


JLuc -- I understood Curt's comments the same way. But a customer should not have to worry about getting buried just because he makes a reasonable inquiry to the CEO or VP or anyone else. That makes it sound like DirecTV is vindictive.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Well, granted "bury" is probably not the right word to use there. But if the OP really is doing something fraudulent (which has not necessarily been shown to be the case), you really don't want to run to the president and say, "Your people are treating me badly because they did X just because I perpetrated a fraud on your company". Somehow methinks the president's people wouldn't look to get behind such a customer to right the percieved "wrong" that was done to said customer.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

raoul5788 said:


> I'm not implying anything, but could your problem be related to this post:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=148885


Indeed. That sure makes things look suspicious.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Guys, there very well might be two accounts in play here. One for his residence and one for the gym he installed. So don't assume quite yet. Especially when he states they are all in his residence. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

That's true. It could be as suspicious as having receivers at two locations but on one account, which isn't permitted, or he could legitimately have them all in one location, including the gym, where he may live. I know some bar owners who live upstairs from their bar, so such residential living isn't uncommon. Of course, it could still be some kind of mix-up altogether.


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

Let's say the call was due to the other post. How would D* be able to identify him from the posts? Run an IP addy check against their entire customer database?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Upstream said:


> JLuc -- I understood Curt's comments the same way. But a customer should not have to worry about getting buried just because he makes a reasonable inquiry to the CEO or VP or anyone else. That makes it sound like DirecTV is vindictive.


If you stole something and a few days later, someone from the police department called and left you a message, would you then Email the chief of police to discuss it?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

beavis said:


> Let's say the call was due to the other post. How would D* be able to identify him from the posts? Run an IP addy check against their entire customer database?


DIRECTV doesn't have access to DBSTalk personal information unless members specifically allow that to be shared. So that couldn't be it.


spartanstew said:


> If you *[edit: were accused of]* stole something and a few days later, someone from the police department called and left you a message, would you then Email the chief of police to discuss it?


Yes...if the police department was closed for a long weekend.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

beavis said:


> Let's say the call was due to the other post. How would D* be able to identify him from the posts? Run an IP addy check against their entire customer database?


The "simplest" thing would have to do with a telephone line, either being connected to the receivers or during the activation.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes...if the police department was closed for a long weekend.


No need to edit my post Tom. Obviously the OP is not guilty of anything currently, but the discussion started with "in case you're gulity..."

So, the edit you made to my post you quoted changes things quite a bit and no longer fits the conversation.

Of course, if you were only accused of something and were innocent, you'd take it to the top to get things cleared up. If you were guilty, you probably wouldn't.

That was the point, which is not so clear to anyone reading your edited quote.

In the future, it's probably better not to alter quotes to fit different scenarios.


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

*"We just installed 4 D12's at a Gym"*

OK, so I watch a lot of House(he listens very carefully to the way things are phrased and the specific words people use), so I don't think the gym is where he lives. If you had a gym at your house, would you say "we just installed 4 D12's at a Gym", or would you say "we just installed 4 D12's in our Gym"??


----------



## hiker (Mar 1, 2006)

PicaKing said:


> *"We just installed 4 D12's at a Gym"*
> 
> OK, so I watch a lot of House(he listens very carefully to the way things are phrased and the specific words people use), so I don't think the gym is where he lives. If you had a gym at your house, would you say "we just installed 4 D12's at a Gym", or would you say "we just installed 4 D12's in our Gym"??


Exactly, and Gym is capitalized which also makes me suspect it's a business.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

I'm thinking it's probably about time for us to shut up and wait for the OP to continue this discussion, should he be so inclined. I don't see any point to the continued speculation, when we really know nothing about the OP's situation, nor DirecTV's response to it.

Just my $.02...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> No need to edit my post Tom. Obviously the OP is not guilty of anything currently, but the discussion started with "in case you're gulity..."
> 
> So, the edit you made to my post you quoted changes things quite a bit and no longer fits the conversation.
> 
> ...


My opinion was that you were continuing to forward an assumption that the OP "stole something". So I edited to clarify that at this point there seems to be only an accusation of something, not an actuality therein. To which I could easily answer in the fashion I did. Yes, I would immediately escalate if the officer wasn't there. 

And that is why I made the edit clear, so anyone could decide for themselves how to read each of our posts.

Perhaps if you had said "If a person had stolen something, would they..." That would be less pointed toward the OP.

Happy New Year,
Tom


----------



## PicaKing (Oct 8, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> My opinion was that you were continuing to forward an assumption that the OP "stole something". So I edited to clarify that at this point there seems to be only an accusation of something, not an actuality therein. To which I could easily answer in the fashion I did. Yes, I would immediately escalate if the officer wasn't there.
> 
> And that is why I made the edit clear, so anyone could decide for themselves how to read each of our posts.
> 
> ...


Clearly the "innocent until proven guilty" portion of our democracy is important to you, and it should be. However, the "free speech" portion of our democracy should be equally important, and it is not.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> My opinion was that you were continuing to forward an assumption that the OP "stole something". So I edited to clarify that at this point there seems to be only an accusation of something, not an actuality therein. To which I could easily answer in the fashion I did. Yes, I would immediately escalate if the officer wasn't there.
> 
> And that is why I made the edit clear, so anyone could decide for themselves how to read each of our posts.
> 
> ...


Well, your opinion was wrong.

My example didn't really have anything to do with the OP. I was asking a question of the person I quoted.

If YOU stole something........

How is that different than "If a person stole something..."?

I was looking for an answer on that specific scenario, not the scenario you created.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

PicaKing said:


> Clearly the "innocent until proven guilty" portion of our democracy is important to you, and it should be. However, the "free speech" portion of our democracy should be equally important, and it is not.


??? He was free to speech as he wished. I was free to speech as I felt.

I didn't edit his original message, tho I could have. I edited the quote of his message, clearly identifying my edit.

And since my actions were not official moderations, you are allowed to speech freely to a degree.

Now as a moderator, I'm going to officially state let us get back onto topic and away from the notion the OP is doing anything wrong until he returns to clarify his side of the situation.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

PicaKing said:


> Clearly the "innocent until proven guilty" portion of our democracy is important to you, and it should be. However, the "free speech" portion of our democracy should be equally important, and it is not.


(i) This is a free speaking forum but not a free-for-all. Most posts will not get deleted unless they break one of the rules listed above. If everyone respects each other, there won't be any problems. Remember, this is not a newsgroup!
(j) If you don't like these rules or you think they aren't consistent with a free speaking forum, you are welcomed to go elsewhere. Don't even try to spam this board. Your messages will get deleted quickly wasting my time and yours.

part of the user agreement. They can do whatever to the post. theres more of course.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

I dont think he broke a rule but maybe tom didnt want the guy or OP like you guys say to feel offended.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Now as a moderator, I'm going to officially state let us get back onto topic and away from the notion the OP is doing anything wrong until he returns to clarify his side of the situation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


I agree, Tom. As I said earlier, continuing this discussion as it has been conducted serves no purpose until the OP returns to provide the details. Many assumptions have been made, with zero facts to support them.
That said, I too wonder what the underlying reason for the OP's problem is/was, as well as the resolution, if there is one.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> If you stole something and a few days later, someone from the police department called and left you a message, would you then Email the chief of police to discuss it?


My apologies to the OP if the above quote was interpreted as an assumption of his guilt. I have no such assumption.

I was merely trying to present a scenario as to why IF someone did something wrong, they probably wouldn't want to pursue the matter too much. That was a direct response to someone that thought D* might be vindictive IF someone that DID do something wrong, contacted the President of the company.

So, since the OP came here to post about his issue, I doubt he is guilty of anything and look forward to hearing back about how he was able to straighten this out.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> My apologies to the OP if the above quote was interpreted as an assumption of his guilt. I have no such assumption.
> 
> I was merely trying to present a scenario as to why IF someone did something wrong, they probably wouldn't want to pursue the matter too much. That was a direct response to someone that thought D* might be vindictive IF someone that DID do something wrong, contacted the President of the company.
> 
> So, since the OP came here to post about his issue, I doubt he is guilty of anything and look forward to hearing back about how he was able to straighten this out.


Very well said.

(And if I had stolen something, I would definitely not call attention to myself!) 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Very well said.
> 
> (And if I had stolen something, I would definitely not call attention to myself!)
> 
> ...


 Did you put that candybar back when you were four? :lol:


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Very well said.
> 
> (And if I had stolen something, I would definitely not call attention to myself!)
> 
> ...


Kinda along the lines of some of the stories you hear/see on "worlds dumbest criminals"

Like the crack dealer reporting that someone stole his crack. :eek2:


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Did you put that candybar back when you were four? :lol:


I know my mom marched me right down to the store!


----------



## mishawaka (Sep 11, 2007)

Is it known if DTV monitors these forums in any sort of capacity, be it official or unofficial?


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

mishawaka said:


> Is it known if DTV monitors these forums in any sort of capacity, be it official or unofficial?


I know I would if I had hundreds of customers in one location.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mishawaka said:


> Is it known if DTV monitors these forums in any sort of capacity, be it official or unofficial?


yes they read what we post, but connecting usernames to accounts, they don't know unless we have told them who we are. [There are a few at DirecTV that know VOS :eek2::lol:]


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Yes they do, mishawaka.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> My apologies to the OP if the above quote was interpreted as an assumption of his guilt. I have no such assumption.
> 
> I was merely trying to present a scenario as to why IF someone did something wrong, they probably wouldn't want to pursue the matter too much. That was a direct response to someone that thought D* might be vindictive IF someone that DID do something wrong, contacted the President of the company.
> 
> So, since the OP came here to post about his issue, I doubt he is guilty of anything and look forward to hearing back about how he was able to straighten this out.


Since you seem to be addressing this to me, I'll respond.

I really don't know how I would react if I stole something. I don't go around stealing, so I don't know what I would do. But I imagine that I probably wouldn't want to call attention to myself.

On the other hand, if I unintentionally stole something, I would call attention to it as I tried to correct the situation. This happened to me once in DisneyWorld. I picked up a roll of film in a gift shop, intending to buy it. I took an exposed roll of film out of my camera and gave it to the sales clerk for developing and put the new roll in my camera. I walked out of the gift shop without paying for the new roll of film. Later, when I realized my error, I went back to the gift shop and reported my error and paid for the film. I would certainly hope that the gift shop clerk would not be vindictive and have me arrested for shoplifting as I tried to pay for the film.

So back to the OP: I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that his has not done anything to intentionally trying to defraud DirecTV. Maybe he did something unintentionally. So he should not have to worry about making his situation worse by inquiring of DirecTV (at the CSR or CEO level). He should expect that DirecTV will treat him fairly, and work with him to quickly resolve his situation.

But let's assume that someone were intentionally trying to defraud DirecTV. I would expect DirecTV to handle the situation with the same professionalism whether the person contacted the CEO or not. DirecTV should not treat the person less harshly if he did not contact the CEO and more harshly if he did contact the CEO. The treatment should be the same either way.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Yes they do, mishawaka.





veryoldschool said:


> yes they read what we post, but connecting usernames to accounts, they don't know unless we have told them who we are. [There are a few at DirecTV that know VOS :eek2::lol:]


They are both correct. 

Unless you tell DIRECTV who you are here, DBStalk does not release personal information to DIRECTV without your explicit approval.

The only time we'll ask is would be to help a person. Often we don't even have to ask for your information, just pass on suggestions... (But I didn't say that even.) 

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Upstream said:


> But let's assume that someone were intentionally trying to defraud DirecTV. I would expect DirecTV to handle the situation with the same professionalism whether the person contacted the CEO or not. DirecTV should not treat the person less harshly if he did not contact the CEO and more harshly if he did contact the CEO. The treatment should be the same either way.


You would think, but I'd rather take my chances with someone lower in the chain. The CEO is almost assuredly going to act with appropriate harshness. It's always possible you can talk your way out of it (or get a lesser punisment, obviously depending on the situation) with someone else.

I think that was more the point. Not that the CEO would treat someone harsher, but that someone else might be more lenient (cause it's just a job to them).


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Spartan - I don't think letters to the CEO or VP are actually handled by the CEO or VP. But at any level of the organization, I would expect the customer to be treated fairly and professionally. The reason to escalate an issue to the top levels is because there was a breakdown in process at a lower level, or because you need to reach someone with appropriate authority to resolve the issue, or because you are having problems identifying and reaching the appropriate person at a lower level. 

I can't think of any situation in which someone would get penalized for escalating an issue. It doesn't happen (unless you believe DirecTV is a vindictive organization).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Edit: Not that anyone here is saying otherwise. Meant as supportive of DIRECTV, corroborating the other mentions here.

My experiences, with many levels of DIRECTV have always been customer focused. (and I really mean many levels of DIRECTV.) 

Even from people who never face customers. It is extremely impressive.

That is not to say every single outsource CSR or installer is customer focused, but many are. 

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I think we're saying the same thing.

I agree with everything you said in that post. That's not the point I was making.

To recap, this is how I understood what took place: 

Someone said: Call the CEO
Someone else said: Maybe he's guilty
Then someone said: If he's guilty, might not want to call the CEO
You said: Why not? Is D* vindictive?
I said: If I was guilty of something, I certainly wouldn't go to the top.
You said: I would expect punishment to be consistent.
I said: Me too, but I'd rather take my chances with someone that doesn't have a stake in it (like the CEO).

So, I agree treatment should be consistent in any company. I don't know of a situation like that either where it wouldn't be, but I wouldn't take any chances. 

If (FOR EXAMPLE), the OP set up receivers in a Gym adjacent to his house because he owns it too, I think he'd be better off returning the phone call and just explaining that. Even though it's against D*'s policy, the hourly wage person on the other end of the phone might say "OK, well we have to disconnect them, but you're fine with the ones in your actual house". If, on the other hand, he called the CEO of the company (or someone that works directly for them), they might not be so kind. They might go by the letter of the law according to their policies (whatever punishment that might be - maybe ban him from service altogether). Why? Not because they're vindictive, but because they have to follow company policy as it's outlined. 

The only thing it appears we disagree on, is you're assuming the lower level employee will follow company policy and the CEO will be harsher (vindictive). I'm saying the opposite.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

And I'm _still_ wishing we would all just shut up and see if the OP posts the details! Sheesh!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

If he's going to come back and post details, he'll do so whether we post or not.

What's the difference? This is a discussion forum, isn't it?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Someone came here for help and got slammed. I don't think he/she will be back. Worse yet, other potential posters also saw the kind of treatment they can expect.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Someone came here for help and got slammed. I don't think he/she will be back. Worse yet, other potential posters also saw the kind of treatment they can expect.


Not only slammed, but repeatedly slammed. :eek2:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, I think some people had questions, but I dont' think anyone was attacking. With almost 65 posts in this thread, there's maybe 3 that question the OP:



raoul5788 said:


> I'm not implying anything, but could your problem be related to this post:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=148885





PicaKing said:


> After reading the other post, methinks the OP is not telling the whole story....





Lord Vader said:


> Indeed. That sure makes things look suspicious.


I don't think any of those would be considered attacks and certainly not repeatedly.


----------



## gbubar (Feb 3, 2004)

I have to agree with spartanstew, in my opinion the op was not really slammed...also, the op could have clarified the situation once he was questioned, but never did.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> With almost 65 posts in this thread, there's maybe 3 that question the OP:


My point, exactly. This thread has degenerated into a morass of speculation, gum flapping, chest thumping and hair-splitting; yet it has produced absolutely no factual information, nor useful insight into the OP's issue OR the operation of the fraud management team! At this point, WHAT'S THE POINT????:nono2:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'll try to repeat this for you WERA. It's a discussion forum. The options are to discuss the issue or have nobody post in it again.

Obviously, it would be great if the OP came back and gave an update. Until he does, why does it pain you so much for members to discuss what might have happened or other topics that naturally evolve?

Do you think your 3 posts in this thread all telling people to stop posting are worthwhile?

But, in order to appease you and reduce the likelihood on any further rants from you in this thread, I'll try to make this my last post in this thread until the OP comes back.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I'll try to repeat this for you WERA. It's a discussion forum. The options are to discuss the issue or have nobody post in it again.
> 
> Obviously, it would be great if the OP came back and gave an update. Until he does, why does it pain you so much for members to discuss what might have happened or other topics that naturally evolve?
> 
> ...


Thanks, Stew...I just don't see that anything constructive is being added with speculation, innuendo, and a bunch of "what-if's". Oh, and FWIW, I don't consider my one-line posts to be "rants". More trying to stop all the wild guesses until the OP returns (if he returns...I agree with hdtvfan0001, that the OP will likely NOT return due to the insanity that his question garnered.)

Oh, and sorry the Dawgs had to thump y'all in the Bowl game!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

WERA689 said:


> Thanks, Stew...I just don't see that anything constructive is being added with speculation, innuendo, and a bunch of "what-if's". Oh, and FWIW, I don't consider my one-line posts to be "rants". More trying to stop all the wild guesses until the OP returns (if he returns...I agree with hdtvfan0001, that the OP will likely NOT return due to the insanity that his question garnered.)


I thought this thing had run its course some time ago...what possibly could be added to the "variety" of input on this topic?

Not much I suspect.

So perhaps if no one posts anymore....this thread will die its own (overdue) death...


----------



## bryanw3535 (Aug 2, 2008)

The way I see it after reading through the entire thread:

I feel that the OP won't be back, not because he was "repeatedly slammed" (though he was) but because his secret has been discovered.

He doesn't want to admit on here that he was fraudulent, and when someone found his other posting about "a Gym" he freaked and won't be back to this thread under his current username.

Again, that's just speculation, but what other explanation could there be?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bryanw3535 said:


> Again, that's just speculation, but what other explanation could there be?


 "Just a guess":
they're "waiting" until today, to contact DirecTV at the phone number given and get a response.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Seems like we can't wait to speculate, even after repeated warnings.

So we'll close this thread.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "Just a guess":
> they're "waiting" until today, to contact DirecTV at the phone number given and get a response.


Thanks, VOS, for a coherent, rational reason for the delay. (Posted at the same time I was closing the thread and not the reason I closed the thread.)

Peace,
Tom


----------

