| Author |
Re: Fraudulent TXT Message - Verizon Billing (Disregard)
|
|
| Agent_C 2005-10-12, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:14:07 -0400, Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Never mind.
A_C
| |
| Quick 2005-10-12, 11:48 pm |
| Agent_C wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:14:07 -0400, Agent_C
> <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Never mind.
No way! I don't use txt messaging at all so I
have no idea. What was the deal?
-Quick
| |
| Bob the Printer 2005-10-12, 11:48 pm |
|
"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9g3rk19h3runf6i
a9cfvvbft1ov9gq1ddp@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:14:07 -0400, Agent_C
> <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Never mind.
>
> A_C
NEVER MIND?? You post a message like that on here and then reply to yourself
with a NEVER MIND??
AT least you can offer up an explanation of some sort.
| |
| Agent_C 2005-10-12, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:26:19 -0400, "Bob the Printer"
<bdolson@comcast.net> wrote:
>NEVER MIND?? You post a message like that on here and then reply to yourself
>with a NEVER MIND??
>
>AT least you can offer up an explanation of some sort.
Sorry for the commotion - LOL... It was a combination of misdialing
the 800 number and Verizon not giving an accurate explanation of the
900 callback.
Turns out... the 800 number WAS a valid number and the 900 callback
was not actually a telephone number, but an internal Verizon account
to insure customers don't get charged; with a VERY poor choice of
prefix!
They were just trying to get a hold of me because I was a month behind
on my bill.
A_C
| |
| DevilsPGD 2005-10-13, 5:48 am |
| In message < 788rk1998531agi0gkrn
0vvcc4erpvhrk0@4ax.com> Agent_C
<Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:26:19 -0400, "Bob the Printer"
><bdolson@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Sorry for the commotion - LOL... It was a combination of misdialing
>the 800 number and Verizon not giving an accurate explanation of the
>900 callback.
>
>Turns out... the 800 number WAS a valid number and the 900 callback
>was not actually a telephone number, but an internal Verizon account
>to insure customers don't get charged; with a VERY poor choice of
>prefix!
A better question is why they don't just send the message from the phone
number they want you to call and save the whole hassle.
--
DevilsPGD - A spews parrot and a member of the spews lunatics
of n.a.n-a.e. (AKA spews fanatics)
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-13, 5:48 pm |
| Agent_C wrote:
> Turns out... the 800 number WAS a valid number and the 900 callback
> was not actually a telephone number, but an internal Verizon account
> to insure customers don't get charged; with a VERY poor choice of
> prefix!
Well, not really, except in that is causes some confusion. In reality
though, I believe 900 numbers are blocked on Verizon cell phones.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
|
| Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Agent_C wrote:
>
>
> Well, not really, except in that is causes some
> confusion. In reality though, I believe 900 numbers are
> blocked on Verizon cell phones.
What!? I've never called a 900 number but I wouldn't
be very happy if any number was blocked on my cell phone.
-Quick
| |
| John S. 2005-10-13, 11:48 pm |
|
"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5rw3f.805$tV6.697@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> What!? I've never called a 900 number but I wouldn't
> be very happy if any number was blocked on my cell phone.
You obviously have been very unhappy for a long time without even knowing
it. NONE of the cell companies allow 900 # calling, NONE OF THEM!
|
|
|
|