"Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
news:q%lPi.79$Ia.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Bart Lateur" <bart.lateur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> bob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing we
>>>asked of our customers in return was a confirmation of their contact
>>>information. Their name. Their address. Their telephone and email
>>>address, so we could be certain our records were up-to-date, and that
>>>we were actually providing a new compler to a person who had actually
>>>purchased the prior version.
>>
>> People are not required to even have a phone. So your requirement of
>> filling in a phone number is asking for false data.
>
> If you read Bob's comments, he said that, for online update downloads,
> the phone number was compared against the one on file. I assume from
> that statement that if you did not have a phone number when you
> purchased the product, and you entered none on the download page, it
> would match.
>
> Anyway, how many people do you know who download software from
> the internet and do not have a phone? :-)
Broadband? I'm not using any phone line for my internet connection.
What about the required fax number? It is even more common to *not* have a
fax machine at home.
Is a set of zero's in this field - in this situation - a lie, or just an
incorrect , and fully explainable, information in a field?
Anyway, if Mr Zale found an differ in the phone number, he had the full
possibility to handle this in quite a diffrent way.
But he chosed not to.Instead he just threw me a verdict in my face; saying
I
was guilty, and with no chance to neither defence nor appeal.
This was his chance to show me that he is the high and mighty, and that
you - you customer . is just some trash.
--
OB
|
