GUILTY - Case# 2011-015 | traderforliving vs www.fantasydreamteam.com/ea.html

Based on the available evidence, do you believe that FantasyDreamTeam is guilty?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 126 96.2%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 5 3.8%

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .
It's more like 1 or 2 people who registered with 10 different identities. Unfortunately, I'm not joking. :confused:

Yeah, it is happening on the Investech cases also, Mods are working on a solution, age of account, duplicate ip address restrictions etc...
 
Richard, you're insulting the intelligence of all of us. Why draw it out? You're done. :unhappy:I'm sure you are perfectly aware of the playing with words you are doing, only an idiot wouldn't be; so take that as a compliment. Step up to the plate and pay the guy as you clearly agreed and stop being slippery. If it were you being treated like this you would also be furious. :unhappy:
 
singlemalt

Sigh..
Lets make it simple Rich, There are three ways to lie: By inference, by omission, and just to tell a bald-faced lie. I would exempt you from the last, but the first two? It's all too obvious you inferred and omitted information that caused the purchaser to think something other than that which was true.
As far as the $400 is concerned, does it occur to you that this silliness has cost you a lot more than the refund?
 
If you look at copies of the email exchanges on the other thread, it was "not" a misunderstanding. Richard promised a refund both BEFORE and AFTER the purchase, "several times". If it was just a pre-purchase "misunderstanding" then the "refund promises" should not have continued "many weeks" AFTER the purchase, multiple times. So, you are being very generous with your description of Richard's actions as being merely "inference and omission". At one point, after the purchase, Richard commented that the "refund is on the way". Is that also an inference and omission, or wasn't it an actual lie?;)

Sigh..
Lets make it simple Rich, There are three ways to lie: By inference, by omission, and just to tell a bald-faced lie. I would exempt you from the last, but the first two? It's all too obvious you inferred and omitted information that caused the purchaser to think something other than that which was true.
As far as the $400 is concerned, does it occur to you that this silliness has cost you a lot more than the refund?
 
Back
Top