[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Dustymiller

What a waste of IP packets this thread is.

Lets firstly go to the Oxford English Dictionary:

To lie = to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.

There was no "intention to deceive" as far as I can tell, the knowledge that the CSR had was that your request was impossible to achieve.

Therefore there was no lie. - Simple really. Retract your stamement and lets move on.

There was an intention to deceive. He wanted me to believe that it wasn't possible, for 1 of two reasons:

1. He couldn't be bothered to find out
2. he couldn't be bothered to do the extra work needed to sort the problem

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

the terrible service you and the poster your quoted is terrible i agree but the reaosn teis thread is so long and heated is yoru instnce ona lie form the agent when the word lie as the psoter below you has said is with intetnion since you cant prove he intetnd to lie retrect the statement of the lie and people will be on your side about hte poor CS you have have had

The reason the thread is so long is because people keep bringing up the lie as the main issue.

I have said many times that the main issue is the poor CS from VM. The lie was only a small part.

---------- Post added at 16:25 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

So, Tim, have you considered that maybe the agent was under the impression that the channels would not activate immediately, then was proved wrong? For instance, if the system they needed to use to activate the channels had been offline and he only found out it was back online part way through your phone call when he tried to activate the channels, and the attempt unexpectedly worked? I work in a role that sometimes involves answering technical queries over the phone, and I've experienced something similar. A system I needed to access had been down, I tried to access it during a call only to find it had come back online and we hadn't been notified.

While I accept that some staff are quite capable of lying, I am struggling to understand why you are so wound up about this. He has managed to activate your channels two days earlier than he said he would. While that could technically be a lie, you have gained, not lost out. What would you rather VM did? Cut off your movie channels for a couple of days so that the agent didn't lie?

I really don't care what the reason was. I keep saying that the issue is the whole picture: Poor customer service from VM.