Bro you are the ONLY ONE HERE that isn't "buying it". I'm officially done with this thread completely. OP I'm glad you were able to get your money back. See y'all in the next thread 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scammed on CL - Out a (functional) 5S - where to next?
- Thread starter runningtowin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not a single one of you has been able to cite a single source, anywhere, saying that carriers blacklist phones for nonpayment. Not a single one! In the age of the internet, that's saying something. And I don't believe for one minute that none of you have tried searching. You have, you've turned up NO evidence, and can't admit it.
The OP said he bought the phone on some shady Craigslist deal, and then the phone had "been reported as lost/stolen". That's all I need to know. At that point, he should have taken it to the police to return to the original owner because we all know exactly what happened. The fact that he instead sold it again makes him every bit as bad as the thief, for knowingly selling stolen property. Not to mention illegal and immoral.
Now, some poor sop is out of a phone. You guys have tried to tar and feather this poor guy/gal by saying he might have reported it stolen to get insurance money, which is highly unlikely. Or, you said it might have been blocked because he didn't pay his bills, which is NOT the same thing as blacklisted as reported lost/stolen. Carriers do not blacklist phones for non-payment, so we know that's not even a possibility. This attempt to tar and feather whoever had their phone lost/stolen is a pathetic attempt to avoid doing the RIGHT THING, turning the phone in to the police so that it can be returned to the original owner who had their phone stolen. I've death with several people over the last few years who have found/bought an expensive smartphone that was lost/stolen, and instead of keeping it for themselves or selling it, they DID turn it in to the police to return it to the owner. The fact that a few people in this thread would never do this is sad and pathetic, and I'm not even going to bother responding to you anymore, you cannot teach someone morality.
The OP said he bought the phone on some shady Craigslist deal, and then the phone had "been reported as lost/stolen". That's all I need to know. At that point, he should have taken it to the police to return to the original owner because we all know exactly what happened. The fact that he instead sold it again makes him every bit as bad as the thief, for knowingly selling stolen property. Not to mention illegal and immoral.
Now, some poor sop is out of a phone. You guys have tried to tar and feather this poor guy/gal by saying he might have reported it stolen to get insurance money, which is highly unlikely. Or, you said it might have been blocked because he didn't pay his bills, which is NOT the same thing as blacklisted as reported lost/stolen. Carriers do not blacklist phones for non-payment, so we know that's not even a possibility. This attempt to tar and feather whoever had their phone lost/stolen is a pathetic attempt to avoid doing the RIGHT THING, turning the phone in to the police so that it can be returned to the original owner who had their phone stolen. I've death with several people over the last few years who have found/bought an expensive smartphone that was lost/stolen, and instead of keeping it for themselves or selling it, they DID turn it in to the police to return it to the owner. The fact that a few people in this thread would never do this is sad and pathetic, and I'm not even going to bother responding to you anymore, you cannot teach someone morality.
Plenty of evidence, just all that you are dismissing or ignoring. Doesn't change the fact that there's evidence, while there's nothing behind your claim, beyond you just saying so and then covering up by saying that no evidence or proof of what you say is needed because it's a negative of something. Lots of deflections, and and twisting of things, but nothing actually useful or meaningful as far as the claim you made goes--that's pretty much where it was pages ago in this thread, and that's pretty much where it still stands.
Suffice it to say that people won't just take your word for things over enough other examples (even if just anecdotal) to the contrary--even a decent amount of anecdotal information will still outweigh the word of a single random person online without anything else to back it up (no matter what reasoning might be made up to justify not needing any backup to it, even just plain anecdotal too).
And yet still more than absolutely nothing from you except deflective and moot philosophizing on why you don't even need to support what you--and only you--say (in the same "gutters of the internets" no less).Your "evidence" = A few forum posts from the gutters of the internets
And yet still more than absolutely nothing from you except deflective and moot philosophizing on why you don't even need to support what you--and only you--say (in the same "gutters of the internets" no less).
That's weak. You're trying to ask me to prove that carriers don't do something, which is trying to prove a negative. But you're the one asserting that they do blacklist phones for an unpaid balance, and as your "evidence" you've cited a few forum posts
How long are y'all going to continue this nonsense?
----------
It was funny last night and today but now its time to move on...
----------
It was funny last night and today but now its time to move on...
Weak indeed. More and more of the same nothingness. Definitely no reason to bother with it anymore. The point has been made, everyone else clearly gets it, so it's all good.That's weak. You're trying to ask me to prove that carriers don't do something, which is trying to prove a negative. But you're the one asserting that they do blacklist phones for an unpaid balance, and as your "evidence" you've cited a few forum posts
Last edited: