Apple have stolen my ipad. Yes, this story now has an ending

On 29 Apr 2016 17:53:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

Yes, they apparently were as clueless/stubborn as you.

See, it's people like this that explains why apple still exists.
Once indoctrinated there's no going back to reality or reason,
apparently.

 

[Lewis]

In message <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lewis wrote:
In message <5722c425$0$28830$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <572144fe$0$4506$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <doasl3FqgdgU1@mid.individual.net
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnni0dai.ktn.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <57200db8$0$4557$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:

for the people that want to keep changing the facts on my receipts, to
suit their own version of the story:

http://www.dontronics.com/apple.htm

Cheers Don...


Glad it is working, it was a forgone conclusion that Apple would have to
fix it,

Not at all. No where on the planet is there a law that compels Apple to
unlock a device without proof of ownership.

Wrong.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees

Where does it say Apple has to unlock a device that someone has
forgotten their password for?
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

Oh right, NO WHERE.

Neither "password" nor "unlock" appears anywhere on that page.

it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED
Says absolutely NOTHING about proof of ownership.

Says absolutely nothing about unlocking or bypassing passwords.
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

It is unlocked because the owner was able to provide a valid receipt
with a serial number, and for no other reason.

He would not have needed the serial no

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number. His original receipt
was rejected and he was told he had to provide another one. Despite all
your blustering, it was not until after this second receipt was
submitted that Apple did anything, and even then they did not unlock the
previous iCloud account, they simply removed the activation lock on the
iPad so he could set it up with a new account.


He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

He *DID* need a receipt with a serial number.

Try again.


--
'Somewhere, A Crime Is Happening,' said Dorfl. --Feet of Clay

 

[Lewis]

In message <57234fbe$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lewis wrote:
In message <5722c3e7$0$28830$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <57214bca$0$4553$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article <doc1noF1pnfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A
wrote:

Blaming others for your shortcomings won't get you very far in life.
That's a cold, hard fact of life.

Won't get far in life, yes you are quite correct Rolly Dodger.

I started my first electronics business 1n 1964, aged 21

I retired from my last electronics business 3 years ago, aged 70.

There was a lot of shit in between, but I'll ignore that.

I have 3 great grand children.

Please tell me, what have you done with your life?

wtf does any of that have to do with not remembering a password?

Everything to do with whether he would get very far in life, fuckwit.

Nospam, you accused me of not getting very far in life.

i did no such thing.

starting off with a lie is not going to help your cause.

What this has to do
with remembering passwords I have no idea,

you tell me. you brought up your life story.

what the hell does starting your electronics business in 1964 have to
do with forgetting your password in 2016?

not a thing.

all it means is you're 73 years old and likely has early onset
dementia, which explains your inability to remember stuff.

but it is your accusation, not mine. I give you a very quick rundown on my
current life position, and I ask you to do
the same seeing you made this personal accusation against me in the first
place, and you completely bomb out.

Suggest if you spent more time trying to help others, and making a life for
yourself, instead of acting like a fool on
these forums, the world would be a much better place.

if you spent more time taking responsibility for your own actions and
not trying to scam others, the world will be a better place.

How come you spend so much time on these forums? Don't you have a job?

Me, I'm retired. I have plenty of time to spend here.

more likely it's because you're unemployable due to your shit memory.

BTW
Read: http://www.dontronics.com/apple.htm
that will give you a lot more stones to throw at me. Yes twist the truth as
much as you need to suit your own version of
the story. It doesn't matter when you are hiding your identity.

i'm going by what *you* wrote.

Why do not you just give up with your monotonous crap which had
absolutely no influence on the inevitable result, which was always a
forgone conclusion.

As I suggested to the other moron, go ahead and try to get Apple to
unlock your iOS device without proving proof of ownership.

You are so confident, it should be no problem at all.

You lot seem to be deficient in the brain department, he had many,not
only one, different proofs of ownership from the beginning,

No, he had exactly *zero* until he provided the second receipt.

Complete and utter crap which would have been proven if it went before a
court of law.

You are delusional.

But as I said, go ahead and try it yourself. I'd love to see how far you
get.

OTOH, based on your record here, you'll just lie about it, so never
mind.

--
'The gods,' he said. 'Imprisoned in a thought. And perhaps they were
never more than a dream.' --Sourcery

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161055065866%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <doh3jvF357gU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
[...]
But go ahead, try to get Apple to unlock your iOS device without
providing proof of ownership.

Yes, we *know* Apple's 'support' process was (is?) completely fscked
up!

there's nothing fucked up about it.

requiring proof of ownership is a must.

Apple always had that, they knew that the Apple ID
originally used to setup the ipad included his company
name and that Don was still using the ipad on the same
ip as was used to set it up initially and on the ip that
was used just before Apple's fucked iOS update that
demanded the Apple ID that had been used to setup
the ipad all those years ago be used again, even tho
it had not been used since it had been used to setup
that ipad all those years ago.

otherwise any rando could call apple
and have it reset and get a free ipad.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And Apple does NOT require that the proof
of ownership must contain the serial number,
because fuck all that buy a used ipad would
have a receipt with the serial number on it.

 

[F Murtz]

nospam wrote:

In article <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>, F
Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

that's a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction to logical people.
There is no compulsion in law to put the serial number on the
receipt,but you would probably have to supply the serial number in this
case (which can be done in many ways, on toilet paper for example)

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161055065830%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com>, F
Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

that's a contradiction.

Wrong, as always. He can produce the serial number
from the physical ipad, it doesn't need to be on the
receipt. And plenty don't have the original receipt
and even Apple isnt actually stupid enough to
proclaim that if you don't have that anymore,
all you can to is toss the ipad in the bin.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Je?us <j@j.invalid> wrote:

On 29 Apr 2016 17:53:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

Yes, they apparently were as clueless/stubborn as you.

See, it's people like this that explains why apple still exists.
Once indoctrinated there's no going back to reality or reason,
apparently.

Yes, that's clearly the case, but them touting this "Screw the
customer, Apple knows best!" attitude isn't doing Apple any favours.

OTOH, I'm sure that your run-of-the-mill iUser doesn't read Usenet, so
as long as they keep their mouth shut IRL, they won't hurt Apple.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

In message <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

He *DID* need a receipt with a serial number.

[Rewind:/Repeat:]

No, he did not *need* that. That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded', because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

With 'friends' like you lot, Apple doesn't need any enemies.

[1] Not that one would *ever* need (as in: it's mandatory) to have a
receipt (let alone one with a serial number) in cases like the case in
question.

> Try again.

Why? You *still* don't get it!?

 

On 30 Apr 2016 20:04:48 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

Je?us <j@j.invalid> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2016 17:53:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid
wrote:

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

Yes, they apparently were as clueless/stubborn as you.

See, it's people like this that explains why apple still exists.
Once indoctrinated there's no going back to reality or reason,
apparently.

Yes, that's clearly the case, but them touting this "Screw the
customer, Apple knows best!" attitude isn't doing Apple any favours.

OTOH, I'm sure that your run-of-the-mill iUser doesn't read Usenet, so
as long as they keep their mouth shut IRL, they won't hurt Apple.

Good point.

 

[nospam]

In article <dokhu2FooqjU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

He *DID* need a receipt with a serial number.

[Rewind:/Repeat:]

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that.

apple will not release a device that's activation locked without a
proof of ownership, which is how it should be.

otherwise, it could be trivially bypassed, making it worthless.

apple isn't the only company that has this policy.

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded', because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

you're wrong and you're too incompetent to understand what activation
lock really means and why it *won't* be released with just a phone
call.

 

[Lewis]

In message <doni9mFd14mU1@mid.individual.net>
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnni87sg.1aha.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <5722c425$0$28830$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <572144fe$0$4506$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <doasl3FqgdgU1@mid.individual.net
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnni0dai.ktn.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <57200db8$0$4557$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:

for the people that want to keep changing the facts on my
receipts, to
suit their own version of the story:

http://www.dontronics.com/apple.htm

Cheers Don...


Glad it is working, it was a forgone conclusion that Apple would
have to
fix it,

Not at all. No where on the planet is there a law that compels
Apple to
unlock a device without proof of ownership.

Wrong.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees

Where does it say Apple has to unlock a device that someone has
forgotten their password for?
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

Oh right, NO WHERE.

Neither "password" nor "unlock" appears anywhere on that page.

it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED
Says absolutely NOTHING about proof of ownership.

Says absolutely nothing about unlocking or bypassing passwords.
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

It is unlocked because the owner was able to provide a valid receipt
with a serial number, and for no other reason.

He would not have needed the serial no

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number. His original receipt
was rejected and he was told he had to provide another one. Despite all
your blustering, it was not until after this second receipt was
submitted that Apple did anything, and even then they did not unlock the
previous iCloud account, they simply removed the activation lock on the
iPad so he could set it up with a new account.


He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need to
produce the serial number however.

He *DID* need a receipt with a serial number.

Legally, he doesn’t in this country.

Despite all your blustering, you've produced not a shred of proof to
this absurd and ridiculous statement. Not one.

The fact is that until he provide Apple with a valid receipt with the
serial number, Apple did nothing. Once he provided the valid receipt,
they removed the activation lock on the iPad.

NB: they did NOT unlock the iCloud account.

But we all know that facts are difficult for you.

--
There's a city in my mind Come along and take that ride
And it's all right, baby it's all right
And it's very far away But it's growing day by day
And it's all right, baby it's all right

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161318342349%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohivpF6armU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:


The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

any thief can pretend that the apple id associated with the ipad is his.

And it is completely trivial for Apple to check that the ipad which
Don wanted reset had originally been setup with an Apple ID which
contains Don's company name, so he can't have stolen it now.

fortunately, apple takes this far more seriously
than you and your criminal cohorts.

More of your lies with the last.

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161318342303%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohivoF6armU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately his.

He always had that, the Apple ID that was used
to setup the ipad contains his company name.

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded',

nothing clueless about requiring proof that it's his.

Everything clueless about not even noticing that the
Apple ID originally used to setup that ipad contained
Don's company name and that he had a receipt for it.

because (s)he was too incompetent the verify the
available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

wrong,

Nope.

because the information available was for an account to
which he had no access and therefore couldn't be verified,

It obviously could be seen by Apple to contain his company name.

> exactly the same as what would happen if the ipad was stolen.

Another bare faced lie. No thief ever had any control over
the Apple ID that was used to setup that ipad initially.

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161327596244%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohjlfF6evcU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Red herring, The case in question, there's no 'rando' calling.

apple doesn't know that until they can verify proper ownership.

Wrong in Don's case, the Apple ID had his company name in it.

> the person who called did *not* know his password or security questions.

But did know that the Apple ID contained his company name.

the info they have for that ipad could not be verified
because the person *did not know his password*.

They always knew that the Apple ID used to set it up
contained his company name and that no thief who had
stolen it later could have got the thief's company name
used in the Apple ID that was used to set it up initially.

> why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??

Because the Apple ID that was used to set
it up initially contains his company name.

> until the person calling provides proper proof,

He did that right from the start.

> they ain't gonna budge,

They did when someone with more of a clue that the
original pair of drug crazed droids got on the case.

> and that's exactly how it should be.

Pity about the law on that.

> the only people that will piss off are the thugs who steal stuff.

And those who no longer have the receipt for the original
purchase years ago, and those who bought the idevice used
and don't have any receipt with a serial number on it, etc etc etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161333326197%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohk08F6hipU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

The serial number is on the iPad and the serial number is tied to
the
Apple ID which needs unlocking. Not *really* rocket science.

any thief can pretend that the apple id associated with the ipad is
his.

But in the case in question, there is no "thief", is there?

apple doesn't know that.

Corse it does.

all apple knows is that someone forgot their password *and* forgot
their security questions *and* can't access the apple id email account
to verify it.

Apple also knows that the Apple ID that was originally used to setup
the ipad contains Don's company name and that it is still being used
on the ip that was used to set it up originally.

if the ipad was stolen, the thief would not know the apple id password,
would not know the security questions and would not have access to the
apple id email account.

But wouldn't be able to have the thief's company name in the Apple ID,
or be able to use it on the same ip that was used to set it up initially.

> notice a similarity there?

Notice the difference there ? You're too stupid to do that.

And that
*fact* is staring Apple('s 'support' person) right in the face. Bummer
heh?

what's staring apple in the face is that the ipad could very well be
stolen.

Not even possible for the thief to have the thief's company name
in the Apple ID that had been used to setup the ipad initially.

that's why apple asked for additional proof, and when it was
provided, the ipad was unlinked from the now defunct apple id.

What actually happened is that someone with more of a clue than
the original pair of drug crazed droids realised that the ipad could
not have been stolen and THAT'S why it was unlinked.

 

[nospam]

In article <doneqeFcd9qU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Red herring, The case in question, there's no 'rando' calling.

apple doesn't know that until they can verify proper ownership.

Wrong in Don's case, the Apple ID had his company name in it.

completely meaningless and easily faked. anyone can create any apple id
they want or claim they own any existing apple id.

that's why apple sends a verification email to the email on file, which
a legitimate owner can easily respond. don failed that step, along with
failing every other verification step.

that leaves providing a valid invoice with the device's serial number.
once he provided that, apple released it.

very simple.

 

[nospam]

In article <dondrcFc79vU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately his.

He always had that, the Apple ID that was used
to setup the ipad contains his company name.

easily faked.

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161400413961%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohkt1F6nqdU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Red herring, The case in question, there's no 'rando' calling.

apple doesn't know that until they can verify proper ownership.

Which was staring them in the face as soon as they knew which Apple ID
was involved.

and when apple sent a verification email, it went unverified because he
couldn't access it.

Doesn't need to be verified, it had Don's company name in it.

the person who called did *not* know his password or security
questions.

Maybe that's *why* he called!?

the same as would a thief.

the info they have for that ipad could not be verified because the
person *did not know his password*.

False

nope.

Yep.

he did not know the password to the email account either (which was
likely the same password for both).

It wasn't. He'd been using it fine until the iOS upgrade stupidly demanded
the Apple ID that has originally been used to setup the ipad.

why would apple think that was the legitimate owner??

Because the information was staring them in the face.

no it wasn't.

Corse it was. The Apple ID contained Don's company name.

If Don had stolen that ipad years after it had been setup,
there is no way that Don could have got his company name
in the Apple ID that the owner had used to setup the ipad.

all that's staring them in the face is the apple id email, which
don could not access because he forgot the password.

That's a lie with the company name in it.

> any verification emails sent would go unanswered.

Doesn't need to be verified, ALL that's needed is to see
that Don's company name is used in the Apple ID.

> that's exactly the same as what would happen with a thief.

But no thief could ever get the thief's company name in the
Apple ID that was originally used by the owner of the ipad
to setup the ipad,

until the person calling provides proper proof, they ain't gonna budge,
and that's exactly how it should be.

And that's what he did, but they were too clueless/stubborn/<whatever
to *check*.

they did check and don failed all of their verification steps. he
didn't know the password, security questions or reply to the
verification email.

Apple didn't need any of that to know that it was Don's ipad.

the only people that will piss off are the thugs who steal stuff.

Earth to nospam: You are supposed to say things which actually
*support* your argument, not debunk it.

that's exactly what i did, as have several others.

again, the only people that apple's policies will piss off are those
who steal stuff, and i'll add, somehow benefit if only indirectly.

providing a receipt is not a big deal for a legitimate owner.

Wrong, as always. Plenty lose the receipt and very few of those
who have a receipt for an idevice that is bought used ever have
a receipt with a serial number on it. And legally that isnt required.

 

[Rod Speed]

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420161400434029%nospam@nospam.invalid...

In article <dohkt2F6nqdU2@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:


He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number.

No, he did not *need* that.

yes he did need that or some other evidence that it was legitimately
his.

Which he'd already given (before the very first receipt).

nope. all he gave apple was 'i dunno my password and the system locked
me out for wrong guesses'.

You're lying thru your fucking teeth, as always.

Don gave Apple right from the start the FACT that the Apple ID
that was used to setup the ipad contained his company name
AND he had a receipt from the operation he bought it from that
Apple could check with the seller had come from the seller and
had not been produced by Don himself after having stolen it.

> that's the exact same thing a thief would say.

Wrong as always with the company name in the Apple ID and the receipt.

apple must now verify that he is actually the legitimate owner and not
someone pretending to be.

And it was completely trivial for Apple to do that both by
checking that that is Don's company name and by checking
with the seller of the ipad that Don did buy that ipad from
them and that the receipt isnt a fake receipt.

That was what the clueless Apple 'support'
person *asked*/'demanded',

nothing clueless about requiring proof that it's his.

Asking for something you already have is rather clueless.

they didn't have it.

Wrong, as always.

> that's why they asked.

Wrong, as always.

because (s)he was too incompetent the verify
the available information which was staring hir in the face [1].

wrong, because the information available was for an account to which he
had no access and therefore couldn't be verified, exactly the same as
what would happen if the ipad was stolen.

As I've explained umpteen times, it was/is trivial to verify the
account. That you're too clueless to get that or/and too stubborn to
admit it, does not change the *fact* that the required information was
available to Apple('s 'support' person).

as i've explained umpteen times, what you claim is wrong.

You are just plain wrong, as always.

 

[Lewis]

In message <dono8oFe175U1@mid.individual.net>
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnnid794.1oa3.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <doni9mFd14mU1@mid.individual.net
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnni87sg.1aha.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <5723505f$0$8251$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <5722c425$0$28830$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <572144fe$0$4506$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lewis wrote:
In message <doasl3FqgdgU1@mid.individual.net
3899jk <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:


"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnni0dai.ktn.g.kreme@amelia.local...
In message <57200db8$0$4557$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com
F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:

for the people that want to keep changing the facts on my
receipts, to
suit their own version of the story:

http://www.dontronics.com/apple.htm

Cheers Don...


Glad it is working, it was a forgone conclusion that Apple
would
have to
fix it,

Not at all. No where on the planet is there a law that compels
Apple to
unlock a device without proof of ownership.

Wrong.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/consumer-guarantees

Where does it say Apple has to unlock a device that someone has
forgotten their password for?
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

Oh right, NO WHERE.

Neither "password" nor "unlock" appears anywhere on that page.

it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED
Says absolutely NOTHING about proof of ownership.

Says absolutely nothing about unlocking or bypassing passwords.
it is unlocked not withstanding all your crap, QED

It is unlocked because the owner was able to provide a valid receipt
with a serial number, and for no other reason.

He would not have needed the serial no

He *DID* need a valid receipt with a serial number. His original
receipt
was rejected and he was told he had to provide another one. Despite
all
your blustering, it was not until after this second receipt was
submitted that Apple did anything, and even then they did not unlock
the
previous iCloud account, they simply removed the activation lock on
the
iPad so he could set it up with a new account.


He does NOT need a receipt with a serial number on it, he WOULD need
to
produce the serial number however.

He *DID* need a receipt with a serial number.

Legally, he doesn’t in this country.

Despite all your blustering, you've produced not a shred
of proof to this absurd and ridiculous statement. Not one.

YOU made the pig ignorant claim that that is legally required
in this country.

No. I said that Apple requires proof of ownership to unlock an account.
You claimed that some law in your country compels Apple to unlock
devices without proof of ownership.

The fact is that until he provide Apple with a valid
receipt with the serial number, Apple did nothing.

The original receipt had a serial number on it, Apple rejected that.

A hand-printed serial number is not proof of ownership.

Once he provided the valid receipt, they
removed the activation lock on the iPad.

Once someone with even half a clue got to deal
with the problem, Apple did whatever needed to
be done so that Don could use that ipad again.

No, once Don provide proof of ownership.

NB: they did NOT unlock the iCloud account.

You don’t know what they did.

Don said they did not unlock the iCloud account.


--
She hated everything that predestined people, that fooled them, that
made them slightly less than human. --Witches Abroad