Re: Insurance NCD protection ripoff

[John[_31_]]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote

> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
> been accident free for 5 years".

No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.

Sounds fair enough to me.

John.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:

>
> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>
>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>> been accident free for 5 years".
>
> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.

It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means. And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.

--
America remains the international benchmark for institutionalised stupidity. -- Neil Allen, circa 2014

[NEMO]

On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>
>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically
>>> saying
>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>
>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may
>> still put
>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>
>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>
> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and
> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means. And 1
> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.

If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means your one
accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO > wrote:

> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>
>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically
>>>> saying
>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>
>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may
>>> still put
>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>
>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>
>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and
>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means. And 1
>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>
> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means your one
> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.

It's totally misleading.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>
>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>
>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>
>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>
>It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.

It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.

> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.

I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
This library isn't safe - I just stumbled on an idea.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>
>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>
>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>
>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>
>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>
> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>
>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>
> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.

Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.

And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.

--
You are The One. But not The One. The One who is not The One, but is Another One. But you are that One who is The One who is The Other One who is, in fact, The One. All is lost.

[NEMO]

On 6/29/2015 2:15 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>> changing
>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically
>>>>> saying
>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>
>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may
>>>> still put
>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>> company
>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>
>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and
>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means. And 1
>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>
>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means your one
>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>
> It's totally misleading.

That's intentional.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:30:58 +0100, NEMO > wrote:

> On 6/29/2015 2:15 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>>> changing
>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may
>>>>> still put
>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>>> company
>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and
>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means. And 1
>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>
>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means your one
>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>>
>> It's totally misleading.
>
> That's intentional.

Indeed.

--
Mistress: Something between a mister and a mattress.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:54:04 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>
>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>
>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>
>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>
>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>
>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>
>Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.

Why?

the article did not suggest in any way that 1 in 3 drivers believe "5
years NCD means 5 years without accidents."


>
>And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.

That is closer to the truth, although I believe it is much closer to
what the article says than to what you say - namely that 1 in 3 (as
opposed to your "Most") drivers don't realise that premiums will rise
after an accident even if you have protected no claims bonus.

But that just shows how thick many people are.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
....file not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:31:10 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:54:04 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>
>>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>>
>>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>
>>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
>>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>>
>> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>
> Why?
>
> the article did not suggest in any way that 1 in 3 drivers believe "5
> years NCD means 5 years without accidents."

They believe it means you get the same premium price as if you had no accidents during that period.

>> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.
>
> That is closer to the truth, although I believe it is much closer to
> what the article says than to what you say - namely that 1 in 3 (as
> opposed to your "Most") drivers don't realise that premiums will rise
> after an accident even if you have protected no claims bonus.
>
> But that just shows how thick many people are.

It shows that most of us can't be bothered translating con-artist legal jargon into English.

--
Maybe the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence because that is where the leaky septic tank is buried.

[Alex Heney]

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:39:56 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:31:10 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:54:04 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>>>
>>>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
>>>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>>>
>>> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> the article did not suggest in any way that 1 in 3 drivers believe "5
>> years NCD means 5 years without accidents."
>
>They believe it means you get the same premium price as if you had no accidents during that period.

I know.


Which is not in any way the same as saying they believe it means you
have had no accidents.

>
>>> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.
>>
>> That is closer to the truth, although I believe it is much closer to
>> what the article says than to what you say - namely that 1 in 3 (as
>> opposed to your "Most") drivers don't realise that premiums will rise
>> after an accident even if you have protected no claims bonus.
>>
>> But that just shows how thick many people are.
>
>It shows that most of us can't be bothered translating con-artist legal jargon into English.

No, it shows that 1 in 3 ( which is *way* less than "most") are too
thick to understand the obvious.

There is no need to "translate" any jargon at all for anybody who
thinks about it for a few minutes, or who knows anything at all about
how insurance works, because it is absolutely bloody obvious.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What do batteries run on?
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 22:32:04 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:39:56 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:31:10 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:54:04 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
>>>>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>>>>
>>>> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> the article did not suggest in any way that 1 in 3 drivers believe "5
>>> years NCD means 5 years without accidents."
>>
>> They believe it means you get the same premium price as if you had no accidents during that period.
>
> I know.
>
>
> Which is not in any way the same as saying they believe it means you
> have had no accidents.

Only the first is relevant in the case of car insurance.

>>>> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.
>>>
>>> That is closer to the truth, although I believe it is much closer to
>>> what the article says than to what you say - namely that 1 in 3 (as
>>> opposed to your "Most") drivers don't realise that premiums will rise
>>> after an accident even if you have protected no claims bonus.
>>>
>>> But that just shows how thick many people are.
>>
>> It shows that most of us can't be bothered translating con-artist legal jargon into English.
>
> No, it shows that 1 in 3 ( which is *way* less than "most") are too
> thick to understand the obvious.

It's a damn big proportion. If a company is making something that 1 in 3 people think is something else, they're not doing it right.

> There is no need to "translate" any jargon at all for anybody who
> thinks about it for a few minutes, or who knows anything at all about
> how insurance works, because it is absolutely bloody obvious.

Why should Joe Public know how insurance works? Most people quite sensibly believe they are paying extra so they can be forgiven for the odd accident. The extra payment then covers those accidents.

--
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 22:32:04 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:39:56 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:31:10 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:54:04 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium changing
>>>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're basically saying
>>>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying "You have
>>>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we may still put
>>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another company
>>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe that
>>>>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>>>>
>>>> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> the article did not suggest in any way that 1 in 3 drivers believe "5
>>> years NCD means 5 years without accidents."
>>
>> They believe it means you get the same premium price as if you had no accidents during that period.
>
> I know.
>
>
> Which is not in any way the same as saying they believe it means you
> have had no accidents.

Only the first is relevant in the case of car insurance.

>>>> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD you have.
>>>
>>> That is closer to the truth, although I believe it is much closer to
>>> what the article says than to what you say - namely that 1 in 3 (as
>>> opposed to your "Most") drivers don't realise that premiums will rise
>>> after an accident even if you have protected no claims bonus.
>>>
>>> But that just shows how thick many people are.
>>
>> It shows that most of us can't be bothered translating con-artist legal jargon into English.
>
> No, it shows that 1 in 3 ( which is *way* less than "most") are too
> thick to understand the obvious.

It's a damn big proportion. If a company is making something that 1 in 3 people think is something else, they're not doing it right.

> There is no need to "translate" any jargon at all for anybody who
> thinks about it for a few minutes, or who knows anything at all about
> how insurance works, because it is absolutely bloody obvious.

Why should Joe Public know how insurance works? Most people quite sensibly believe they are paying extra so they can be forgiven for the odd accident. The extra payment then covers those accidents.

--
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>> changing
>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're
>>>>> basically
>>>>> saying
>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying
>>>>> "You have
>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>
>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>> may
>>>> still put
>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>> company
>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>> claim.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>
>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>> and
>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>> And 1
>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>
>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>> your one
>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>
> It's totally misleading.


You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.

I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?

FAF!1

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Paul Pot]

It happens that Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated :
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>> changing
>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're
>>>>> basically saying
>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying
>>>>> "You have
>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>
>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>> may still put
>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>> company
>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>> claim.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>
>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>> and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD
>>> means.
>>
>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>
>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>
>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe
>> that
>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>
> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>
> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that
> NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the
> odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD
> you have.

Utter ********!

FAF!11

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>>> changing
>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're
>>>>>> basically
>>>>>> saying
>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying
>>>>>> "You have
>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>> may
>>>>> still put
>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>>> company
>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>>> claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>>> and
>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>> And 1
>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>
>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>> your one
>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>>
>> It's totally misleading.
>
>
> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>
> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>
> FAF!1

135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.

--
An optimist thinks this is the best possible world.
A pessimist fears this is true.

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> still put
>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> company
>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year
>>>>> ago
>>>>> and
>>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD
>>>>> means.
>>>>> And 1
>>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>
>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>> your one
>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD
>>>> protection.
>>>
>>> It's totally misleading.
>>
>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>> your
>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>
>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>
>> FAF!1
>
> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.


You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these
days?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:42:47 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> It happens that Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated :
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:36:35 +0100, Alex Heney >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:25:43 +0100, "Tough Guy no. 1265"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>>> changing
>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're
>>>>>> basically saying
>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying
>>>>>> "You have
>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>> may still put
>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>>> company
>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>>> claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>
>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>>> and have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD
>>>> means.
>>>
>>> It isn't remotely close to what NCD means.
>>>
>>>> And 1 in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>
>>> I do not believe for one millisecond that 1 in 3 drivers believe
>>> that
>>> 5 years NCD means 5 years without accidents.
>>
>> Then go talk to the writer of the article, not me.
>>
>> And everyone I've ever talked about car insurance with has said that
>> NCD protection means you don't get a premium rise when you have the
>> odd accident. Most people associate the premium cost as how much NCD
>> you have.
>
> Utter ********!
>
> FAF!11

Tisn't.

--
If you jog in a jogging suit, lounge in lounging pajamas, and smoke in a smoking jacket, why would anyone want to wear a windbreaker?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> still put
>>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year
>>>>>> ago
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD
>>>>>> means.
>>>>>> And 1
>>>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>>> your one
>>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD
>>>>> protection.
>>>>
>>>> It's totally misleading.
>>>
>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>>> your
>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>
>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>>
>>> FAF!1
>>
>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>
>
> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these
> days?

I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.

--
If you jog in a jogging suit, lounge in lounging pajamas, and smoke in a smoking jacket, why would anyone want to wear a windbreaker?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Type of car irrelevant, what I'm talking about is your premium
>>>>>>> changing
>>>>>>> after an accident, even with NCD protection. So they're
>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>> "You had an accident 1 year ago" and at the same time saying
>>>>>>> "You have
>>>>>>> been accident free for 5 years".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> still put
>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>>>> company
>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>>>> and
>>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>>> And 1
>>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>
>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>> your one
>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>>>
>>> It's totally misleading.
>>
>>
>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>
>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>
>> FAF!1
>
> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all insurance
> companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum insurances required
> by traffic law and my mortgage company.

Oh!
You told me and another person it was 140. You were adamant about this.
What happened Peter?
Did you forget your lie and get all mixed up?




>
> --
> An optimist thinks this is the best possible world.
> A pessimist fears this is true.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Paul Pot" > wrote in message ...
> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:20:39 +0100, John >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, what they're saying is although we'll preserve your NCD we
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> still put
>>>>>>> the basic premium up if you make a claim. If you move to another
>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>> you'll still have to tell them you've had an accident and made a
>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds fair enough to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It stinks of ripoff. How can you have had an accident 1 year ago
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have also been accident free for 5 years? That's what NCD means.
>>>>>> And 1
>>>>>> in 3 drivers and the report agree with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection, it
>>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>>> your one
>>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD protection.
>>>>
>>>> It's totally misleading.
>>>
>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>
>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>>
>>> FAF!1
>>
>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all insurance
>> companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum insurances required
>> by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>
>
> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these days?

On the old king cole .............. and always will be.

[Paul Pot]

on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>>>> your one
>>>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD
>>>>>> protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's totally misleading.
>>>>
>>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>>>> your
>>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>>
>>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>>>
>>>> FAF!1
>>>
>>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>>
>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these
>> days?
>
> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.


Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.

FAF!1

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>>>>> your one
>>>>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD
>>>>>>> protection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's totally misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>>>>> your
>>>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>>>>
>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>
>>>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>>>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>>>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>>>
>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these
>>> days?
>>
>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.
>
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>
> FAF!1

I told them to get lost actually.

--
In a recent survey 40% found they didn't have time to answer the
question, 25% hung up the phone when the question was being
asked, 20% couldn't speak English, and 15% gave answers that
weren't asked.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:11:16 +0100, NEMO
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/29/2015 12:25 PM, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had an accident a year ago and you have NCD protection,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> doesn't mean you have been accident free for 5 years. It means
>>>>>>> your one
>>>>>>> accident doesn't count as much as it would with no NCD
>>>>>>> protection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's totally misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>>>>> your
>>>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of 160?
>>>>>
>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>
>>>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>>>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>>>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>>>
>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch these
>>> days?
>>
>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.
>
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>
> FAF!1

I told them to get lost actually.

--
In a recent survey 40% found they didn't have time to answer the
question, 25% hung up the phone when the question was being
asked, 20% couldn't speak English, and 15% gave answers that
weren't asked.

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of
>>>>>> 160?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>>
>>>>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>>>>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>>>>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>>>>
>>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch
>>>> these
>>>> days?
>>>
>>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.
>>
>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>
>> FAF!1
>
> I told them to get lost actually.

You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:39:45 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 used his keyboard to write :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean who hard could it be for someone who claims an IQ of
>>>>>>> 160?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 135 actually. And it's not hard for me to work out that all
>>>>>> insurance companies are scam artists. I only have the minimum
>>>>>> insurances required by traffic law and my mortgage company.
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch
>>>>> these
>>>>> days?
>>>>
>>>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork, stoppit.
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>>
>>> FAF!1
>>
>> I told them to get lost actually.
>
> You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?

No.

--
What if there is air in space, and the government doesn't want us to escape?

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Monday :
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>
>>>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> days?
>>>>>
>>>>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork,
>>>>> stoppit.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>>>
>>>> FAF!1
>>>
>>> I told them to get lost actually.
>>
>> You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?
>
> No.

Are you selling any Bitcoins?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:07:19 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Monday :
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:46:27 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 laid this down on his screen :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be on here 24/7. Don't you get out of the cage musch
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I work from home. You're distracting me from paperwork,
>>>>>> stoppit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>
>>>> I told them to get lost actually.
>>>
>>> You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?
>>
>> No.
>
> Are you selling any Bitcoins?

Nope, gave it up when the prices plummeted.


--
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:07:19 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Monday :
>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>>
>>>>> I told them to get lost actually.
>>>>
>>>> You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Are you selling any Bitcoins?
>
> Nope, gave it up when the prices plummeted.


Not kept any at all?

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:30:31 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:07:19 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Monday :
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:37:57 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated the question :
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:57:06 +0100, Paul Pot >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on 7/6/2015, Tough Guy no. 1265 supposed :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh yeah, I forgot you were Scotland's best Bettaware salesman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAF!1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I told them to get lost actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not still Bitcoin mining are you?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Are you selling any Bitcoins?
>>
>> Nope, gave it up when the prices plummeted.
>
>
> Not kept any at all?

No. Should I have done?

--
What did the elephant say to the naked man?
How do you pick up anything with that?

[NEMO]

In article >, Tough Guy no. 1265 > wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:30:31 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

Why is this posted to soc.culture.israel, you stupid wankstains?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:37:34 +0100, NEMO > wrote:

> In article >, Tough Guy no. 1265 > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:30:31 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>
> Why is this posted to soc.culture.israel, you stupid wankstains?

Ask the person who first crossposted it.

--
Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?

[Paul Pot]

Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Tuesday :
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:37:34 +0100, NEMO
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Tough Guy no. 1265
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:30:31 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>
>> Why is this posted to soc.culture.israel, you stupid wankstains?
>
> Ask the person who first crossposted it.

It was probably him, the dim-witted whelk farmer.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 01:05:39 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:

> Tough Guy no. 1265 formulated on Tuesday :
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:37:34 +0100, NEMO
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Tough Guy no. 1265
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:30:31 +0100, Paul Pot > wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is this posted to soc.culture.israel, you stupid wankstains?
>>
>> Ask the person who first crossposted it.
>
> It was probably him, the dim-witted whelk farmer.

ROTWPMSL!

--
Women are like a pack of cards... you need a heart to love them, diamonds to marry them, a club to kill them and a spade to bury them.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 06/07/2015 19:39, Paul Pot wrote:

>
> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>

Perhaps if you were able to explain what you are calling a *premium* was
and how it was calculated all would become clear.

The crucial bit would be if this *premium* calculation is independent of
the customers NCD status. I don't believe it is. Personally I don't
believe it exists, apart from by reverse engineering it from the actual
premium paid and NCD.

[Paul Pot]

Nick presented the following explanation :
> On 06/07/2015 19:39, Paul Pot wrote:
>
>>
>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but
>> your
>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>
>
> Perhaps if you were able to explain what you are calling a *premium*
> was and how it was calculated all would become clear.
>
> The crucial bit would be if this *premium* calculation is independent
> of the customers NCD status. I don't believe it is. Personally I
> don't believe it exists, apart from by reverse engineering it from
> the actual premium paid and NCD.


I was trying to make the concept as simple as possiblle for him. I
think the premium calculation is independent of NCD status.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:14:04 +0100, Nick >
wrote:

>On 06/07/2015 19:39, Paul Pot wrote:
>
>>
>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>
>
>Perhaps if you were able to explain what you are calling a *premium* was
>and how it was calculated all would become clear.

The premium is the base price for your insurance before any NCD is
applied.



>
>The crucial bit would be if this *premium* calculation is independent of
>the customers NCD status. I don't believe it is.

It certainly is.


> Personally I don't
>believe it exists, apart from by reverse engineering it from the actual
>premium paid and NCD.
>

Most insurance proposals/renewal invitations display it in my
experience.

But yes, if they didn't you could indeed work it out from the actual
amount paid combined with the NCD.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Funny, only sensible people agree with me.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Nick[_4_]]

On 10/07/2015 22:19, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 13:14:04 +0100, Nick >
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2015 19:39, Paul Pot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You've had an accident and your premium will rise accordingly but your
>>> protected NCD entitles you a large discount on that premium.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps if you were able to explain what you are calling a *premium* was
>> and how it was calculated all would become clear.
>
> The premium is the base price for your insurance before any NCD is
> applied.
>
>
>
>>
>> The crucial bit would be if this *premium* calculation is independent of
>> the customers NCD status. I don't believe it is.
>
> It certainly is.
>

Certainly is, why because you say so?

Are you familiar with the calculations used by insurance companies? Or
do you just instinctively know it to be true.

There are obvious economic advantages to the insurance companies for it
not to be true.

>
>> Personally I don't
>> believe it exists, apart from by reverse engineering it from the actual
>> premium paid and NCD.
>>
>
> Most insurance proposals/renewal invitations display it in my
> experience.
>

Mine doesn't but it is irrelevant as you point out it can be derived
from the actual amount paid and the quoted NCD.

> But yes, if they didn't you could indeed work it out from the actual
> amount paid combined with the NCD.
>

Yes of course you can. Just as the insurance company can calculate an
optimal amount for the actual premium and then use the stated NCD to
work out a premium. Which of course makes a nonsense of NCD protection.

The point is that the actual premium paid is the number that matters to
you and the insurance company. Regardless of NCD insurance the insurer
is free to set the actual premium at any level it sees fit.