VIP Transfer to new owner loophole?

[paxsarah]

You trust the reseller, you believe they’ve done it several times so why not??

Is it inconceivable that she trusts the reseller to be on the up and up in terms of a normal time-limited timeshare transaction, and still not trust them enough to do something that requires a higher level of trust on both sides as well as an ongoing relationship to keep it up, to maintain a status that most would agree is within a grey area of Wyndham's rules and could be stripped away by Wyndham at any time? She was simply reporting a conversation she had had, but not endorsing the concepts the reseller was espousing, as well as describing the pitfalls of going through with it - that was pretty clear. There are a lot of weird assumptions going on in your post that were nowhere hinted at in Richelle's post. Heck, and even if she trusted the reseller enough to do this, one would also have to trust Wyndham not to revoke the status. Few have that level of trust.

 

[Eric B]

My interpretation would be that there is a lack of trust that Wyndham wouldn’t catch on and change the rules or institute audits rather than a lack of trust in the reseller. That would be outside the reseller’s control and an understandable action on Wyndham’s part. That would be the reason for recommending telesales, too.

Not sure it’s worth arguing about in any case.

 

[Pete Buckler]

My wife and I recently had two contracts transferred to us from her grandparents. Wyndham required a family affidavit form be filled out to retain VIP status. Along with the newly recorded deeds and $299 fee for each contract

 

[55plus]

When I inherited my parent's platinum account the transfer was free. But that was before Wyndham took over Fairfield.

 

[ecwinch]

Bringing this conversation fully circle, as it is obvious that people have strong opinions about the legal/ethical/trust issues required to accomplish what the OP was suggesting.

And while no one posted a first hand account of a successful transfer, we have a 2nd hand account that at least one reseller has reportedly done so. In addition to Ron’s attempts to do so, that fell apart as the transaction requires a lot of trust between the involved individuals.

And the obvious caveat that - if successful - Wyndham could revoke the VIP status at anytime.

Hopefully that answers the OP question.

 

[Braindead]

Bringing this conversation fully circle, as it is obvious that people have strong opinions about the legal/ethical/trust issues required to accomplish what the OP was suggesting.

And while no one posted a first hand account of a successful transfer, we have a 2nd hand account that at least one reseller has reportedly done so. In addition to Ron’s attempts to do so, that fell apart as the transaction requires a lot of trust between the involved individuals.

And the obvious caveat that - if successful - Wyndham could revoke the VIP status at anytime.

Hopefully that answers the OP question.

I’m curious so bear with me.

When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.

The discussion in this thread involves colluding scheming between the buyer & seller to benefit themselves to the detriment of Wyndham & actually us the other owners. Why are they colluding scheming if they aren’t doing anything wrong??

I think it’s they know they are breaking the rule on eligible VIP account transfer and admitting so by their collusion scheming tactics.

Pete reported they had fill out an affidavit. If any of you think you’re going to lie on a signed notarized affidavit you better think twice.

My whole life it’s not only been unethical to collude scheme but also illegal on items such as this thread. How is this different than 2 people colluding scheming to steal a pair of shoes or article of clothing or even skimming cash out of the register. The end means is to get something you didn’t pay for. How is that legal??

Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Wyndham is going to start pressing criminal charges on anyone. They’ll take of it outside of the courts

I’m interested in your opinion! I’ll be honest I barely ended up with a cereal box high school diploma graduating with the bare minimum credits. But I’ve done alright in life

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

I’m curious so bear with me.

When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying.
*****
I’m interested in your opinion!

1) Interesting thread - I have been reading it regularly
2) The cheap VIP Platinum of the past - that Ron has explained was a different "program ' than this thread's concept .

3)Re : opinion
some people buy radar detectors . They & the seller/mfg of the device are in some way -" collusion scheming "
IMO - not too many people think this is immoral , BUT in some jurisdictions these devices are illegal;
If I try to bring one into Canada & border customs catches me & finds it - they take it away AND , there may be other penalties for not declaring said item .

4) If Wyndham catches you ....my opinion is that your platinum status is gone & they could invoke other penalties regarding your account with them .

5) There are folks in Canada who possess radar detection devices .
and FYI -if the police catch you with it they generally charge you with possession of an illegal device

6) Wyndham makes the rules .

 

[55plus]

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Plain and simple.

 

[Eric B]

That’s not actually the definition of fraud, which I provided in an earlier post (the knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment). If you step back and think about it from the perspective of someone that paid Wyndham to buy units/points that qualify for VIP benefits, but cannot sell them with those benefits, you might have a different opinion - it does effect the resale value, after all. The perspective of an individual that inherits a VIP membership might be different, because they don’t have as much invested (though I hesitate to use that word with a TS).

My perspective is that of someone who bought from Wyndham before finding TUG; I resent that they have set things up deliberately to devalue the resale market and applaud anyone that can figure out how to use the rules set up by Wyndham to their advantage, which truly does not disadvantage any other owner because they do not have any ownership rights in an expectation that a resale will no longer have the minor benefits afforded VIPs, who could continue to use them instead of selling them.

Not sure what motivates the view that this is fraud, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I tend to step back from asserting that other posters here are encouraging criminal behavior, though. Reasonable minds can disagree, of course.

 

[ecwinch]

I’m curious so bear with me. When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.
...Pete reported they had fill out an affidavit. If any of you think you’re going to lie on a signed notarized affidavit you better think twice.

My whole life it’s not only been unethical to collude scheme but also illegal on items such as this thread. How is this different than 2 people colluding scheming to steal a pair of shoes or article of clothing or even skimming cash out of the register. The end means is to get something you didn’t pay for. How is that legal??

Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Wyndham is going to start pressing criminal charges on anyone. They’ll take of it outside of the courts

I’m interested in your opinion! I’ll be honest I barely ended up with a cereal box high school diploma graduating with the bare minimum credits. But I’ve done alright in life

I think it is simple.

The OP never suggested anything about lying about a family relationship. That only came up in some rebuttal posts from what I will loosely call the "moral outrage" posters. In fact I do not see any post where someone advocates lying to defraud Wyndham - and in his 2nd post - the OP explicitly states he would not lie about being family. Like him - most here, self included, agree that would be fraud. But that is not what the OP was asking.

Why do you see a difference between what is contemplated here and the previous VIP affiliate contract loophole that Ron discussed. Both require having knowledge, using it, having a fair amount of risk/trust, comply with Wyndham's rules, and the outcome is determined by Wyndham's policies.

Said another way - this same dialog could have occurred in 2014 regarding the affiliate loophole. How are they any different?

ps. You seem very focused on the intent of the parties - what my cereal box called the "mens rea" or guilty mind of the parties. Is this then permitted?

I approach an elderly VIP owner who is starting to travel less. I offer him $1000 to add me to his account so I can use his VIP benefits. After two years he dies, and his heirs quit-claim the account to me.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I’m curious so bear with me.

When Ron & others built cheap VIP Platinum accounts they did it with knowledge. Wyndham & Ron both knew that some affiliate contracts transferred with developer credit. There wasn’t any colluding or scheming among the buyer & seller against Wyndham or anyone. As Ron always said know what your buying. Ron had the knowledge & used it nothing wrong with that. Nothing was done to hide what they were accomplishing it was all done on the up.

The discussion in this thread involves colluding scheming between the buyer & seller to benefit themselves to the detriment of Wyndham & actually us the other owners. Why are they colluding scheming if they aren’t doing anything wrong??

I think it’s they know they are breaking the rule on eligible VIP account transfer and admitting so by their collusion scheming tactics.

Pete reported they had fill out an affidavit. If any of you think you’re going to lie on a signed notarized affidavit you better think twice.

My whole life it’s not only been unethical to collude scheme but also illegal on items such as this thread. How is this different than 2 people colluding scheming to steal a pair of shoes or article of clothing or even skimming cash out of the register. The end means is to get something you didn’t pay for. How is that legal??

Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Wyndham is going to start pressing criminal charges on anyone. They’ll take of it outside of the courts

I’m interested in your opinion! I’ll be honest I barely ended up with a cereal box high school diploma graduating with the bare minimum credits. But I’ve done alright in life

Cautionary, what I'm about to say may be considered somewhat controversial and may offend a few folks on this forum. It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points. I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters were actively working the system (and to be clear - I'm not saying Ron falls into this category - but he's the only one I happen to know of and is on this forum). Suffice it to say, that according to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham. Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement. I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally. Were the megarenters treated unfairly? Was Wyndham strong arming people who didn't have deep pockets to mount legal defenses? I honestly have no idea either way, since this all occurred well prior to my ever finding this forum.

That said, I will say that just because we can do such things, does not mean we should. We all make choices in the end. The problem with gaming any system, is that eventually something will be done to remedy the loopholes that allowed for the manipulation of the system in the first place. In most cases, the changes made to limit and to protect the system, make the rest of us who made the choice not to game the system, collectively suffer negative consequences in the process. Don't get me wrong, I admire the chutzpah to figure out how any system works and then to figure out a way to game the system. But if I'm honest, I believe to do so is ultimately not a good thing. I'm sure others would disagree though.

I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past. I'm sure a portion of these complaints are simply people who long for the olden days so to speak, and a portion is probably Wyndham getting greedy because they are the big timeshare gorilla in the industry vertical and, well, simply because they can do what they want within reason. But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.

 

[Cyrus24]

But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.

I'll go on record saying that I very much hold the megarenters and account strippers accountable for us normal owners losing the Credit Pool. They gamed the system. And, while I'm not aware of the settlement, it should have been $0. Wyndham should have just changed the rules and left the gamers hanging with a bunch of contracts that had limited usage value for 2 to 3 years. Wyndham overreacted with the long term solution. I will forever be angry with Wyndham for eliminating the credit pool.

I'll not weigh in on the issue of transferring VIP via a couple of deed transfers other than to say, they will soon be watching for this, IF they have not already been watching.

 

[Braindead]

Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points. I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters.

I may agree or disagree on other topics.
I was only discussing one item, cheap VIP

I don’t even consider the affiliate cheap VIP a loophole. It was all knowledge nothing underhanded. It was Wyndham policy to allow the transfer to go through with developer credit. No rules were broken, no colluding & no scheming on this one topic.

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

1) It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points.
2 ) to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham. Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement. I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally. Were the megarenters treated unfairly?
3) I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past. ( edited format by T-Dot- Traveller) .

1- I am not sure Ron qualified as a megarenter . He did own lots of points .
He bought resale contracts & also disposed of them in ethical ways. ( ie full discosure to buyers or the receiver of those contracts. )
As I understand it from reading many of his TUG posts - he did rentals to make money . Some of what he rented were fixed week (Mardi Gras) New Orleans rentals & Mardi Gras & other sought after weeks in New Orleans and elsewhere . He also "leased " his Platinum VIP account(s) to others who did rentals .(as he stated earlier in this thread )
I will let Ron define the term he wishes to use .

2) I am not sure if Wyndham sued anyone . To my understanding (based on the TUG thread from 2016) - Wyndham suspended use of folks accounts based on a audit of points owned vs.
points used for reservations . MF payment was not suspended while accounts were frozen . This created issues for all suspended owners .

3) From reading TUG as a non Wyndham owner - IT issues seem to be the biggest complaint I read about .
In general -TUG posts are not negative about the quality of resorts properties , etc . " Not what it once was " is hard to define .

 

[Braindead]

If you step back and think about it from the perspective of someone that paid Wyndham to buy units/points that qualify for VIP benefits, but cannot sell them with those benefits, you might have a different opinion

I resent that they have set things up deliberately to devalue the resale market and applaud anyone that can figure out how to use the rules set up by Wyndham to their advantage, which truly does not disadvantage any other owner because they do not have any ownership rights in an expectation that a resale will no longer have the minor benefits afforded VIPs, who could continue to use them instead of selling them.

I resent that’s the way it’s set up also. In fact I agree with what I left in your post.

But it’s the rules we have to go by. As others have said it’s Wyndhams sandbox and they set the rules.

If I don’t like or resent a law it doesn’t give me the right to violate the law

 

[Eric B]

I resent that’s the way it’s set up also. In fact I agree with what I left in your post.

But it’s the rules we have to go by. As others have said it’s Wyndhams sandbox and they set the rules.

If I don’t like or resent a law it doesn’t give me the right to violate the law

Where we disagree is whether this involves a law. I don’t believe it does, but instead is a matter of contract, where the terms of a contract are generally interpreted in favor of the party that did not write it. Wyndham hast written the contract and the rules it uses to operate the system; in some ways the terms of these seem very one-sided to benefit Wyndham at the expense of the purchaser. One major example is the change from the credit pool to points deposit in future years that was cited above. That cured an issue Wyndham had with a poorly written set of terms that they solved by making it less valuable to folks that had already bought from them. I have no sympathy for Wyndham if someone else figures out a method that complies with Wyndham rules but is beneficial to them. I also don’t believe it to be immoral or in any way wrong to learn and use Wyndham’s system efficiently. In fact, the method OP asked about actually seems to comply with the rules Wyndham wrote; my only issue with it is that it does run the risk of having them change the rules afterwards, so I wouldn’t do it myself.

 

[HitchHiker71]

1- I am not sure Ron qualified as a megarenter . He did own lots of points .
He bought resale contracts & also disposed of them in ethical ways. ( ie full discosure to buyers or the receiver of those contracts. )
As I understand it from reading many of his TUG posts - he did rentals to make money . Some of what he rented were fixed week (Mardi Gras) New Orleans rentals & Mardi Gras & other sought after weeks in New Orleans and elsewhere . He also "leased " his Platinum VIP account(s) to others who did rentals .(as he stated earlier in this thread )
I will let Ron define the term he wishes to use .

I hear you, but it’s semantics really, he simply outsourced his rental business to others. Heck, I would have done the same thing - delegation is mandatory to scale any business model. The core concept here is that the Wyndham timeshare system was never intended to allow for people to build commercial businesses. In so far as I understand, this fact in and of itself was a violation of certain legal terms and conditions. Again, just my view from the cheap seats to be clear. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.

2) I am not sure if Wyndham sued anyone . To my understanding (based on the TUG thread from 2016) - Wyndham suspended use of folks accounts based on a audit of points owned vs.
points used for reservations . MF payment was not suspended while accounts were frozen . This created issues for all suspended owners .

I could be wrong but it is my understanding that there were legal proceedings levered against certain megarenters. Not sure if this was the case specific to Ron though.

3) From reading TUG as a non Wyndham owner - IT issues seem to be the biggest complaint I read about .
In general -TUG posts are not negative about the quality of resorts properties , etc . " Not what it once was " is hard to define .

Agreed on the IT systems point made - but it’s semantics really - since the entire Wyndham points based model is an IT based system in reality. Whether the website used by owners, or the system used by the reps that you call on the phone, same thing really - it all hits the same central databases.

As someone who has worked in IT for 25 years now, I can say with confidence and based upon a considerable amount of experience that designing and maintaining complex large scale database systems like Wyndham has in place is far from easy. That said, it could certainly be better. BG’s reservation and search systems are much better and easier to use than Wyndham’s as one example. Then again, BG is only a fraction of the size of Wyndham. Size matters.

I’ve seen plenty of complaints over time on this forum and on the FB groups about the resorts themselves not being maintained they way they once were, customer service degradation over time at resorts (going back to Fairfield owner timeframes from many decades ago). That said, I agree with you that I generally find the resorts are of good quality especially when compared to hotels and other smaller timeshare companies.

In so far as the cheap VIP issue is concerned, if anyone can leverage a loophole then so be it. The concept of getting something for nothing via a back door or for much less than when going through the front door is eternally attractive on many levels. Just recognize the risks involved and the fact that all such things will eventually come to an end when the loopholes are identified and closed, and audits uncover those accounts that chose the back doors.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[breezez]

Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Plain and simple.

I am humored again. While I definately don’t feel two wrongs make a right. People seem to care about poor Wyndham... But, I don’t think Wyndham cares an lick about this definition from 55Plus when anyone sits at that table in a sales presentation or owners upate. The fact that they even call it an Owners Update is the beginning of the fraud.

The sad part is I even own a few hundred shares of WYND. Figured that was one way to make money in TS industry.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I am humored again. While I definately don’t feel two wrongs make a right. People seem to care about poor Wyndham... But, I don’t think Wyndham cares an lick about this definition from 55Plus when anyone sits at that table in a sales presentation or owners upate. The fact that they even call it an Owners Update is the beginning of the fraud.

The sad part is I even own a few hundred shares of WYND. Figured that was one way to make money in TS industry.

The sales practices are simply deplorable when we piece them apart. Fraud, bait and switch, deception with intent to harm, elder abuses, and the list goes on. This is one area where Wyndham deserves whatever comes their way eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braindead]

when you hand down deeds to family the VIP status transfers. I think to be fraud it would actually have to be spelled out that it is not allowed. It was a wyndham employee that first told me about the loophole that I am wondering if they finally put in a rule that does not allow it. (If there is now a rule that prevents this and you did it only then would it be fraud)

Original poster did discuss deeds to family members. Also asked if there was a rule that prevents this and if it would be fraud.

I’m not a Wyndham lover but I do understand that Wyndham makes the rules whether any of us like, love or hate Wyndham.

Just because you don’t like Wyndhams rules doesn’t give you the right to break those rules. I also don’t think anyone should encourage others to break those rules or “stick it Wyndham “ that will only cost all owners like last time.

What’s everyone going to say when Wyndham says no more VIP family transfers ??? Keep encouraging others to break the rules & Wyndham will fix it like last time. You either accept and respect Wyndhams authority or take the rath for not abiding by the rules, can you say accounts suspended ??

 

[Cyrus24]

break the rules & Wyndham will fix it like last time.

When Wyndham fixes a rule, they certainly have a tendency toward going TOO far. It's best to play inside the rules and if one plans to stretch the rules, minimize the public conversation. If they need to fix the multi-transfer loophole, I hope they do it administratively versus with a wide-ranging rule change.

 

[ronparise]

Cautionary, what I'm about to say may be considered somewhat controversial and may offend a few folks on this forum. It is my understanding that Ron was a megarenter, one of a handful who owned tens of millions of points. I would say it's a real stretch to say that there was no collusion and/or scheming ongoing during the period when megarenters were actively working the system (and to be clear - I'm not saying Ron falls into this category - but he's the only one I happen to know of and is on this forum). Suffice it to say, that according to my understanding, a subset of these megarenters were sued by Wyndham. Most settled out of court, with conditions under NDA, and at least some have been banned for life from Wyndham ownership as part of the settlement agreement. I would say there was probably enough legal evidence that the megarenters were in fact gaming the system and violating legal terms and conditions, such that Wyndham was able to pursue remedies legally. Were the megarenters treated unfairly? Was Wyndham strong arming people who didn't have deep pockets to mount legal defenses? I honestly have no idea either way, since this all occurred well prior to my ever finding this forum.

That said, I will say that just because we can do such things, does not mean we should. We all make choices in the end. The problem with gaming any system, is that eventually something will be done to remedy the loopholes that allowed for the manipulation of the system in the first place. In most cases, the changes made to limit and to protect the system, make the rest of us who made the choice not to game the system, collectively suffer negative consequences in the process. Don't get me wrong, I admire the chutzpah to figure out how any system works and then to figure out a way to game the system. But if I'm honest, I believe to do so is ultimately not a good thing. I'm sure others would disagree though.

I've seen many owners on this forum who have been around Wyndham for a long time, and the general consensus is that Wyndham isn't what it once was, that the benefits are not what they used to be, and that the system doesn't work nearly as well as it did in the past. I'm sure a portion of these complaints are simply people who long for the olden days so to speak, and a portion is probably Wyndham getting greedy because they are the big timeshare gorilla in the industry vertical and, well, simply because they can do what they want within reason. But another portion is probably also due to those who gamed the system and therefore motivated the company in question, Wyndham, to build in a plethora of system limits and protections that have negatively impacted otherwise innocent owners who are simply trying to use the system as it was always intended, to take family vacations on a regular basis without too much effort and on generally good terms, and without breaking the bank in the process.

No Wyndham didn’t sue us, They threatened to sue.

They way they put it was.... “here’s our offer; you sign all your contracts back to us and we won’t sue” I told them to go ahead and sue.

They followed with an email that encouraged me to accept their official offer, but invited me to submit a counter offer

My counter offer was that I would sign everything back to them for a million dollars. We settled somewhere in the middle

The terms of our settlement are what’s subject to the NDA

 

[ronparise]

The sales practices are simply deplorable when we piece them apart. Fraud, bait and switch, deception with intent to harm, elder abuses, and the list goes on. This is one area where Wyndham deserves whatever comes their way eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wyndham accuses me of taking advantage of them. I laughed and told them that “I am 70 years old working in the back bedroom of my home, in my underwear, trying to scratch out a living. Don’t tell me I took advantage of the Wyndham Worldwide Company. If anyone is taking advantage of anyone else it’s your salesmen that take advantage of your buyers”

I did get a laugh out of the Wyndham lawyer with that. He said “thanks for a picture I’ll never get out of my head”

 

[ronparise]

I'll go on record saying that I very much hold the megarenters and account strippers accountable for us normal owners losing the Credit Pool. They gamed the system. And, while I'm not aware of the settlement, it should have been $0. Wyndham should have just changed the rules and left the gamers hanging with a bunch of contracts that had limited usage value for 2 to 3 years. Wyndham overreacted with the long term solution. I will forever be angry with Wyndham for eliminating the credit pool.

I'll not weigh in on the issue of transferring VIP via a couple of deed transfers other than to say, they will soon be watching for this, IF they have not already been watching.

The lawyer I worked with called me a a “points puller” the credit pool was a pretty neat benefit. And I have no doubt that they took it away when they finally figured out what we were doing.

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

Wyndham ...... I laughed and told them that “I am 70 years old working in the back bedroom of my home, in my underwear, trying to scratch out a living.
..... the Wyndham lawyer ..... said “thanks for a picture I’ll never get out of my head”

and neither will some TUG members who read this thread !

*******
Boxers or briefs ?

(Answering this question may be incriminating)