not to be picky but this is more a post for reference.
here are a few examples of other Customer Induced Damage and the story behind them.
this is another I5 bundle, this was sent back to us after the customer told us he had checked the bottom of the cpu.
here is an Asus Sabertooth that the customer has taken it upon themselves to insert some form of fiberous material into the socket.
a rampage III extreme motherboard that the customer decided to remove the cpu and dropped TIM into it. he told us he had done this via webnotes IN WRITING
then proceeded to deny it on the phone even though we had the evidence on our screen
what do all of these have in common?
they are all clear mistakes made by customers who have removed the cpu.
they then all proceeded to deny removeing the cpu
i will caps lock this as it is relavent
OCUK STAFF ARE COVERED UNDER INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE. STAFF INDUCED DAMAGE IS REPORTED AND COVERED, ACCIDENTS HAPPEN SOMETIMES AND STAFF KNOW THAT THEY CAN REPORT MISTAKES WITHOUT REPERCUSSION.
so why would we bend the pins and cover it up?
some of the anti ocuk conspiracy theorists seem to think that we would do such a thing
[especially Dano who obviously dislikes OcUK yes bizzarely has over 5000 posts on our forums
]
we install the cpu and stress test, but we leave the cpu installed so that this is avoided.
we could put seals on the socket to prove if the customer has tampered with it, but why should we?
the cpu is installed, what reason has any customer got to remove it?
here are a few examples of other Customer Induced Damage and the story behind them.
this is another I5 bundle, this was sent back to us after the customer told us he had checked the bottom of the cpu.
here is an Asus Sabertooth that the customer has taken it upon themselves to insert some form of fiberous material into the socket.
a rampage III extreme motherboard that the customer decided to remove the cpu and dropped TIM into it. he told us he had done this via webnotes IN WRITING
then proceeded to deny it on the phone even though we had the evidence on our screen
what do all of these have in common?
they are all clear mistakes made by customers who have removed the cpu.
they then all proceeded to deny removeing the cpu
i will caps lock this as it is relavent
OCUK STAFF ARE COVERED UNDER INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE. STAFF INDUCED DAMAGE IS REPORTED AND COVERED, ACCIDENTS HAPPEN SOMETIMES AND STAFF KNOW THAT THEY CAN REPORT MISTAKES WITHOUT REPERCUSSION.
so why would we bend the pins and cover it up?
some of the anti ocuk conspiracy theorists seem to think that we would do such a thing
[especially Dano who obviously dislikes OcUK yes bizzarely has over 5000 posts on our forums
]we install the cpu and stress test, but we leave the cpu installed so that this is avoided.
we could put seals on the socket to prove if the customer has tampered with it, but why should we?
the cpu is installed, what reason has any customer got to remove it?
used to have a Katmai 450Mhz one 