sanyo 8100 bleeding screen

Robert M. wrote:
> Certainly if a phone shows signs of physical damage, ie Scratched
> screen, dented corners, busted antenna, water damage, then its physical
> abuse.

But that still doesn't answer the question...was it an accident or
intentional abuse, i.e. a construction worker using it under
conditions that are likely to damage the phone.

If my car bumper falls off and lost on the freewasy (hence no after
the fact examination is possible) due to a design defect, i.e.
unanticipated vibration causing material fatigue of the fasteners...

Oh, nevermind...this is not worth my time to deal with a Sprint
antagonist.

---

› See More: sanyo 8100 bleeding screen

In article <[email protected]>,
JRW <no_addy@no_.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
> > Certainly if a phone shows signs of physical damage, ie Scratched
> > screen, dented corners, busted antenna, water damage, then its physical
> > abuse.
>
> But that still doesn't answer the question...was it an accident or
> intentional abuse, i.e. a construction worker using it under
> conditions that are likely to damage the phone.
>
> If my car bumper falls off and lost on the freewasy (hence no after
> the fact examination is possible) due to a design defect, i.e.
> unanticipated vibration causing material fatigue of the fasteners...
>

Interesting. I had a side window spontaneously pop out of my minivan
once a few years back. No window left to examine. The car manufacturer
sent me a check to reimburse me for having the window replaced by an
independent glass shop on a Sunday.


There can be circumstances where its obvious a phone was abused (as I
stated previously).

A Customer Friendly concern (certainly not SprintPCS) would give the
benefit of the doubt to the customer. However with Sprint, the customer
is always wrong. You have a problem with your screen, you abused it;
is how its handled by Sprint; certain department stores and Costco will
allow you to invoke a Guaranteed Customer Satisfaction policy.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> However with Sprint, the customer
> is always wrong. You have a problem with your screen, you abused it;
> is how its handled by Sprint;

Prove it.

Prove that ALL defective screens are considered abuse. I'm tired of
showing you that you're wring.

And again, I don't want my quote form last year stating that CRACKED
screens are considered abuse, I want PROOF that ALL defective
(including ALL defects) are as you claim, "abuse".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:

>
> Prove that ALL defective screens are considered abuse. I'm tired of
> showing you that you're wring.

I'm not wring. But enough folks have posted here to prove you're
obfuscating.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:

> And again, I don't want my quote form last year stating that CRACKED
> screens are considered abuse, I want PROOF that ALL defective
> (including ALL defects) are as you claim, "abuse".

Busted Screen, Bleeding screen = Must be Customer Abuse.

Happy now?

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> >
> > Prove that ALL defective screens are considered abuse. I'm tired of
> > showing you that you're wring.
>
> I'm not wring. But enough folks have posted here to prove you're
> obfuscating.

Enough? How many people is that? All I've noticed is a couple of people
posted about screens in the prior month ...

Bob

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> > And again, I don't want my quote form last year stating that CRACKED
> > screens are considered abuse, I want PROOF that ALL defective
> > (including ALL defects) are as you claim, "abuse".
>
> Busted Screen, Bleeding screen = Must be Customer Abuse.
>
> Happy now?

Nope, like I said, I want proof, not your thoughts.

You said

Defective screen = customer abuse.

Prove it.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> >
> > Prove that ALL defective screens are considered abuse. I'm tired of
> > showing you that you're wring.
>
> I'm not wring. But enough folks have posted here to prove you're
> obfuscating.

Sorry, but "I'm not wrong" and saying some other people (who we know
nothing about what their phone looked like) is not proof.

I want proof.