o/siris confessed

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Robert M. wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> > >>
> > >>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> > >
> > >
> > > Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >
> > "Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
>
> But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.

No, it isn't. Say, considering you have an problem with posting your name
and email address, why don't you post that information, instead of hiding
behind 65 different identities?

Bob

---

› See More: o/siris confessed

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Granted,
>>it's good to know that savings are available
>
>
> Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> shall continue to do.

So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
as you failed to address them in your response.
-mike

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert M. wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> >>>>
> >>>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >>
> >>"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
> >
> >
> > But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.
>
> So, what should those that read your posts do, now that they know that
> Sprint PCS has non-secret retention deals? Should we leave Sprint
> because they're so sinister for having these non-secret deals? Granted,
> it's good to know that savings are available, but your posts make these
> deals sound like some shady dealings by an underhanded wireless
> provider. I sure think you have a cause, because each time you mention
> these things, you write them as if they're important, but I just can't
> understand what the big deal is.
> -mike

Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
reasonable answers ...

Bob

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
> > wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.
>
> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> -mike

I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
attacking Rob on any and everything ...

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:

> Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
> reasonable answers ...
>
> Bob

Because his reply was written in such a way that he only addressed the
savings related to retention plans, ignoring the rest of my post, I
suspect he's only interested in eligible SprintPCS subscribers saving money.

I think he just assigns this secret cloak and dagger thing to make the
retension plans seem more "spicy."

He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.
-mike

Bob Smith wrote:

>
> I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> attacking Rob on any and everything ...
>
> Bob

I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
-mike

Robert M. wrote:

> Apparently by SprintPCS, never do it.

I see.
-mike

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
> offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.

Only in the secrecy surrounding them.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Granted,
> >>it's good to know that savings are available
> >
> >
> > Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> > shall continue to do.
>
> So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
> publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
> as you failed to address them in your response.
> -mike

ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.

Robert M. wrote:
> Only in the secrecy surrounding them.
As you'll recall, we've established that there is no secrecy.
-mike

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little ruffled.

I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.

I think that fully earns him the title

embarressment of SprintPCS.

He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
contradicting themselves.

- What me know about the A500?

- What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?

- What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?

and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
calling, etc.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?

I basically see Rob as overly loyal to his employer. He would get called
on incorrect posts for his former employer also.

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
> -mike


Because Phillipe and his 64 other ID's show he's a troll ...

Bob

Robert M. wrote:

> ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.

I did. Thank you for your agreement that there is nothing sinister about
these plans. I was under the impression that that was your purpose - to
make it look as if Sprint were somehow dishonest for offering these
plans. I just failed to recognize your flair for the dramatic. At times,
I've been accused of having such a flair offline.
-mike

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> > with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> > record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
> >
> > "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> > Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> > also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.
>
> I think that fully earns him the title
>
> embarressment of SprintPCS.
>
> He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
> giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
> of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
> shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
> contradicting themselves.
>
> - What me know about the A500?
>
> - What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?
>
> - What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?
>
> and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
> caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
> calling, etc.

See what I mean Mike ... He does have a hard-on for Rob ...

Bob