Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> <snip>

GROW UP AND DROP THE DAMN THREAD!!!

Notan

---

› See More: Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> GROW UP AND DROP THE DAMN THREAD!!!
>

Interesting. I would think the need to shout a trait more associated with
children than adults. You express a desire to see this thread dropped, yet
you prolong it with your response.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > GROW UP AND DROP THE DAMN THREAD!!!
> >
>
> Interesting. I would think the need to shout a trait more associated with
> children than adults. You express a desire to see this thread dropped, yet
> you prolong it with your response.

Actually, shouting is a trait used by adults when dealing with children.

GROW UP!

Notan

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Actually, shouting is a trait used by adults when dealing with children.
>
> GROW UP!
>

Apparently, as you demonstrate above, shouting is also a trait used by
children when attempting to deal with an adult.

Why are you keeping this thread alive if you want to see it dropped?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Actually, shouting is a trait used by adults when dealing with children.
> >
> > GROW UP!
> >
>
> Apparently, as you demonstrate above, shouting is also a trait used by
> children when attempting to deal with an adult.
>
> Why are you keeping this thread alive if you want to see it dropped?

Consider me gone.

Notan

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Consider me gone.
>

Always did.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Now you are just plain lying.
> I don't lie.

Said the liar.


>> Nowhere in any of your well documented conversations did Sprint
>> assign a value to the damaged phone.

> Wrong. The charge was supposed to be temporary, it was supposed to be
> removed when the defective phone was returned to Sprint.

And has the defective phone been returned to Sprint? No, it has not.
So why then, are you expecting Sprint to refund this charge? By your
own very clear statement above, Sprint is no way obligated to remove
this charge, because you have yet to return the phone which they agreed
to replace.

> Thus Sprint placed
> a value of $189.99 on the defective phone,

Please cite where Sprint placed this value. The value was assigned to
the replacement phone you received, NOT on the phone you have failed to
return.


>> They charged you for the new phone because you broke the terms of the
>> phone swap, just as they said they would.
>>
>
> The terms of the phone swap called for the defective phone to be returned at
> the end of the contract period.

Again, please cite where any representative of Sprint indicated this.

Finally, I realize that you are set in your ways. I realize that you
feel this need to hold on dearly to this one shred of "evidence" when
you no longer have to prove anything to Sprint or anyone else because
they've already agreed to replace your phone, and the issue SHOULD be
over and done with if not for your extreme bellicosity. And I realize
that continuing to extend this fruitless discussion with you will not
change your mind, because you feel you still have some pride to defend.
Nonetheless, I feel it important to continue making the facts known
for anyone viewing this thread and THINKING you have any validity at all.

I see that you're not making your payments to Sprint. Good! That way
when other carriers pull up your LightBridge profile, they'll have a
good snapshot of this instance and realize that they should not do
business with you, at least not without a sizeable deposit to offset the
risk. It's just a shame Sprint has held on this long. They're not
saints, but they still deserve better than customers like yourself.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:Q%[email protected]:

>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Now you are just plain lying.
>>
>
> I don't lie.
>
>
>>
>> Nowhere in any of your well documented conversations did Sprint
>> assign a value to the damaged phone.
>>
>
> Wrong. The charge was supposed to be temporary, it was supposed to be
> removed when the defective phone was returned to Sprint. Thus Sprint
> placed a value of $189.99 on the defective phone, which is also the
> price of a new phone.


Wrong, Einstein- if you have the brainpower to look at line item detail for
the charge, it will clearly assoociate it to the new phone, not the old
one. Now you are simply making things up.

>
>
>>
>> They charged you for the new phone because you broke the terms of the
>> phone swap, just as they said they would.
>>
>
> The terms of the phone swap called for the defective phone to be
> returned at the end of the contract period.
>
>
>

Liar- there is no such language in the agreement. You made that up
yourself, as you indicated many posts ago.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Consider me gone.
>>
>
> Always did.
>

If only we could consider Steven P. "Crybaby" McNicoll gone...

Honu

Yes, It's just a lump of garbage.

Get a Samsung A640.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to service as a
> refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to service as a
> refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?

I had a Motorola phone fall into my swimming pool. I took it apart, let
it dry out, and reassembled it. It did work, but I couldn't charge the
battery in the phone, to charge it I had to stick the battery in my
wife's phone. It also didn't connect to the computer any more for phone
book updates.

The Motorola phones have an indicator that shows when the phone has been
in the water, to prevent warranty claims.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was not
> immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.

On Motorola phones, a red dot appears on one of the labels inside the
phone when it gets wet. I don't know if other manufacturers use some
sort of indicator like this as well, but I wouldn't doubt it. This is
how a carrier determines if the phone has been immersed. There are
reports of the red dot appearing even when the phone hasn't been
submerged, but has been used in an area with very high humidity.