For O/Siris - JD Powers explanation

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:3936b.367674$uu5.70972@sccrnsc04...
> Justin Green wrote:
> >> Liar. That's false, and deliberately so. You want discussion, ask
> >> for it, Justin. Just ask.
> >> --
> >> -+-
> >> RØß
> >> O/Siris
> >> I work for Sprint
> >> I *don't* speak for them
> >
> > Nah, you don't wait to be asked to discuss other posts. I'm under the
> > impression you can't discuss this topic.
>
> No, Justin, it's not an impression, it's a prejudice. You started this
> thread with that expectation, and even went so far as to BEGIN it with
that
> very accusation. Twice.

And you couldn't deliver. Believe me, the refusal, by a Sprint employee, to
discuss a topic, even after information he asks for is presented, is
response enough. You don't know or don't care. Which pretty much sums up
Sprint CS.

---

› See More: For O/Siris - JD Powers explanation

Justin Green wrote:
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> newscV5b.357104$o%2.163743@sccrnsc02...
>> Justin Green wrote:
>>> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fKM5b.352530$o%2.161223@sccrnsc02...
>>>>>> Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> Yeah, the general consensus here is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're pro-Sprint - you are mature.
>>>>>>> If you're anti-Sprint - you're a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You asked just yesterday where you've been dishonest. You've
>>>>>> just provided your own example.
>>>>>
>>>>> This, for the most part, is not untrue.
>>>>
>>>> What's not untrue, O/Siris's mention of your being dishonest or
>>>> your claim about pro- and anti-Sprint types?
>>>> --
>>>> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
>>>> |
>>>> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
>>>> | inconvenience me with questions?"
>>>
>>> For the most part, it is true that people like Rob can post over and
>>> over in a childish manner, refusing to comment, yet continuing to
>>> post in the same thread, and *not* be called a troll. Geez, it's
>>> really fun to see you folks act so ignorant of the reality.
>>
>> Wow, I'm a troll for not doing what I haven't been asked to do.
>> Sure, Justin, sure.
>> --
>> -+-
>> RØß
>> O/Siris
>> I work for Sprint
>> I *don't* speak for them
>
> Of the millions or billions of posts on USENET, I would wager far
> less than .0000001% of the people that reply wait to be asked. They
> comment. That's what usenet is, or haven't you figured this out yet.

I'll bet that number jumps to near 100% when someone is told, "No cares if
you..."

You don't care, but you'll rail on for days about me not doing it?
Hypocrite.

>
> You're repeated excuses for not commenting on the information I
> posted are lame, at best.

No, the specific non-expectation followed by accusations, THAT is lame. You
set the tone here, Justin, not I. Don't blame me for what you did.

> No one else asks for permission or waits
> until they are singled out and asked to respond. You are a troll for
> continually refusing to comment on topic, calling people liars when
> they are not, and your substance-free posts as more than enough
> commentary from you. You cannot explain or excuse Sprint's rank in
> the survey, so you troll.

How'd Sprint do on hold times, Justin? On automated response system
processing and navigation? On interaction?

You haven't been discussing the survey, either, Justin.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:Ic36b.365392$Ho3.53757@sccrnsc03...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:AbV5b.357081$o%2.163847@sccrnsc02...
> >> Justin Green wrote:
> >>> "Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news[email protected]...
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It's not abuse if the company gives out the numbers. It's also
> >>>>> not abusing a system to try and get remedy when you are being
> >>>>> wronged.
> >>>>
> >>>> Employees everywhere are ordred to go through channels, and to
> >>>> always start with their immediate supervisor, and going straight
> >>>> to the top is a no-no.
> >>>>
> >>>> For a consumer with a grievance, the higher up you can start a
> >>>> complaint, the quicker you'll get a solution as the front line
> >>>> phone answering people just don't have the authority to correct
> >>>> wrongs. And as has been covered here many times, SprintPCS *2
> >>>> folks have strict rules to go by, but normally unreachable higher
> >>>> ups can instantly over-rule when it makes sense.
> >>>
> >>> And when you're being lied to about how far you've been escalated
> >>> during a phone call, talking to fake managers and floor supervisors,
> >>> it makes the chain of command inaccessible. Which apparently is
> >>> Sprint's goal (Rob's too).
> >>
> >> Lying again, Justin. YOU EVEN QUOTED ME admitting the system needs
> >> to be fixed, and now you fabricate my intent.
> >>
> >> Prove it or admit you are what accuse Sprint of: a liar.
> >> --
> >> -+-
> >> RØß
> >> O/Siris
> >> I work for Sprint
> >> I *don't* speak for them
> >
> > On two seperate phone calls I talked to four different people, all
> > apparently higher up, since I asked for their manager/supervisor.
> > According you YOU, *2 calls can only be escalated 1 level. So,
> > either you posted bad information, or I was lied to about to whom I
> > was talking. You are really stretching now, aren't you?
>
> You're the one lying, Justin. That's no stretch. That's exactly what you
> did. What SPRINT did doesn't make you not a liar.

Again, how am I lying? Sprint signed me up for a contract to which I NEVER
agreed. Is that *clear* enough for you? You are digging yourself into a
large hole at this point, just stretching and searching for some "gotcha".
But you can't find one because my story hasn't changed. The facts are the
facts. I have not lied and any accusations to the contrary are pathetic
attempts on your part to avoid the problems Sprint has.

> I have said NOTHING claiming or implying that the upper levels of customer
> care should be inaccessible. I said publically posting their numbers was
a
> non-solution and abuse because it accomplishes nothing but getting those
> numbers changed. And there's every reason to believe you knew that when
you
> fabricated my intent.

Either you or another Sprint employee posted that escalation during a single
phone call was only available for a floor supervisor. Any higher than that,
and the phone call had to be returned. I caught Sprint lying. Again.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:Zi36b.363693$YN5.244861@sccrnsc01...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:GaV5b.360494$uu5.70567@sccrnsc04...
> >> Phillipe wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's not abuse if the company gives out the numbers. It's also not
> >>>> abusing a system to try and get remedy when you are being wronged.
> >>>
> >>> Employees everywhere are ordred to go through channels, and to
> >>> always start with their immediate supervisor, and going straight to
> >>> the top is a no-no.
> >>>
> >>> For a consumer with a grievance, the higher up you can start a
> >>> complaint, the quicker you'll get a solution as the front line phone
> >>> answering people just don't have the authority to correct wrongs.
> >>> And as has been covered here many times, SprintPCS *2 folks have
> >>> strict rules to go by, but normally unreachable higher ups can
> >>> instantly over-rule when it makes sense.
> >>
> >> Yes, but I have that authority, too. Not that you'd ever admit to
> >> it.
> >>
> >> If I can justify the action, I will do it. Period. I have before
> >> and will again.
> >> --
> >> -+-
> >> RØß
> >> O/Siris
> >> I work for Sprint
> >> I *don't* speak for them
> >
> > According to well over 8 different *2 people, they don't have the
> > authority/ability to:
> > waive ETF fees or
> > call the store and check for phone availability
> >
> > What they *do* have the authority to do is hand out some token
> > minutes, which are of absolutely no use if your phone doesn't work.
>
> We're *inbound* call centers, so calling stores, yeah, we don't do that.
> But we *should* give you the numbers of several stores in your area. But
we
> can and do waive ETF's every day, like when we forget to add the proper
> waive code during plan changes that require re-upping a contract. A
> customer calling to cancel service may not meet the guidelines we can use
to
> justify it. Therein lies what was probably the misunderstanding (and our
> failure to explain it). Remember the story with which you began this
> thread?

So, after repeatedly being told by *2 reps that "We don't waive ETF fees",
you're saying they are lying?

Wow, that's three lies I've caught Sprint in now.

> "Service reps have to assure the customer that the carrier is improving
the
> network, and occasionally giveaway minutes to placate and angry caller."

Fourth lie from Sprint. They "assure" you that the network issues are being
resolved, yet absolutely NOTHING is being done.

> Sounds a little more than token to me. Sounds like an industry standard.

When Verizon told me they were working on a tower, there were people at the
tower that afternoon.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:Kk36b.363705$YN5.244804@sccrnsc01...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:u8V5b.356655$YN5.243561@sccrnsc01...
> >> Justin wrote:
> >>> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> >>> news:t5N5b.356093$uu5.70133@sccrnsc04...
> >>>> Justin wrote:
> >>>>>> If you get Bobbie Gaunt's personal number (CEO of Ford MoCo,
> >>>>>> BTW), call him next time you think you were overcharged, or
> >>>>>> wrongly charged for a warranty repair. Call it once, and it's
> >>>>>> liable to work. Twice, and you're liable to find the number
> >>>>>> disconnected.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because it *is* abuse of the system.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> -+-
> >>>>>> RØß
> >>>>>> O/Siris
> >>>>>> I work for Sprint
> >>>>>> I *don't* speak for them
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then explain why calling the regular numbers don't work. It's not
> >>>>> abusing the system if you are being wronged by a company.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, Justin, it is. Every single time. That's *why* the number
> >>>> gets disconnected.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you try to "end run" a system, and it takes steps to prevent it,
> >>>> the ONLY one to blame is you. Because you abused the system.
> >>>>
> >>>> That does NOT mean the system isn't in need of fixing. It is. But
> >>>> abuse is still abuse, even when it needs fixing.
> >>>
> >>> It's not abuse if the company gives out the numbers. It's also not
> >>> abusing a system to try and get remedy when you are being wronged.
> >>
> >> The company didn't, Justin. now you're just inventing whatever
> >> suits you. --
> >> -+-
> >> RØß
> >> O/Siris
> >> I work for Sprint
> >> I *don't* speak for them
> >
> > I'm inventing what? Geez, you love to throw out "liar" and "you're
> > just inventing" and such, and my story has not changed.
>
> Yes it has. Not about what happened to you (which is NOT the topic of
this
> thread anyway), but about those numbers. The company didn't release them,
> and you know it. You *are* just inventing that.

The company *does* release numbers to individuals. So what if they get
thrown out on a board. Hell, if my final bill is incorrect, I'm releasing
the number I was given, along with their e-mail addresses.

> > I have no
> > need to change it. I bought a product advertised to perform and it
> > didn't. Up until I receive my final bill indicating that they have
> > waived the fees, I have been wronged. Sprint just can't admit that
> > they over advertise their coverage and can't keep up with capacity
> > issues in my area.
>
> Not the subject at hand, Justin. Your personal situation has long ago
been
> conceded.

There is still a need to climb the ranks of Sprint, due to the inability of
CS reps to assist customers.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:fm36b.363717$YN5.244713@sccrnsc01...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > news:JFV5b.358246$Ho3.54117@sccrnsc03...
> >> Justin wrote:
> >>> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> >>> news:K3N5b.352426$YN5.240084@sccrnsc01...
> >>>> Justin wrote:
> >>>>> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:fKM5b.352530$o%2.161223@sccrnsc02...
> >>>>>> Justin wrote:
> >>>>>>> Yeah, the general consensus here is:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you're pro-Sprint - you are mature.
> >>>>>>> If you're anti-Sprint - you're a troll.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You asked just yesterday where you've been dishonest. You've
> >>>>>> just provided your own example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This, for the most part, is not untrue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Justin, "for the most part", you and Phillipe are the ones
> >>>> consistently complaining, and even you have only one case to use as
> >>>> example. Using yourself and Phillipe as examples is hardly
> >>>> conclusive.
> >>>
> >>> First, I don't just have one case to use as an example. I've
> >>> mentioned a friend who lives in Frisco who's had numerous problems
> >>> with his Sprint phone. But, in case you didn't catch those posts, I
> >>> supposed I could post his problems as well, if you wanted to know.
> >>>
> >>> And you are the one consistently refusing to discuss the study,
> >>> after posting who knows how many posts in those threads to try and
> >>> invalidate the study.
> >>
> >> I can't refuse what no one has requested e to provide, Justin.
> >>
> >> Want discussion? ASK for it.
> >
> >
> > Nowhere else on this board does a post ask anyone for comments. I'm
> > not about to ask you. You're refusal to discuss it speaks volumes.
>
> Your own comments in your first post, Justin:
>
> No one cares if you admit the problems or not.
>
> And
>
> I won't debate...

I said I won't debate HOW you solved it. Don't try to take my posts and
twist them, it won't work.

> YOU are the one refusing, Justin. Don't tell me you don't care and then
try
> to "get" me for not responding.

Rob, I discussed it in the VERY FIRST POST. At the END of the article. You
still haevn't responded to my comments. You obviously have reading
comprehension problems if you missed that.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> There is still a need to climb the ranks of Sprint, due to the inability of
> CS reps to assist customers.


Justin, you're exaggerating. If the CSR can "complete the call" in under
6 minutes without escalating or applying a credit or annotating your
account, they are perfectly able to help you, especially if its to
extend your Advantage Agreement. ;-)

Justin Green wrote:

>
> Especially when you put words in my posts.

No words, Justin. Those were EXACT quotes from your first post.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:Ep36b.365475$Ho3.54439@sccrnsc03...
> Justin Green wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> > newscV5b.357104$o%2.163743@sccrnsc02...
> >> Justin Green wrote:
> >>> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news[email protected]...
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:fKM5b.352530$o%2.161223@sccrnsc02...
> >>>>>> Justin wrote:
> >>>>>>> Yeah, the general consensus here is:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you're pro-Sprint - you are mature.
> >>>>>>> If you're anti-Sprint - you're a troll.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You asked just yesterday where you've been dishonest. You've
> >>>>>> just provided your own example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This, for the most part, is not untrue.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's not untrue, O/Siris's mention of your being dishonest or
> >>>> your claim about pro- and anti-Sprint types?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> >>>> |
> >>>> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> >>>> | inconvenience me with questions?"
> >>>
> >>> For the most part, it is true that people like Rob can post over and
> >>> over in a childish manner, refusing to comment, yet continuing to
> >>> post in the same thread, and *not* be called a troll. Geez, it's
> >>> really fun to see you folks act so ignorant of the reality.
> >>
> >> Wow, I'm a troll for not doing what I haven't been asked to do.
> >> Sure, Justin, sure.
> >> --
> >> -+-
> >> RØß
> >> O/Siris
> >> I work for Sprint
> >> I *don't* speak for them
> >
> > Of the millions or billions of posts on USENET, I would wager far
> > less than .0000001% of the people that reply wait to be asked. They
> > comment. That's what usenet is, or haven't you figured this out yet.
>
> I'll bet that number jumps to near 100% when someone is told, "No cares if
> you..."
>
> You don't care, but you'll rail on for days about me not doing it?
> Hypocrite.

You're the one who has yet to discuss the topic. I did, in the first post.

> >
> > You're repeated excuses for not commenting on the information I
> > posted are lame, at best.
>
> No, the specific non-expectation followed by accusations, THAT is lame.
You
> set the tone here, Justin, not I. Don't blame me for what you did.

You can't be blamed for anything except completely avoiding the posted
topic, twisting my words, and making lame excuses.

> > No one else asks for permission or waits
> > until they are singled out and asked to respond. You are a troll for
> > continually refusing to comment on topic, calling people liars when
> > they are not, and your substance-free posts as more than enough
> > commentary from you. You cannot explain or excuse Sprint's rank in
> > the survey, so you troll.
>
> How'd Sprint do on hold times, Justin? On automated response system
> processing and navigation? On interaction?

As I've already posted, the company by company results will not be revealed,
per JD Powers. However, you were given additional information in this
thread which would allow a normal person to have a discussion.

> You haven't been discussing the survey, either, Justin.

Did you READ the first post or just start pulling excuses and demandings of
courtesy out of your royal ass?

Justin Green wrote:

>
> I will never ask you for a discussion. That is the biggest set up
> ever.

You've already made that quite clear, Justin. That would involve *common*
courtesy, and you don't go there.

>
> I don't know how many times I have to say this. I will not ask you.

That's OK. You have the choice. It still makes you a hypocrite, but you
*do* have that chocie.

> You don't deserve or command any special treatment or invitation.

Nothing special about it. Common courtesy after having denied you wanted it
in the first place. Remember, "No one cares..."

> I
> will bash you up and down for refusing to discuss the topic in
> another thread for lack of info, and then to spend days making lame
> excuses and demanding uncommon courtesy you don't deserve.

And you'll be a hypocrite the whole time. After specifically telling me you
don't care if I respond, there's nothing uncommon about seeking some
courtesy from you, Justin. Especially since you seem to expect it of
everyone else. Hence, hypocrite.

> No one,
> especially you, needs an invitation. If your recent post is the
> extent of your comments, fine. Sprint has poorly trained individuals
> and individuals with poor or outdated attitudes. That explains a
> lot. You seem to exemplify the problem with Sprint PCS. I guess you
> are one of their "problems."

Prove it, Justin, or remain the liar you've already proven yourself to be.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

Justin Green wrote:
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:3936b.367674$uu5.70972@sccrnsc04...
>> Justin Green wrote:
>>>> Liar. That's false, and deliberately so. You want discussion, ask
>>>> for it, Justin. Just ask.
>>>> --
>>>> -+-
>>>> RØß
>>>> O/Siris
>>>> I work for Sprint
>>>> I *don't* speak for them
>>>
>>> Nah, you don't wait to be asked to discuss other posts. I'm under
>>> the impression you can't discuss this topic.
>>
>> No, Justin, it's not an impression, it's a prejudice. You started
>> this thread with that expectation, and even went so far as to BEGIN
>> it with that very accusation. Twice.
>
> And you couldn't deliver. Believe me, the refusal, by a Sprint
> employee, to discuss a topic, even after information he asks for is
> presented, is response enough. You don't know or don't care. Which
> pretty much sums up Sprint CS.

NO ONE with half a brain responds after being told his response is neither
sought nor desired, Justin, as you did in your very first post. Your
hypocrisy is showing.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is still a need to climb the ranks of Sprint, due to the inability
of
> > CS reps to assist customers.
>
>
> Justin, you're exaggerating. If the CSR can "complete the call" in under
> 6 minutes without escalating or applying a credit or annotating your
> account, they are perfectly able to help you, especially if its to
> extend your Advantage Agreement. ;-)

Now that is service. Extending contracts without even having to ask.

Justin Green wrote:

>> You're the one lying, Justin. That's no stretch. That's exactly
>> what you did. What SPRINT did doesn't make you not a liar.
>
> Again, how am I lying? Sprint signed me up for a contract to which I
> NEVER agreed. Is that *clear* enough for you? You are digging
> yourself into a large hole at this point, just stretching and
> searching for some "gotcha". But you can't find one because my story
> hasn't changed. The facts are the facts. I have not lied and any
> accusations to the contrary are pathetic attempts on your part to
> avoid the problems Sprint has.

Changing the subject, then pretending that was the subject to begin with?
Still lying, Justin. We were discussing the posting of alleged Executive
Services numbers. Not your case.

>
>> I have said NOTHING claiming or implying that the upper levels of
>> customer care should be inaccessible. I said publically posting
>> their numbers was a non-solution and abuse because it accomplishes
>> nothing but getting those numbers changed. And there's every reason
>> to believe you knew that when you fabricated my intent.
>
> Either you or another Sprint employee posted that escalation during a
> single phone call was only available for a floor supervisor. Any
> higher than that, and the phone call had to be returned. I caught
> Sprint lying. Again.

It does. That's the procedure. Using the numbers posted from an unofficial
web site, *that* is the topic at hand, Justin. You're still lying.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:TE36b.367923$uu5.71020@sccrnsc04...
> Justin Green wrote:
>
> >
> > Especially when you put words in my posts.
>
> No words, Justin. Those were EXACT quotes from your first post.

No, you just put brackets around some of my words for emphasis, right?
Moron.

> -+-
> RØß
> O/Siris
> I work for Sprint
> I *don't* speak for them
>
>

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:kI36b.365493$o%2.164411@sccrnsc02...
> Justin Green wrote:
>
> >
> > I will never ask you for a discussion. That is the biggest set up
> > ever.
>
> You've already made that quite clear, Justin. That would involve *common*
> courtesy, and you don't go there.

It's not "common" to have to invite someone to discuss a topic. Not common
at all.

> > I don't know how many times I have to say this. I will not ask you.
>
> That's OK. You have the choice. It still makes you a hypocrite, but you
> *do* have that chocie.

You're the hypocrite. Refusing to discuss because you don't have the info,
then getting the info and still refusing, accusing me of NOT discussing it,
yet I discussed it in the first post, etc. Please, you're just making a
fool of yourself.

> > You don't deserve or command any special treatment or invitation.
>
> Nothing special about it. Common courtesy after having denied you wanted
it
> in the first place. Remember, "No one cares..."

Did you, by chance, REMEMBER the rest of that sentence? Geez, your failed
attempts at making my posts say something else are getting old.

> > I
> > will bash you up and down for refusing to discuss the topic in
> > another thread for lack of info, and then to spend days making lame
> > excuses and demanding uncommon courtesy you don't deserve.
>
> And you'll be a hypocrite the whole time. After specifically telling me
you
> don't care if I respond, there's nothing uncommon about seeking some
> courtesy from you, Justin. Especially since you seem to expect it of
> everyone else. Hence, hypocrite.

Nope, I discussed it in the first post. You have yet to discuss it.

> > No one,
> > especially you, needs an invitation. If your recent post is the
> > extent of your comments, fine. Sprint has poorly trained individuals
> > and individuals with poor or outdated attitudes. That explains a
> > lot. You seem to exemplify the problem with Sprint PCS. I guess you
> > are one of their "problems."
>
> Prove it, Justin, or remain the liar you've already proven yourself to be.

1) You're refusal to discuss posts, even after you've been given information
you requested.
2) Accusing people of being a liar (just like Sprint did when I told them a
CS rep had noted my account about the waiver)
3) Accusing me of being a hypocrite, when in fact, YOU are the one making
lame excuses.

Or maybe your talking about the comments about the CS reps being poorly
trained. These are comments I took from YOUR post. Training is apparently
an issue and policies have changed, attitudes have not.

No wonder you work as a CS rep. It's probably the only position you could
get.