Sprint PCS Service

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Phill. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > He'd also be stuck with the $36 activation fee, and about $5 of taxes
> > > and "fees".
> >
> Yes, and? Sprint makes no bones about the fact that the fee is
> non-refundable.

But Isaiah Beard, who urged the questioner to just sign up with Sprint
and try it for 14 days and they'd only have to pay for 2 weeks service
omitted the other $41 they'd be hit with.

So yes, it is in Sprint's fine print, but Isaiah completely omitted it,
and I thought it proper to educate the potential Sprint Customer that
the trial is not completely without obligation.

---

› See More: Sprint PCS Service

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Phill. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He'd also be stuck with the $36 activation fee, and about $5 of
taxes
> > > > and "fees".
> > >
> > Yes, and? Sprint makes no bones about the fact that the fee is
> > non-refundable.
>
> But Isaiah Beard, who urged the questioner to just sign up with Sprint
> and try it for 14 days and they'd only have to pay for 2 weeks service
> omitted the other $41 they'd be hit with.
>
> So yes, it is in Sprint's fine print, but Isaiah completely omitted it,
> and I thought it proper to educate the potential Sprint Customer that
> the trial is not completely without obligation.

Don't bother educating them. Let them find out for themselves, then they
can think twice before they take the advice of someone from usenet.

After all, we've seen Rob posting misinformation, we've seen Sprint Tech
posting misinformation, and the new guy has posted misinformation. Overall,
I'd say the three of them together are a fair representation of the Sprint
PCS *2 team, contradicting each other, correcting each other, leaving out
info, etc.

And they wonder why Sprint has problems? These three monkeys do this FOR A
LIVING.

Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Dude, I originally said "how about an answer to Bob Smith's question"
>> a day or two ago.
>
>
> "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed to you about
> your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
>
> 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.

I _ORIGINALLY_ asked the question a day or two ago. Read and respond to
the entire message. My point was, I've bugged him enough about it. I'm
not going to let the argument drag for weeks just because someone isn't
saying what I want to hear.

> You were until now, but we'll see.

No, I've never publically dragged out a feud for the length of time you
and Rob have publically argued yours.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Phill. <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
>
> Its been mentioned in other posts, and if I repeat it Smith will
> complain about OLD stuff being posted. Sorry you missed it.

If you did indeed say it and I missed it, I apologize.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's ok that Steven considers pestering you about your names an example of
> being a hypocrite, two or three days ago, yet pestering about the other
> question Bob asked you does not make him a hypocrite.

Show me where I've said something about the change of names more than once.

Feel free to point me to any of the posts of mine that are archived at
Google.

That's not "pestering", and I already addressed your other point.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Phill. <[email protected]> wrote:

> But Isaiah Beard, who urged the questioner to just sign up with Sprint
> and try it for 14 days and they'd only have to pay for 2 weeks service
> omitted the other $41 they'd be hit with.
>
> So yes, it is in Sprint's fine print, but Isaiah completely omitted it,
> and I thought it proper to educate the potential Sprint Customer that
> the trial is not completely without obligation.

I agree that it was a mistake for Isaiah not to point out that the activation
fee was refundable. However, it's the Sprint reps' job to point that out. If
THEY don't, there is a problem. If the poster goes to a sprint store and gets
a hold of someone with clue (yes, standard disclaimers apply, I know there
are plenty of Sprint PCS employees who don't have clue), and gives a rat's
ass about service, they will make sure to give her all of the details. I
don't think Isaiah works for Sprint.

--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

>> So yes, it is in Sprint's fine print, but Isaiah completely omitted it,
>> and I thought it proper to educate the potential Sprint Customer that
>> the trial is not completely without obligation.
>
> Don't bother educating them. Let them find out for themselves, then they
> can think twice before they take the advice of someone from usenet.

It shouldn't matter - the Sprint rep who activates the phone is the one who
is _obligated_ to explain the details like the non-refundable activation fee.
If the Sprint rep doesn't, there is a problem.

I can only offer the one experience I've ever had activating an SPCS phone,
and it was mentioned to me that the fee isn't refundable at the time I
turned on the service. I would hope others have had the same experience,
though I suspect there are more than a few who weren't told.


--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> >
> > "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed to
you about
> > your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
> >
> > 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
>
> Its been mentioned in other posts, and if I repeat it Smith will
> complain about OLD stuff being posted. Sorry you missed it.

So, now you are speaking for me as well Phillippe?

Bob

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > > "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed
to you
> about
> > > your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
> > >
> > > 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
> >
> > Its been mentioned in other posts, and if I repeat it Smith will
> > complain about OLD stuff being posted. Sorry you missed it.
>
>
> Exactly, Bob is apparently getting up in his age and he forgets
things, asks
> questions more than once, grumbles that you repeat things over, then
points
> out that you mi*****ed sumething.
> It's ok that Steven considers pestering you about your names an
example of
> being a hypocrite, two or three days ago, yet pestering about the
other
> question Bob asked you does not make him a hypocrite.

The only hypocrite here on this newsgroup is Phillippe. He likes to
plonk people who have a colorful language, and you have had more
colorful posts than everyone else, yet he still replies to your posts
....

Bob
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The only hypocrite here on this newsgroup is Phillippe. He likes to
> plonk people who have a colorful language

It is totally indefensive to try to excuse oneself for using obscene
language in a group that may be visited by minors. Its done when one
isn't on solid ground in a discussion. Thank you for restraining
yourself lately.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > > "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed to
> you about
> > > your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
> > >
> > > 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
> >
> > Its been mentioned in other posts, and if I repeat it Smith will
> > complain about OLD stuff being posted. Sorry you missed it.
>
> So, now you are speaking for me as well Phillippe?
>
> Bob

Just pointing oput your duplicity. You can't have it both ways.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

(unsnipped as it explains everything)
>> > > "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed to
> you about
> > > your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
> > >
> > > 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
> >
> > Its been mentioned in other posts, and if I repeat it Smith will
> > complain about OLD stuff being posted. Sorry you missed it.
> > > So, now you are speaking for me as well Phillippe?
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Just pointing oput your duplicity. You can't have it both ways.

Complaining you haven't seen already posted things versus
Complaining things aree posted repeatedly.

>
> Huhhh? My duplicity? What the hell are you talking about? What both
> ways?



>
> Bob

Wonderful snipping there.

You insults will be counter productive, time to change my ALIAS.

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's ok that Steven considers pestering you about your names an example
of
> > being a hypocrite, two or three days ago, yet pestering about the other
> > question Bob asked you does not make him a hypocrite.
>
> Show me where I've said something about the change of names more than
once.


Yesterday you asked him about a different question Bob Smith had asked him.
So if it's OK for you to pester Phillipe about why he called CS, it's OK for
me to pester Rob to get him to answer all his baseless accusation.



> Feel free to point me to any of the posts of mine that are archived at
> Google.

I already did - I quoted you.

> That's not "pestering", and I already addressed your other point.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Dude, I originally said "how about an answer to Bob Smith's question"
> >> a day or two ago.
> >
> >
> > "So Phil, when are you going to answer that question Bob posed to you
about
> > your complaint? Still haven't seen details."
> >
> > 9-24-2003, Steven J Sobol, approximately ONE HOUR ago.
>
> I _ORIGINALLY_ asked the question a day or two ago. Read and respond to
> the entire message. My point was, I've bugged him enough about it. I'm
> not going to let the argument drag for weeks just because someone isn't
> saying what I want to hear.
>
> > You were until now, but we'll see.
>
> No, I've never publically dragged out a feud for the length of time you
> and Rob have publically argued yours.


You're still being a biased hypocrite. Pestering Phillipe, yet you don't
want me to pester Rob.



> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.sprintpcs:115961

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

> It shouldn't matter - the Sprint rep who activates the phone is the one who
> is _obligated_ to explain the details like the non-refundable activation fee.
> If the Sprint rep doesn't, there is a problem.


Don't bother Stephen. The activation fee is blatantly obvious to anyone
who walks into a Sprint store and activates a phone. I see no reason to
justify any "omission."