Sprint PCS receives "Customers Last" Award.

>Anecdotal evidence is about as reliable as the Weekly World News.

What about Customer Service survey's combined with anecdotal evidence?

I just don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy against Sprint.
And for these surveys to reflect negatively and for so many people to
relay complaints, there would pretty much have to be a national
vendetta against Sprint for it all to be inaccurate.

Perhaps that is your theory, but I don't think that is the case.

I think Sprint simply has a major problem in that area that they need
to correct. Pretending the problem doesn't exist, or pretending it is
the fault of the customer hasn't worked to date. Maybe it's time to
address the issue from the inside.

No offense, you're a great spin doctor and as loyal as Karl Rove - but
probably only .01% of Sprint users read this group so they need more
than a Customer-bashing rep on a newsgroup to turn the problem around.

---

› See More: Sprint PCS receives "Customers Last" Award.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> What about Customer Service survey's combined with anecdotal evidence?
>
>

The two are not related. Surveys don't address call-specific issues,
and call-specific issues can't logically be tied to overall performance
measurements on large scales.

For example: Getting one knowledgeable rep doesn't mean the provider
doesn't have an issue with lack of training. Nor does a low ranking for
rep competence mean the customer automatically spoke to an incompetent
rep.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Ah, the new buzzword of the day is "evasion".
>
> Evading what? Nobody knows.
>

Ah yes, after belittling several others for making claims as if speaking
for others, the forum's most recent resident hypocrite engages in same
himself.

What your evading is the very point you raised in the first place.

Rather than admit your prejudices are without logical basis, you engage
in belittling the language others choose to utilize in posting here,
even when that language is properly used.

A textbook example of evasion on your part.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I provided the evidence.
>

Not true. You're adding dishonesty to your repertoire.

Pointing off in some vague direction is not providing evidence. It's
exercising intellectual laziness.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

>Rather than admit your prejudices are without logical basis, you >engage in belittling the language others choose to utilize in posting >here,even when that language is properly used.
>
>A textbook example of evasion on your part.

I'm sure someone, heck, maybe everyone understands what you are
babbling about.

Except me.

I think it is some kind of vague "I don't like you or what you are
saying" post.

Which has been duly noted.

>Not true.

True.

>You're adding dishonesty to your repertoire.

Actually, I am not.

>Pointing off in some vague direction is not providing evidence. It's
>exercising intellectual laziness.

Not reading a thread, and asking someone to re-post what they have
already posted is lazy.

Pointing to the posts you have already made is not "intellecutally
lazy".


Here, how about this:

You have never posted anything addressing the $50 deductible for
Lockline Insurance. You have also never addressed a Sprint issue.

Unless you post what you said about it, you are intellectually lazy and
are evading the subject. And unless you repost all of the responses, it
will be my official position that you are evading the Lockline issue,
and Sprint in general.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I think
>

That would be a new activity for you.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Not reading a thread, and asking someone to re-post what they have
> already posted is lazy.
>
More dishonesty. You've done no such thing.

> You have never posted anything addressing the $50 deductible for
> Lockline Insurance.

Y'know, there's a chance that this is true. However, what it has to do
with your accusation that I'm posting hate is incomprehensible.

But, I'm curious, what about that deductible was I supposed to address?

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Unless you post what you said about it, you are intellectually lazy and
> are evading the subject. And unless you repost all of the responses, it
> will be my official position that you are evading the Lockline issue,
> and Sprint in general.
>

You're WAY off in left field. Out past the bleachers and into the
street beyond.

What Lockline issue?

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

>You're WAY off in left field. Out past the bleachers and into the
>street beyond.

Huh?