Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

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

>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Semantics again. If it was IN a fire, it obviously is not covered by
>> any manufacturer's warranty; talk to your homeowners insurance.
>>
>
> But there was no fire so homeowners insurance won't cover it. What do
> you do now?
>

That answer is very simple really. *I* don't do anything because I don't
care.

Then again, if a tree falls in a forest and noone is around to hear it -
is Steven P McNicoll still an idiot?
Yup.

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

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

>
> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You go buy a new TV, dummy. TV warranties don't cover your home
>> catching on
>> fire.
>>
>
> The home didn't catch on fire, the TV burst into flames 4 weeks after
> bringing it home.
>

Obviously the TV manufacturer is responsible and th esource of the fire
can easily be traced to determine who/what is truly at fault.

So, are you now claiming the Sanyo handset first burst into flames inside
your daughter's purse and she only was putting out the fire with the
leaky water-bottle and therefore it should be covered under warranty by
Sanyo/sprint?

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Obviously the TV manufacturer is responsible and th esource of the fire
> can easily be traced to determine who/what is truly at fault.
>

Of course. But they still claim it was in a fire. What do you do?

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:24:24 GMT, John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wrong! You ACCEPTED the replacement deal. You ACCEPTED the
>>replacement phone. Which means contractually you ACCEPTED the
>>terms which required you to return the old phone within 10 days.
>
> I think it's time to quit argueing with the troll. It's as pointless as
> argueing with an email autoresponder.

I have to agree with you. I might as well be arguing with a robot.
Let's kill this thread.

--
John Richards

In article <[email protected]>, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If you choose not to abide by Sprint's terms, they have every right to
>> refuse
>> to uphold their end of the agreement.
>>
>
> And if Sprint chooses not to abide by their terms, I have every right to
> refuse to uphold my end of the agreement.

Right, but where did they not? As I understand it, you got charged because
you didn't return the phone within 10 days, and you kept the phone not because
they HAD failed to uphold their end, but because you were CONCERNED that
they were GOING TO fail to uphold their end. Try spinning if you wish, but the
last part of this assertion comes from MANY posts that you made.

Thanks for playing. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like debating with you
anymore, since you're just looking for a reason to complain.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

"Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Thanks for playing. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like debating with
> you
> anymore, since you're just looking for a reason to complain.
>

You weren't debating.

At 09 Nov 2006 17:01:59 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> More word play. No one cares what you "agreed" to do; did you keep the
> old phone or not? You claim you kept it. Case closed, you lose.
>
> I should become an arbitrator. This stuff is easy! (This case,
> anyway.)

Hence the "reasonable person" standard so common in law... ;-)


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Thanks for playing. I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like debating with
>> you
>> anymore, since you're just looking for a reason to complain.
>>
>
> You weren't debating.
>
And neither were you...you have done nothing but whine, complain and attempt
to defend your own indefensible actions. You *ARE* an idiot.
you have a lot of growing up to do. One day, when you reach adulthood, and
have more than your own self centered ideology to deal with, you will
realize how wrong you are in this regard. I, like so many others, am adding
you to my killfile, as you are stupid and ignorant and refuse to listen to
reason, consider truth and fact, and would not know logic if it slapped you
in the face.

Honu

And the trueth comes out...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Dear Christopher,
> What she actually told Ms. Blondheim was that the phone was in her
> canvas purse along with a bottle of drinking water. She noticed a wet spot
> on the side of her purse. She immediately opened the purse, removed the
> phone, and sealed the bottle tightly. She examined the phone and found no
> water on it, then placed it in a pocket. All she told Ms. Blondheim was
> that the phone MAY have gotten wet. She didn't know for certain if it had
> or had not.

Yet the phone mysteriously stops working after this incident, and your
daughter felt it necessary to inform Ms. Blondheim of this fact. If I
were in her shoes, I too would've connected the dots.


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