Sprint committing outright FRAUD

>Nice to see that you use all of the facts presented to form an opinion. Oh,
>wait.....thats right.....you don't.

No I idea what you are talking about.

>The surveys say no such thing.

Look for a post last week entitled "Sprint PCS in Customers Last"
survey, or something to that effect. Also check out JD Powers ratings.

They do say such thing.


>A temporary stop means nothing.

No idea what that mean either.

>In order to have credibility, you must present something of worth.
>Generally more than personal opinion. Having not done that yourself, you
>therefore have no credibility.

Opinion duly noted.

> Rob, OTOH, has years of documented experience in the field.

What field? Is Rob a farmer?

>You have already admitted none.

I don't experience fields much, this is trye.

> You are the last one here that needs to be bringing up credibility as an issue.

Who should be the first one? Let's form a line.


>They were unimaginative due to the boring subject matter at hand.

The one that bored you so much that you felt compelled to read and
reply to?


>And this is why you will never have credibility here-

One correction if I may. "Here" and "with me" are not the same thing.
While we all like to think that we speak for the entire group, the fact
is that none of us do. I am sure that some people agree with you ...
but I am not sure if "here" agree's with you.


>complaining about the insults and then begging for more will only create even >more credibility issues for you.


Okay, I have no "credibility" with you. Check. You made the point a
few times, therefore, it is duly noted.

I will contemplate whether to hang myself later for not being
"credible" with you (maintaining one's credibility with you pays so
well, and you have now taken that source of revenue from me) - but I
will go out on a limb and predict that I will get over it before taking
such drastic measures.

---

› See More: Sprint committing outright FRAUD

"FWIW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Nice to see that you use all of the facts presented to form an opinion.
> >Oh,
>>wait.....thats right.....you don't.
>
> No I idea what you are talking about.

This doesn't surprise me in the least.

>
>>The surveys say no such thing.
>
> Look for a post last week entitled "Sprint PCS in Customers Last"
> survey, or something to that effect. Also check out JD Powers ratings.
>
> They do say such thing.

I'm well acquainted with the surveys- its a part of my career. None of them
address hostility towards customers, as you claimed.

>
>
>>A temporary stop means nothing.
>
> No idea what that mean either.

Of course not- there was more to my statement than that. This is the
problem with taking things out of context.

>
>>In order to have credibility, you must present something of worth.
>>Generally more than personal opinion. Having not done that yourself, you
>>therefore have no credibility.
>
> Opinion duly noted.
>

And how do you determine credibility, if not by a presentation of facts? By
the sound of someone's name?

>This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Good.

>I'm well acquainted with the surveys- its a part of my career. None of them
>address hostility towards customers, as you claimed.

Why, in your opinion, do they rank "poor" in customer service?

>Of course not- there was more to my statement than that. This is the
>problem with taking things out of context.

As a matter of fact, yes, I do like fried bananas. Thanks for asking.

>And how do you determine credibility, if not by a presentation of facts? By
>the sound of someone's name?

By the number of time someone posts "credibility" in one day.

So far, you're winning!!!!

"FWIW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >There you go again with that "we" crap. It sounds like you aren't just a
>>bigot, but schitzo as well.
>
>
> Ahhhh, now THAT post that fosters credibility "Bigot", "Schitzo" ....
> beautiful.
>
> This is how you are defending the Sprint Rep? No great surprise I
> suppose. Hostility toward the customer. "We" (more than one of us
> according to some survey's) are well familiar with it.
>
> Perhaps my lack of ad-hominem attacks is what has you bamboozled, Bob.
>
> Apparently you equate the two with "credibility".
>
> But, i'm not sure if they are one and the same.
>
> I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion.
>
> I like the addition of "schitzo", however. It was a nice departure
> from all of the other unimaginative insults that were flying around the
> group earlier.
>
> Might I suggest that in the next post you somehow denegrate the
> reputation of my mother, or perhaps insult the size of my penis?

No need to. You are doing a fine job denegrating yourself ... all on your
own. As it stands now, I believe there is one more description that applies
to you, and that is a troll and as such, not worthy of any further replies
by yours truly.

Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::

> I believe there is one more description that applies to you, and that is a troll


Surely "Godwin's Law" mentions the word "troll" as it is neck and neck
with "nazi" when used as a thread stopper.


>not worthy of any further replies by yours truly.


But, I was worthy of quite a few before now. Cool!


>Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::


That will give you hairy palms, Bob.

>Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::

You surfing that Olsen twins site again, Bob.




(oh, Gosh ... so many responses, so little time)

>Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::

You should. Rob says it's starting to get sore back there.

>Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::

Did that pump you ordered just arrive?

O/Siris wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Steve Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>Lyle,
>>>
>>>Sorry to hear about the "free phone" fraudulent scam they pulled on you.
>>> I also was a victim of fraud but it was different than yours, but maybe
>>>I can help you get your problem resolved. My problem involved the
>>>warranty on the phone for which I paid a monthly charge of $5.00. I
>>>lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was
>>>told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned
>>>in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me.
>>
>>You must have received some seriously weird documentation. The $10
>>(warranty replacement) and $50 (non-warranty replacement) deductibles
>>were clearly disclosed when I purchased my phone with the equipment
>>replacement option.
>
>
> Weird documentation, or weird promises verbally. But he's apparently
> not interested in any discussion that questions what happened.
>
I've answered every question that was asked. There was NO documentation
that mentioned a deductible! What more can I say? What more can I tell
you that happened, that I haven't already told you? I got my money, I'm
happy about that, but I'm not happy about how they continue to rip
people off and then try and defend their actions.

Steve Henderson

Lyle Walsh wrote:
> Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So I
> called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I have
> 3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another. "Keep
> it its free, save it in case one of your phones break".

Heh! There's gotta be more to this story. I have NEVER seen that
happen before.

> So guess what, they
> activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!!

It's very likely someone ordered that phone "on your behalf." Are you
sure no one in your household hasn't been messing around with your
credit cards or that someone hasn't gained access to your online account?



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

The Eggman wrote:
> that's why i never get the ERP....all the money you put into it and they
> still want more money from you

That's what insurance *is*.

> ....and the funny thing is, it only costs them
> like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...

HAH! you're SERIOUSLY deluded if you think that. In fact most phones
cost a LOT more than you pay for.



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

Central wrote:

> Yeah for the first 12 months it is not worth it since just about all
> phones come with a 1yr limited warranty.

The 1yr limited warranty doesn't cover physical damage due to abuse and
doesn't cover theft or loss. That's where the insurance plan comes in
handy.




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

Steve Henderson wrote:

>> I'm glad your situation was solved, but you're wrong nonetheless. ERP
>> (Equipment Replacement Plan) has *always* had a deductible payment on
>> it. It's mentioned in the pamphlet, it's mentioned on the website,
>> and it always has been.
>
>
> I am NOT wrong.

Why, because "the customer is always right" even when they're wrong?

> It was never mentioned in my contract, which is the
> legally binding document that the Sprint representative and I signed.

The Equipment Replacement Plan isn't part of your service contract. ERP
is an add-on agreement administered by a different company, of which
Sprint is merely an agent. And the ERP contract is readily available
for you to access, right here:

http://tinyurl.com/99p3j

> There was no mention to check their website for further details or check
> a pamphlet which they never gave me and which they didn't even stock in
> the store.

So, you just signed up for something that you knew nothing at all about,
and did NO research on it at all before agreeing to pay a premium? Are
you normally in the habit of doing that? If so, I have quite a bit of
"insurance" to sell you.

> As a consumer, I am not responsible for searching their
> website for information.

This is the most brazenly negligent thing I have EVER heard ANYONE say.

> I have homeowners insurance, car insurance and health insurance and the
> deductibles for each are specifically mentioned in the contracts.

And before you signed ANYTHING or sent them a check, I'm sure you read
the policy in writing top to bottom, didn't you? So why didn't you do
the same when you signed up for equipment insurance?

Oh wait, of COURSE you didn't read your homeowners or car insurance
policy because being informed is NOT your responsibility. My bad.

> If Sprint/Lockline was right, they wouldn't have given in to the
> Attorney General's office.

No, typically companies will settle frivolous complaints and write it
off as the cost of doing business because it's cheaper and less effort
than fighting for what's right. ANd the end result is that honest
customers pay higher costs to defray such settlements (though
admittedly, the costs would have been higher if the company fought the
case).

That is the sad tale of inequity in the US Civil Justice System.

> Do you think the Attorney General's office would have
> wasted their time if I didn't have a legal case?

Elliot Spitzer has brought MANY frivolous cases to trial at taxpayer's
expense, because he wants to look good to people like you when he runs
for governor, in the hopes that you'll vote for him. Many of those
cases were settled out of court, but quite a few of the ones that were
actually brought to trial, Spitzer has lost. But hey, it's no sweat off
his back because he can spend taxpayer money to be a letigious nag for a
living. Many of the people and companies on the receiving end of that,
however, don't have the same luxury.

> I sent them a copy of
> the contract and the facts. They must have thought that I had a case
> because they pursued it for me and I prevailed.

No, Elliot just wants your gullible butt in the polls next election to
vote for him, I'm afraid.

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

Steve Henderson wrote:

> You are wrong again! The contract I signed, specifically mentioned the
> add-ons such as text messaging charges, insurance/extended warranty
> charges, etc. Once again, that is what contracts are for. Maybe my
> contract is different from the one you signed.

Yes, the rest of us didn't get the illiterate-schizophrenic version of
the contract. We got the real version.

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Steve Henderson wrote:
>
>> You are wrong again! The contract I signed, specifically mentioned
>> the add-ons such as text messaging charges, insurance/extended
>> warranty charges, etc. Once again, that is what contracts are for.
>> Maybe my contract is different from the one you signed.
>
>
> Yes, the rest of us didn't get the illiterate-schizophrenic version of
> the contract. We got the real version.
>
Isaiah,

By the nasty response to my post, I can only surmise that you are
another Sprint employee, lurking here, trying (and succeeding) to chase
more customers away.

Why can't you see that if the Attorney General of New York thought I had
a case of fraud against Sprint, then there must be something to it?

What I had wasn't a contract. It was an amateurish attempt at mimicking
a contract.

The "illiterate-schizophrenic" version of my contract wasn't produced by
me, it was produced by your company, Sprint! I agree with you that
everybody should get the "real" version and then there wouldn't be this
case of fraud filed against Sprint, whcih they LOST!

Steve Henderson