o/siris confessed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-A70A48.11280921042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > > SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> > > SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> > > SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.
> >
> > Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
> > personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.
>
> Thank you. I rest my case

You rest your case? WTF is that suppose to mean?

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Mike wrote:
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> > spamtrap@zbuffer.com (Mike) wrote:
> > <<Keep in mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by
> > Sprint subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS
> > nerds. >>
> >
> > Hey, who do you think you are calling me a nerd?! I haven't been called
> > a nerd since... Sunday when I was price matching Best Buy/Circuit City
> > ads from the morning paper. LOL
> >
> > Sorry, just LOL anytime I see the word "nerd". It has to be the
> > funniest one-word insult of the 80s. :)
> >
> > Eric
> >
>
> HaHa! (snort)
>
> (Pushes glasses up)

Not just "glasses," but glasses with white tape holding the bridge together! <g>

Larry
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <1Uvhc.5158$e4.4390@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
>
>
>
> Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
> wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.

Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
record of readily admitting to his mistakes.

"Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little ruffled.

-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Granted,
> it's good to know that savings are available

Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
shall continue to do.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Mdyhc.5375$e4.5059@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <xFxhc.5324$e4.1726@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert M. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
> >>>>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
> >>>>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
> >>>>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
> >>>>bringing resolution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
> >>>be recalled aren't.
> >>
> >>I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
> >>the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
> >
> >
> > If it can't do analog calling, but is sold as being able to, then if one
> > has an emergency inand needs to use Analog, tragic things could happen.
> >
> > That is the exact issue with the Samsung 8500
>
> What is the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?

Apparently by SprintPCS, never do it.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-9760D5.12030521042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert M. wrote:
> > > In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> > >>
> > >>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> > >
> > >
> > > Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >
> > "Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
>
> But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.

No, it isn't. Say, considering you have an problem with posting your name
and email address, why don't you post that information, instead of hiding
behind 65 different identities?

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Granted,
>>it's good to know that savings are available
>
>
> Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> shall continue to do.

So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
as you failed to address them in your response.
-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert M. wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> >>>>
> >>>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >>
> >>"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
> >
> >
> > But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.
>
> So, what should those that read your posts do, now that they know that
> Sprint PCS has non-secret retention deals? Should we leave Sprint
> because they're so sinister for having these non-secret deals? Granted,
> it's good to know that savings are available, but your posts make these
> deals sound like some shady dealings by an underhanded wireless
> provider. I sure think you have a cause, because each time you mention
> these things, you write them as if they're important, but I just can't
> understand what the big deal is.
> -mike

Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
reasonable answers ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <1Uvhc.5158$e4.4390@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
> > wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.
>
> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> -mike

I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
attacking Rob on any and everything ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Bob Smith wrote:

> Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
> reasonable answers ...
>
> Bob

Because his reply was written in such a way that he only addressed the
savings related to retention plans, ignoring the rest of my post, I
suspect he's only interested in eligible SprintPCS subscribers saving money.

I think he just assigns this secret cloak and dagger thing to make the
retension plans seem more "spicy."

He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.
-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Bob Smith wrote:

>
> I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> attacking Rob on any and everything ...
>
> Bob

I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <zuyhc.5394$e4.2206@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
> offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.

Only in the secrecy surrounding them.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <umyhc.5386$e4.680@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Granted,
> >>it's good to know that savings are available
> >
> >
> > Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> > shall continue to do.
>
> So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
> publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
> as you failed to address them in your response.
> -mike

ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little ruffled.

I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.

I think that fully earns him the title

embarressment of SprintPCS.

He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
contradicting themselves.

- What me know about the A500?

- What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?

- What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?

and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
calling, etc.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <2yyhc.5398$e4.3576@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?

I basically see Rob as overly loyal to his employer. He would get called
on incorrect posts for his former employer also.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

> I basically see Rob as overly loyal to his employer. He would get called
> on incorrect posts for his former employer also.

Oh, really. And who would this former employer be, and can you give Message-IDs
that we can look up on Google?

**SJ "Not holding my breath for an answer" S


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:2yyhc.5398$e4.3576@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
> -mike


Because Phillipe and his 64 other ID's show he's a troll ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.

I did. Thank you for your agreement that there is nothing sinister about
these plans. I was under the impression that that was your purpose - to
make it look as if Sprint were somehow dishonest for offering these
plans. I just failed to recognize your flair for the dramatic. At times,
I've been accused of having such a flair offline. :)
-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-F1924E.13112421042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> > with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> > record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
> >
> > "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> > Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> > also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.
>
> I think that fully earns him the title
>
> embarressment of SprintPCS.
>
> He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
> giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
> of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
> shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
> contradicting themselves.
>
> - What me know about the A500?
>
> - What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?
>
> - What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?
>
> and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
> caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
> calling, etc.

See what I mean Mike ... He does have a hard-on for Rob ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.

Aww... You kids...

You beat him up a little on the 8200/7300 flash issue too, so don't act
like it was just him. :)

I know you two enjoy it. :)
-mike
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <TNyhc.5416$e4.4357@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> As you'll recall, we've established that there is no secrecy.

Only by your definition.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <aXyhc.5434$e4.435@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.
>
> I did. Thank you for your agreement that there is nothing sinister about
> these plans. I was under the impression that that was your purpose - to
> make it look as if Sprint were somehow dishonest for offering these
> plans. I just failed to recognize your flair for the dramatic. At times,
> I've been accused of having such a flair offline. :)

I just firmly believe advertised plans would serve SprintPCS better as
it attempts to retain customers.

Of course a total revamp of its billing and CSR procedures would also
help.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> Only by your definition.

As we've established that the plans are unpublished, and we've
established that unpublished does not mean secret, I would say that we
have. I have a supporting url:

http://m-w.com

-mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom