Sprint PCS - Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

Author

Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to service as a
refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?

Zman

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

99.99999999999% of the time it has become a soggy paper weight. I have only
seen one survive in the last 7 years....

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:mX%3h.3413$L6.2801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to service as
a
> refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?
>
>

Bill Marriott

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

a) Why do you care? A Sprint phone is locked into the Sprint network. Unlike
GSM-based phones with SIM cards, it can never be used on another network. At
least not without some serious hacking, and then there is the question of
whether the other network would accept a "foreign" ESN. Your busted phone is
worthless at this point. The whole question of whether it was water damaged
or not and whether it can be repaired or not was moot after they sent you
the new phone + service credit and you took your intractable and hysterical
"I'll activate the new phone but keep the broken one until I please"
position.

b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in which
you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not customer
service representatives who will acquiesce and pretend to like it, just to
keep a customer; or issue you a new phone just to make you quiet. We're just
regular everyday consumers who like to "stick it to the big corporations" as
much as the next guy, but won't be bludgeoned into changing our minds....
and who tried to show you the error of your ways. (Not one person agreed
with your ultimate decision, did you notice?)

c) Immersed electronics are repaired all the time. My friend recently got
her iPod back after a $50 repair; she dropped it into the tub. Many other
people have reported fixing their waterlogged iPods but taking them apart
and using a blow dryer. On the other hand I am sure there is water damage
that is so extensive that nothing can be salvaged. Water can cause shorts
and shorts can fry components real good.

Electronic devices are collections of components. Repairing them is a matter
of identifying the unusable component and replacing it. The logic board may
be shot, but the screen can be re-used, for example. The innards may be
toast, but the shell/casing could be recycled to repair a unit that has a
cracked or badly scratched case.

Oh yeah, I get it now. You're trying to follow some kind of quasi-legal
theory where Sprint has a responsibility to "limit their damages" and cannot
come after you for the full cost of the phone. Can't say I wish you luck in
that. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:mX%3h.3413$L6.2801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to service as
> a refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?
>

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

"Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:IL04h.8277$B31.4795@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> 99.99999999999% of the time it has become a soggy paper weight. I have
> only
> seen one survive in the last 7 years....
>

That's what I thought. But in another thread I've been told that such
phones have value to Sprint because they can send them back to Sanyo and be
reimbursed under the warranty Sanyo extends to Sprint. Sprint then provides
them to users as refurbished phones. It seemed unlikely to me, that's why I
asked the question. But it's just a guess on my part, is it on yours as
well or do you have some expertise?

Notan

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:IL04h.8277$B31.4795@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> That's what I thought. But in another thread I've been told that such
> phones have value to Sprint because they can send them back to Sanyo and be
> reimbursed under the warranty Sanyo extends to Sprint. Sprint then provides
> them to users as refurbished phones. It seemed unlikely to me, that's why I
> asked the question. But it's just a guess on my part, is it on yours as
> well or do you have some expertise?

I've yet to hear about a drenched phone that was covered under a warranty.

Notan

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 10:33 am

"Notan" <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote in message
news:4550A066.29B05215@ddress.thatcanbespammed...
>
> I've yet to hear about a drenched phone that was covered under a warranty.
>

Nor have I, but at least one person in another thread said they're covered
under Sanyo's warranty to Sprint. I believe he's mistaken.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
news:a46dndpErMRTAM3
YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> a) Why do you care? A Sprint phone is locked into the Sprint network.
> Unlike GSM-based phones with SIM cards, it can never be used on another
> network. At least not without some serious hacking, and then there is the
> question of whether the other network would accept a "foreign" ESN. Your
> busted phone is worthless at this point.
>

It doesn't seem to be worthless to Sprint. Why do you suppose that is?

>
> The whole question of whether it
> was water damaged or not and whether it can be repaired or not was moot
> after they sent you the new phone + service credit and you took your
> intractable and hysterical "I'll activate the new phone but keep the
> broken one until I please" position.
>

Given that Sprint maintains the phone was immersed it doesn't seem to be
worth the postage to ship it back. Yet they included a prepaid return
mailer with the new phone. Why did they do that? Why do they want the old
phone? If they truly believe the phone was immersed then it has no value
and the cost of shipping is an unnecessary waste.

On the other hand, if the Sprint representatives who couldn't find any water
damage recorded their findings, or if Sprint actually did a follow-up and
contacted them, Sprint would know that their first representative that
examined the phone refused to honor a valid warranty. That would certainly
be good reason to want the phone returned.

Of course, it would also mean they're lying when they maintain it was
immersed, that they cannot be trusted, and that I made the right decision to
retain the phone to the end of the contract term.

>
> b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in
> which you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not
> customer service representatives who will acquiesce and pretend to like
> it, just to keep a customer; or issue you a new phone just to make you
> quiet. We're just regular everyday consumers who like to "stick it to the
> big corporations" as much as the next guy, but won't be bludgeoned into
> changing our minds.... and who tried to show you the error of your ways.
> (Not one person agreed with your ultimate decision, did you notice?)
>

Who do you presume to speak for?

>
> Oh yeah, I get it now. You're trying to follow some kind of quasi-legal
> theory where Sprint has a responsibility to "limit their damages" and
> cannot come after you for the full cost of the phone.
>

My theory is I would owe Sprint for the full cost of the phone if it shows
evidence of water damage, and nothing if it does not. That's what their
subscriber's agreement states.

>
> Can't say I wish you
> luck in that. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
>

Does that not also apply to Sprint?

Hemant Shah

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

While stranded on information super highway Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:IL04h.8277$B31.4795@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> That's what I thought. But in another thread I've been told that such
> phones have value to Sprint because they can send them back to Sanyo and be
> reimbursed under the warranty Sanyo extends to Sprint. Sprint then provides
> them to users as refurbished phones. It seemed unlikely to me, that's why I
> asked the question. But it's just a guess on my part, is it on yours as
> well or do you have some expertise?

I was listening to a radio show yesterday and the host was discussing same
topic. Couple of callers called and said that they put their phones in an
oven at 200 degrees for couple of hours and were able to use the phone. One
caller mentions that he put his phone in his car near windshield defroster
and turned it on to remove the moisture, I think you can do the same thing by
putting the phone on the vent in your home during winter to get rid of
moisture.

>
>

--
Hemant Shah /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
E-mail: NoJunkMailshah@xnet.com \ / ---------------------
X against HTML mail
TO REPLY, REMOVE NoJunkMail / \ and postings
FROM MY E-MAIL ADDRESS.
-----------------[DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL]------------------
I haven't lost my mind, Above opinions are mine only.
it's backed up on tape somewhere. Others can have their own.

Zman

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

No manufacturer or provider will cover a water-damaged phone under warranty.

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:O714h.3316$l25.1965@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:IL04h.8277$B31.4795@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> That's what I thought. But in another thread I've been told that such
> phones have value to Sprint because they can send them back to Sanyo and
be
> reimbursed under the warranty Sanyo extends to Sprint. Sprint then
provides
> them to users as refurbished phones. It seemed unlikely to me, that's why
I
> asked the question. But it's just a guess on my part, is it on yours as
> well or do you have some expertise?
>
>

Zman

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

Mmmmm, slow roasted phone.... (drool)

"Hemant Shah" <shah@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
news:eiqfm9$hic$1@ne
w7.xnet.com...
> While stranded on information super highway Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
be[color=darkred]
provides[color=darkr
ed]
why I[color=darkred]
>
> I was listening to a radio show yesterday and the host was discussing
same
> topic. Couple of callers called and said that they put their phones in an
> oven at 200 degrees for couple of hours and were able to use the phone.
One
> caller mentions that he put his phone in his car near windshield
defroster
> and turned it on to remove the moisture, I think you can do the same
thing by
> putting the phone on the vent in your home during winter to get rid of
> moisture.
>
>
>
> --
> Hemant Shah /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
> E-mail: NoJunkMailshah@xnet.com \ / ---------------------
> X against HTML mail
> TO REPLY, REMOVE NoJunkMail / \ and postings
> FROM MY E-MAIL ADDRESS.
> -----------------[DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL]------------------
> I haven't lost my mind, Above opinions are mine only.
> it's backed up on tape somewhere. Others can have their own.

Bill Marriott

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

> It doesn't seem to be worthless to Sprint. Why do you suppose that is?

Worthless to YOU. Because of the possibility it could indeed be repaired, as
I described in my post in detail. D'oh. You're not even reading now, are
you? Just auto-posting the same thing over and over.

> Given that Sprint maintains the phone was immersed it doesn't seem to be
> worth the postage to ship it back. Yet they included a prepaid return
> mailer with the new phone. Why did they do that? Why do they want the
> old phone? If they truly believe the phone was immersed then it has no
> value and the cost of shipping is an unnecessary waste.

As I mentioned, they try to recycle every part of the phone possible. If an
immersed iPod can be serviced, a wet phone can be as well.

It doesn't even matter. Quid-pro-quo: We send you a good phone; you send us
the bad phone. I give props to Sprint for advance-shipping it ... a lot of
companies require the return of the defective unit BEFORE they send a
replacement one.

>
> Who do you presume to speak for?

Show me one post where someone has agreed with your "ultimate decision" --
to keep the defective phone through the end of your contract. There isn't
one. People have empathized with you and agreed you should have fought to
get the phone replaced for free. But at the point where you held on to the
phone, NOT ONE person has agreed that was the right thing to do.

Let me make it simple... you've had it explained so many times and so many
ways now, it's clear that YOU'RE the one trying to cheat the system now.
It's despicable, dishonest behavior. If you were ever in a store I owned,
I'd kick you out and threaten you with trespassing if you ever showed up
again.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

"Hemant Shah" <shah@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
news:eiqfm9$hic$1@ne
w7.xnet.com...
>
> I was listening to a radio show yesterday and the host was discussing same
> topic. Couple of callers called and said that they put their phones in an
> oven at 200 degrees for couple of hours and were able to use the phone.
> One
> caller mentions that he put his phone in his car near windshield defroster
> and turned it on to remove the moisture, I think you can do the same thing
> by
> putting the phone on the vent in your home during winter to get rid of
> moisture.
>

No, I can't do that because there isn't any moisture to get rid of. My
phone was not immersed, it was never even slightly damp, Sprint's agent just
declared it to have been immersed to avoid warranty coverage.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 12:33 pm

"Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vx34h.1131$6t.853@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> No manufacturer or provider will cover a water-damaged phone under
> warranty.
>

I didn't think so. That means Sprint was not cheated in any way by my
decision to return the phone at the end of the warranty period instead of
immediately as they desired.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
news:Q8- dnayCWvlmVc3YnZ2dnUV
Z_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Worthless to YOU. Because of the possibility it could indeed be repaired,
> as I described in my post in detail. D'oh. You're not even reading now,
> are you? Just auto-posting the same thing over and over.
>

But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was not
immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.

>
> As I mentioned, they try to recycle every part of the phone possible. If
> an immersed iPod can be serviced, a wet phone can be as well.
>

Yeah, yeah, I read your message. Sprint could have reused the shell.
Shipping the phone back costs them more than the shell is worth. They don't
want it back so they can reuse any of the parts, they want it back because
they know it wasn't immersed!

>
> It doesn't even matter. Quid-pro-quo: We send you a good phone; you send
> us the bad phone.

I agreed to return the phone, I simply informed them we'd be using a
different timetable than they desired. Quite reasonable under the
circumstances.

>
> I give props to Sprint for advance-shipping it ... a lot of companies
> require the return of the defective unit BEFORE they send a replacement
> one.
>

That would have been fine, if they had conceded that their agent had erred
when she declared the phone had been immersed and recognized that the phone
had failed and was being replaced under a valid warranty.

>
> Show me one post where someone has agreed with your "ultimate decision" --
> to keep the defective phone through the end of your contract. There isn't
> one. People have empathized with you and agreed you should have fought to
> get the phone replaced for free. But at the point where you held on to the
> phone, NOT ONE person has agreed that was the right thing to do.
>

Does that mean there are none out there? Responses in these forums tend to
challenge what is written in them, very few write to just say they agree.

>
> Let me make it simple... you've had it explained so many times and so many
> ways now, it's clear that YOU'RE the one trying to cheat the system now.
> It's despicable, dishonest behavior. If you were ever in a store I owned,
> I'd kick you out and threaten you with trespassing if you ever showed up
> again.

If your customer service was akin to Sprint's you would not be in business
very long.

Bill Marriott

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

> Does that mean there are none out there? Responses in these forums tend
> to challenge what is written in them, very few write to just say they
> agree.

Poor Mr. McNicoll, everyone's out to get you.

By this time, someone would have risen to your defense -- if you were
remotely defensible. "Me too" posts are very common. There are plenty
Sprint-haters here in this newsgroup, but not even they can bring themselves
to support you. It's clear that no amount of reasoning will work with you.
Yeah yeah, I know, it's because you're "right." Go ahead and "stay the
course."

All it boils down to is that you cannot overlook that one person in a
company of 75,000+ employees made a judgement about your phone that you
didn't agree with. (If you ask me, she realized you were a condescending,
arrogant prick and decided to stick it to ya.)

They eventually came around and that wasn't good enough for you. So you're
making up this whole theory that is completely novel in consumer law about
you being able to keep defective equipment as long as you like -- DESPITE
having the bill credit, DESPITE having and activating the new phone, DESPITE
having the box to ship it back, DESPITE haing the service credit, DESPITE
having it all in email.

Then you decide, "Oh, I'll get even with them! I'll post it all to the
Internet!" But so far the only person being embarassed by your story is...
you.

Let me tell you something, if you had played it differently you MIGHT have

- Had the very first rep pleasantly exchange your phone on the spot

- Maybe even gotten a free upgrade or significant credit toward a better
phone (happened in front of me to another customer while I was at a Sprint
store)

- Been able to call Sprint retentions with your tale of woe and gotten a
fantastic deal on your minutes/plan. I myself have 500 free text messages
and a 15% overall discount on my bill each month just because of a minor
issue with web access during my first 30 days.

I like to think it's because I know how to treat people nicely. But I guess
some people only know how to badger and beat what they want out of others.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
news:z_mdnZ0_2oPkSs3
YnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> All it boils down to is that you cannot overlook that one person in a
> company of 75,000+ employees made a judgement about your phone that you
> didn't agree with. (If you ask me, she realized you were a condescending,
> arrogant prick and decided to stick it to ya.)
>
> They eventually came around and that wasn't good enough for you.

They eventually came around? How so? Sprint still maintains that the phone
was immersed.

>
> So you're making up this whole theory that is completely novel in consumer
> law about you being able to keep defective equipment as long as you like
>

Please cite where I said that.

>
> -- DESPITE having the bill credit, DESPITE having and activating the new
> phone, DESPITE having the box to ship it back, DESPITE haing the service
> credit, DESPITE having it all in email.
>

I have it all in email? Sprint never conceded that their agent erred, they
maintain still maintain that the phone was immersed.

>
> Then you decide, "Oh, I'll get even with them! I'll post it all to the
> Internet!"

Aren't potential customers entitled to know about Sprint's practices?

>
> But so far the only person being embarassed by your story is... you.
>

I'm not at all embarassed by it. Why would I be?

>
> Let me tell you something, if you had played it differently you MIGHT have
>
> - Had the very first rep pleasantly exchange your phone on the spot
>
> - Maybe even gotten a free upgrade or significant credit toward a better
> phone (happened in front of me to another customer while I was at a Sprint
> store)
>
> - Been able to call Sprint retentions with your tale of woe and gotten a
> fantastic deal on your minutes/plan. I myself have 500 free text messages
> and a 15% overall discount on my bill each month just because of a minor
> issue with web access during my first 30 days.
>
> I like to think it's because I know how to treat people nicely. But I
> guess some people only know how to badger and beat what they want out of
> others.

Badger and beat? When did I do that? Was I not always polite?

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:9l44h.3399$l25.1355@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:Q8- dnayCWvlmVc3YnZ2dnUV
Z_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was not
> immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.
>

You don't have a "case" either way. You accepted a new phone. If you are
that concerned that Sprint thinks the old phone was immersed, you should
have not accepted a new phone.
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, I read your message. Sprint could have reused the shell.
> Shipping the phone back costs them more than the shell is worth. They
> don't want it back so they can reuse any of the parts, they want it back
> because they know it wasn't immersed!
>

Sprint would not re-use anything. The phone would go back to the
distributor, which in turn would return it to the OEM for a credit. The
phone would then either be reconditioned, salvaged for parts, or recycled by
the OEM depending upon their need for that model.
>
>
> I agreed to return the phone, I simply informed them we'd be using a
> different timetable than they desired. Quite reasonable under the
> circumstances.
>

You don't have the luxury to decide when to return the phone. You agreed to
a new phone, and the old phone gets returned. Surely, evne in your state of
complete denial, you can understand a simple concept liek that. If you try
really hard, I think you may be able to understand it. Give it a shot....
>
>
> That would have been fine, if they had conceded that their agent had erred
> when she declared the phone had been immersed and recognized that the
> phone had failed and was being replaced under a valid warranty.
>

so wven when Sprint does something in your favor, it was by "error"? Do you
see the trend here?

>
>
> Does that mean there are none out there? Responses in these forums tend
> to challenge what is written in them, very few write to just say they
> agree.
>

In your case, it is because no one agrees with your view. do you see the
trend here?

Honu

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:7b54h.4024$ig4.2709@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:z_mdnZ0_2oPkSs3
YnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> They eventually came around? How so? Sprint still maintains that the
> phone was immersed.
>
>

A completely moot point at this stage of the process...you accepted a new
phone. The old phone goes back. Very simple. Except to you.

>
> Please cite where I said that.
>

With all the assertions, accusations and inuendos you have made throughout
this thread.....

>
>
> I have it all in email? Sprint never conceded that their agent erred,
> they maintain still maintain that the phone was immersed.
>

And you implicitly agreed by accepting the new unit. Why on earth do you
find this so very hard to understand?

>
>
> Aren't potential customers entitled to know about Sprint's practices?
>

When Sprint's practices are decptive, illegal or immoral, yes. Sprint has
terated you with due respect, wellwithin the guidelines of their service
agreement. It is you whose practices are corrupt, by not returning the
phone. Instead you stomp your feet and throw a tantrum over someperceived
wrong against you. Return the old phone. Get on with your life.

>
>
> I'm not at all embarassed by it. Why would I be?
>

Because you act like a spoiled child...
>
>
> Badger and beat? When did I do that? Was I not always polite?

Many con men are polite. Many mass murderers are polite. Polite does not
make you right.

Honu

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fbOdnZL7Po7pe83
YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> You don't have the luxury to decide when to return the phone. You agreed
> to a new phone, and the old phone gets returned. Surely, evne in your
> state of complete denial, you can understand a simple concept liek that.
> If you try really hard, I think you may be able to understand it. Give it
> a shot....
>

I could understand it if you could explain why it's that way. Give it a
shot.

>
> so wven when Sprint does something in your favor, it was by "error"? Do
> you see the trend here?
>

I don't even see a decipherable sentence there.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:RqydnRECw9uJdc3
YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> A completely moot point at this stage of the process...you accepted a new
> phone. The old phone goes back. Very simple. Except to you.
>

Not at all, I agreed to return the phone.

>
> And you implicitly agreed by accepting the new unit. Why on earth do you
> find this so very hard to understand?
>

Because it isn't so.

>
> When Sprint's practices are decptive, illegal or immoral, yes. Sprint has
> terated you with due respect, wellwithin the guidelines of their service
> agreement. It is you whose practices are corrupt, by not returning the
> phone. Instead you stomp your feet and throw a tantrum over someperceived
> wrong against you. Return the old phone. Get on with your life.
>

Declaring a phone to have been immersed that does not have a trace of water
damage is not deceptive or immoral?

>
> Many con men are polite. Many mass murderers are polite. Polite does not
> make you right.
>

But I am right nonetheless.

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:zS54h.3526$L6.3037@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:fbOdnZL7Po7pe83
YnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> I could understand it if you could explain why it's that way. Give it a
> shot.
>

Sprint issued you a new phone, with the agreement that the old phone would
be returned. You failed to return the old phone. Perhaps, given plenty of
therapy and time, you will be able to understand this simple concept.
>
>
> I don't even see a decipherable sentence there.

Even when Sprint does something in your favor, you see it as an attack on
you.

Honu

Todd W

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:Vk34h.3363$l25.2249@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:a46dndpErMRTAM3
YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> Given that Sprint maintains the phone was immersed it doesn't seem to be
> worth the postage to ship it back. Yet they included a prepaid return
> mailer with the new phone. Why did they do that? Why do they want the
> old phone? If they truly believe the phone was immersed then it has no
> value and the cost of shipping is an unnecessary waste.
>
> On the other hand, if the Sprint representatives who couldn't find any
> water damage recorded their findings, or if Sprint actually did a
> follow-up and contacted them, Sprint would know that their first
> representative that examined the phone refused to honor a valid warranty.
> That would certainly be good reason to want the phone returned.
>
> Of course, it would also mean they're lying when they maintain it was
> immersed, that they cannot be trusted, and that I made the right decision
> to retain the phone to the end of the contract term.

The only way they would send you a replacement phone is if they decided that
they were incorrect in the determination that the phone had been immersed.
If they believed that the phone was immersed, they wouldn't want it back.

I don't understand how you believe they still maintain that the phone was
immersed (and I read your entire discussion with them). They agreed that the
initial inpection was incorrect, issued you a service credit, and sent you a
new phone. Indeed, Nikki G (sprint supervisor) said in the initial
escalation email:

> I am the supervisor at E-Care and this email has come up as an escalation.
>
> I am extremely sorry for the frustration you have experienced due to the
> behavior of the representative at the Sprint Store and Customer service.
>
> I have reviewed your account and noticed that the Sanyo 2300 phone was
> activated on July 09, 2005 on the phone number 920-265-1662. Since this
> phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following actions on your
> account:

You got a personal apology from an escalation representative and a statement
in writing that the phone is still under warranty. This email was the pivot
point in the process. Here they were saying, "You're right, we're wrong, and
we will do whatever is necessary to get you back on the phone." Everything
that has happened up to this point, although I'm sure was fustrating and
disappointing, had been wiped from the slate. What more do you want?

I doubt if they wanted to examine the phone. They probably wanted it so they
can get a new one from the manufacturer. If you would have sent back the
phone, the matter would have been closed.

Todd W.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:UL- dne75_e_fcM3YnZ2dnUV
Z_qGdnZ2d@hawaiiante
l.net...
>
> Sprint issued you a new phone, with the agreement that the old phone would
> be returned. You failed to return the old phone. Perhaps, given plenty
> of therapy and time, you will be able to understand this simple concept.
>

Sprint cannot ISSUE an agreement. That which does not have the properties
of an agreement is NOT an agreement.

a-gree-ment Pronunciation [uh-gree-muhnt] -noun

1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.

2. the state of being in accord.

3. an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction.

4. a contract or other document delineating such an arrangement.

5. unanimity of opinion; harmony in feeling: agreement among the
members of the faculty.

6. Grammar. correspondence in number, case, gender, person, or some
other formal category between syntactically connected words, esp. between
one or more subordinate words and the word or words upon which they depend;
selection by one word of the matching formal subclass, or category, in
another word syntactically construed with the first.

7. collective agreement.

8. Law. a. an expression of assent by two or more parties to the same
object.
b. the phraseology, written or oral, of an exchange of
promises.

>
> Even when Sprint does something in your favor, you see it as an attack on
> you.
>

How did you manage to twist what I wrote into that understanding?

AZ Nomad

2006-11-07, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:44:00 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote:

>"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:UL- dne75_e_fcM3YnZ2dnUV
Z_qGdnZ2d@hawaiiante
l.net...
[color=darkred]
>Sprint cannot ISSUE an agreement. That which does not have the properties
>of an agreement is NOT an agreement.

>a-gree-ment Pronunciation [uh-gree-muhnt] -noun

kneebiter nE-bit'er

A person who is excessively obnoxious. Apparently a chiefly
British usage, synonymous with git. One step above an anklebiter.

"Dent, you're a jerk... A complete kneebiter."

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Todd W" <trwww@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ud64h.8353$B31.4170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> The only way they would send you a replacement phone is if they decided
> that
> they were incorrect in the determination that the phone had been immersed.
> If they believed that the phone was immersed, they wouldn't want it back.
>

I agree. I don't think they do believe the phone was immersed.

>
> I don't understand how you believe they still maintain that the phone was
> immersed (and I read your entire discussion with them). They agreed that
> the
> initial inpection was incorrect, issued you a service credit, and sent you
> a
> new phone. Indeed, Nikki G (sprint supervisor) said in the initial
> escalation email:
>
>
> You got a personal apology from an escalation representative and a
> statement
> in writing that the phone is still under warranty. This email was the
> pivot
> point in the process. Here they were saying, "You're right, we're wrong,
> and
> we will do whatever is necessary to get you back on the phone." Everything
> that has happened up to this point, although I'm sure was fustrating and
> disappointing, had been wiped from the slate. What more do you want?
>

The paragraph below is contained in the message from Leslie S. dated June
2nd, three weeks after I received the new phone:

"The new phone was issued to you for free considering the fact that we
will be receiving the old phone back within ten days. Also, the notes
on your account state that the warranty was void as the phone was
immersed in water. However, considering your long term relationship
with us, we issued you a free phone."

I believe they still maintain that the phone was immersed because that's
what they said. Nikki S. did say she was sorry for the frustration I
experienced, but nobody representing Sprint has said, "You're right, we're
wrong". Had they said they were wrong, had they admitted the phone had not
been immersed and was being replaced as defective under the valid warranty,
I would have had no reason to keep the phone until the end of the contract.
Obviously, I wouldn't need to keep the phone in order to prove it hadn't
been immersed once they admit it hadn't been immersed.

>
> I doubt if they wanted to examine the phone. They probably wanted it so
> they
> can get a new one from the manufacturer. If you would have sent back the
> phone, the matter would have been closed.
>

Maybe. But what if they hadn't issued the credit after I sent the phone
back? What recourse would I have then? How would I prove the warranty was
still valid if I no longer had the phone?

How can Sprint get a new phone from the manufacturer while maintaining it
was immersed by a customer? They could certainly get one if it failed
during the warranty period, but that's not their position.

Mij Adyaw

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

Phones are not designed for swims with the Tidy Bowl Man. I would suggest
flushing twice and let it go.

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:x%54h.3532$L6.2370@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:RqydnRECw9uJdc3
YnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> Not at all, I agreed to return the phone.
>
>
>
> Because it isn't so.
>
>
>
> Declaring a phone to have been immersed that does not have a trace of
> water damage is not deceptive or immoral?
>
>
>
> But I am right nonetheless.
>

Only in your own little mind

Honu

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:ke64h.3541$L6.1109@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:UL- dne75_e_fcM3YnZ2dnUV
Z_qGdnZ2d@hawaiiante
l.net...
>
> Sprint cannot ISSUE an agreement. That which does not have the properties
> of an agreement is NOT an agreement.
>
>
> a-gree-ment Pronunciation [uh-gree-muhnt] -noun
>
> 1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.
>
> 2. the state of being in accord.
>
> 3. an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction.
>
> 4. a contract or other document delineating such an arrangement.
>
> 5. unanimity of opinion; harmony in feeling: agreement among the
> members of the faculty.
>
> 6. Grammar. correspondence in number, case, gender, person, or some
> other formal category between syntactically connected words, esp. between
> one or more subordinate words and the word or words upon which they
> depend;
> selection by one word of the matching formal subclass, or category, in
> another word syntactically construed with the first.
>
> 7. collective agreement.
>
> 8. Law. a. an expression of assent by two or more parties to the same
> object.
> b. the phraseology, written or oral, of an exchange of
> promises.
>
>
>
> How did you manage to twist what I wrote into that understanding?
>

I'm sitting here shaking my head that you can just continue to dig a deeper
hole.

No amount of protesting on your part will make you right.

If you believed the phone was not water damaged, you should not have
accepted another handset. Plain and simple. You make it complicated with
your illogical circuitous reasoning and an abiding need to be "right", which
in this instance is impossible.

You should find other things to waste your life on...

Honu

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rc74h.3688$0r.2358@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Todd W" <trwww@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Ud64h.8353$B31.4170@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> I agree. I don't think they do believe the phone was immersed.
>
>
>
> The paragraph below is contained in the message from Leslie S. dated June
> 2nd, three weeks after I received the new phone:
>
> "The new phone was issued to you for free considering the fact that we
> will be receiving the old phone back within ten days. Also, the notes
> on your account state that the warranty was void as the phone was
> immersed in water. However, considering your long term relationship
> with us, we issued you a free phone."
>
> I believe they still maintain that the phone was immersed because that's
> what they said. Nikki S. did say she was sorry for the frustration I
> experienced, but nobody representing Sprint has said, "You're right, we're
> wrong". Had they said they were wrong, had they admitted the phone had
> not been immersed and was being replaced as defective under the valid
> warranty, I would have had no reason to keep the phone until the end of
> the contract. Obviously, I wouldn't need to keep the phone in order to
> prove it hadn't been immersed once they admit it hadn't been immersed.
>
>
>
> Maybe. But what if they hadn't issued the credit after I sent the phone
> back? What recourse would I have then? How would I prove the warranty
> was still valid if I no longer had the phone?
>
> How can Sprint get a new phone from the manufacturer while maintaining it
> was immersed by a customer? They could certainly get one if it failed
> during the warranty period, but that's not their position.
>

What a whining little child you are....

Honu

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ztednf7- fqhChczYnZ2dnUVZ_tqd
nZ2d@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> I'm sitting here shaking my head that you can just continue to dig a
> deeper hole.
>
> No amount of protesting on your part will make you right.
>

Your insistence that I'm wrong will not make it so.

>
> If you believed the phone was not water damaged, you should not have
> accepted another handset.
>

Nonsense. The phone was not water damaged, it had failed during the
warranty period. Sprint was required to repair or replace it under the
contract.

>
> Plain and simple. You make it complicated with your illogical circuitous
> reasoning and an abiding need to be "right", which in this instance is
> impossible.
>

My reasoning is completely logical.

Scott

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

Paul Miner

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:32:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
< roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:z_mdnZ0_2oPkSs3
YnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
>Please cite where I said that.

It might be a great time for you to go back and review your story. You
said that multiple times now.

>
>I'm not at all embarassed by it. Why would I be?

You may not be embarrassed by your actions now, but I think you
probably will be once you get a little older, say into your twenties.

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:48:50 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
< roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote:

>My reasoning is completely logical.

Classic. :-)

--
Paul Miner

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-07, 10:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:CX84h.4117$ig4.766@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ztednf7- fqhChczYnZ2dnUVZ_tqd
nZ2d@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> Your insistence that I'm wrong will not make it so.
>
No one has to "make it so" You *ARE* wrond, as you have been told numerous
times. You are simply too dense to understand that you are wrong.

>
>
> Nonsense. The phone was not water damaged, it had failed during the
> warranty period. Sprint was required to repair or replace it under the
> contract.
>

But you *DID* accept a replacement. Then you whine about it.
>
>
> My reasoning is completely logical.
>
Only in your strange little world....

Honu

Jesse

2006-11-08, 4:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:Vk34h.3363$l25.2249@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Of course, it would also mean they're lying when they maintain it was
> immersed, that they cannot be trusted, and that I made the right
> decision to retain the phone to the end of the contract term.

It is very easy to set up a device to tell if it has been damaged by water -
And Sprint of course imbeds these tell tale "water strips", if you will, into
every phone - And all they do it pop the case, if that strip says the phone
was wet, then that it is. It was wet, and I believe that would stand up in
court in the face of your denials, after Sprints lawyers explained to the
judge how these water detectors work.

My 8 year old daughter was staying at her aunts a weekend, her aunt washed
her coat, which of course had her phone in the pocket.
I dried it out for a few days, it would not turn on, so I though oh well
,toast, but theres a chance maybe the battery fried and the phone was still
good.
So I took it to a Sprint store, explained the phone was dead, but was not
sure if it was the battery or the phone, could you please test it with
another battery, of which I'd buy if it worked. Didn't say anything about the
washing, as I really didn't see the need to. I wasn't even going to try
getting it replaced.
So the rep took it to the back room, came back 5 minutes later with a real
serious look on his face, and said "this phone is no good, it has been
exposed to water".
I said yeah I know, it was in a washing machine, I dried it out and ... As I
requested, was wondering if you could try a known good battery on it to
verify that indeed, the phone is dead and not just the battery.
He refused, so that was that .... The point being, of course, that he was
able to tell my phone was damaged the same way they can tell yours was.

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-08, 4:33 am

"Jesse" <org@org.orgy> wrote in message
news:Xns9875C7A44C34
ewrfdgrstnet@140.99.99.130...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
> news:Vk34h.3363$l25.2249@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
> It is very easy to set up a device to tell if it has been damaged by
> water -
> And Sprint of course imbeds these tell tale "water strips", if you will,
> into
> every phone - And all they do it pop the case, if that strip says the
> phone
> was wet, then that it is. It was wet, and I believe that would stand up in
> court in the face of your denials, after Sprints lawyers explained to the
> judge how these water detectors work.
>
> My 8 year old daughter was staying at her aunts a weekend, her aunt washed
> her coat, which of course had her phone in the pocket.
> I dried it out for a few days, it would not turn on, so I though oh well
> ,toast, but theres a chance maybe the battery fried and the phone was
> still
> good.
> So I took it to a Sprint store, explained the phone was dead, but was not
> sure if it was the battery or the phone, could you please test it with
> another battery, of which I'd buy if it worked. Didn't say anything about
> the
> washing, as I really didn't see the need to. I wasn't even going to try
> getting it replaced.
> So the rep took it to the back room, came back 5 minutes later with a real
> serious look on his face, and said "this phone is no good, it has been
> exposed to water".
> I said yeah I know, it was in a washing machine, I dried it out and ... As
> I
> requested, was wondering if you could try a known good battery on it to
> verify that indeed, the phone is dead and not just the battery.
> He refused, so that was that .... The point being, of course, that he was
> able to tell my phone was damaged the same way they can tell yours was.

Mr. McNicoll will refuse to believe you, as he lives in a world all his
own...where the only rules that exist are the ones he makes up, where the
only portions of contracts that are legal are the ones he chooses to obey,
and where things like facts, logic and common sense have no meaning.

Honu

John Richards

2006-11-08, 4:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message news:Rc74h.3688$0r.2358@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The paragraph below is contained in the message from Leslie S. dated June
> 2nd, three weeks after I received the new phone:
>
> "The new phone was issued to you for free considering the fact that we
> will be receiving the old phone back within ten days. Also, the notes
> on your account state that the warranty was void as the phone was
> immersed in water. However, considering your long term relationship
> with us, we issued you a free phone."
>
> I believe they still maintain that the phone was immersed because that's
> what they said. Nikki S. did say she was sorry for the frustration I
> experienced, but nobody representing Sprint has said, "You're right, we're
> wrong". Had they said they were wrong, had they admitted the phone had not
> been immersed and was being replaced as defective under the valid warranty,
> I would have had no reason to keep the phone until the end of the contract.
> Obviously, I wouldn't need to keep the phone in order to prove it hadn't
> been immersed once they admit it hadn't been immersed.

Sprint gave you a free replacement phone as a matter of good will,
eventhough they are of the opinion that the defective phone was immersed.
Why then do you feel there is still a need to hold on to the old phone for the
purpose of being able to prove it was NOT immersed? Why should
you care what Sprint believes? The email they sent you means that at this
point they don't care if the phone was immersed or not, and there will be no
repercussions even if they decide later that the old phone was immersed.

--
John Richards

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:9JSdnU0BrJWir8z
YnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
>
> And I believe you are simply trolling. You owe violated the agreement for
> replacement of your phone and owe Sprint money.
>

There was no agreement for replacement of the phone for me to violate.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjg2l2lbkmllrui
hf5t62g2l5882noq137@
4ax.com...
>
> It might be a great time for you to go back and review your story. You
> said that multiple times now.
>

Then why didn't you cite it?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rM6dnb3d4tbW0sz
YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> But you *DID* accept a replacement. Then you whine about it.
>

What whining?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Jesse" <org@org.orgy> wrote in message
news:Xns9875C7A44C34
ewrfdgrstnet@140.99.99.130...
>
> It is very easy to set up a device to tell if it has been damaged by
> water -
> And Sprint of course imbeds these tell tale "water strips", if you will,
> into
> every phone - And all they do it pop the case, if that strip says the
> phone
> was wet, then that it is. It was wet, and I believe that would stand up in
> court in the face of your denials, after Sprints lawyers explained to the
> judge how these water detectors work.
>
> My 8 year old daughter was staying at her aunts a weekend, her aunt washed
> her coat, which of course had her phone in the pocket.
> I dried it out for a few days, it would not turn on, so I though oh well
> ,toast, but theres a chance maybe the battery fried and the phone was
> still
> good.
> So I took it to a Sprint store, explained the phone was dead, but was not
> sure if it was the battery or the phone, could you please test it with
> another battery, of which I'd buy if it worked. Didn't say anything about
> the
> washing, as I really didn't see the need to. I wasn't even going to try
> getting it replaced.
> So the rep took it to the back room, came back 5 minutes later with a real
> serious look on his face, and said "this phone is no good, it has been
> exposed to water".
> I said yeah I know, it was in a washing machine, I dried it out and ... As
> I
> requested, was wondering if you could try a known good battery on it to
> verify that indeed, the phone is dead and not just the battery.
> He refused, so that was that .... The point being, of course, that he was
> able to tell my phone was damaged the same way they can tell yours was.
>

Are these telltale "water strips" infallible? Does it mean the phone was
not immersed If they show no change?

Apparently you weren't following the other thread, in which I described my
experience with Sprint. Here's a portion of my first message to Sprint
customer service:

>
> I cannot find the slightest hint of any damage from water or any kind of
> abuse on this phone. There isn't a trace of any moisture within the
> clear plastic buttons or accessories port. All metal parts are clean and
> free of corrosion. There are no cracks in the case or impact marks from
> being
> dropped. All buttons work smoothly without sticking. Other than some
> very small scratches on the exterior that one would expect as a result of
> being carried in a purse this phone appears as new.
>
> Today I spoke on the phone with a Sprint representative who informed
> me Ms. Blondheim had recorded in her notes that the phone had been
> "immersed"
> and the warranty was thus void. I also visited the Sprint Store at 1601
> Lawrence Drive in De Pere. I asked the Sprint representatives there,
> Jason Freeman and Mike Tisch, to examine the phone for water damage. They
> could not find any. Mr. Tisch told me water damage usually shows up as
> white
> deposits in the accessories port. They also pointed out two black
> rectangles in the battery compartment and one white rectangle on the
> battery itself. They told me they were moisture detectors and would
> change
> color if exposed to moisture. The detectors in my daughter's phone showed
> no
> exposure to moisture. The battery compartment cover is a good fit, but
> the compartment is certainly not watertight. If this phone had been
> "immersed", as Ms. Blondheim claims, the moisture detectors would surely
> have been
> tripped.
>

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:Uij4h.4278$ig4.3828@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:9JSdnU0BrJWir8z
YnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
>
> There was no agreement for replacement of the phone for me to violate.
>

*Yawn* You still can't get it straight...

Honu

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:Vlj4h.4280$ig4.1030@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:rM6dnb3d4tbW0sz
YnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@ha
waiiantel.net...
>
> What whining?
>

The days and days of postings you have made have been *NOTHING BUT* whining.
You have been whining since your very first post. Whining is all you have
done since you started this thread. I am inclined to believe that the only
thing in life that you *ARE* good at is whining. No, wait...and making shit
up as you go along....yup, you are good at that, too. Wait...there is
more...being a immature idiot...you are *VERY* good at that!

Damn...do you have any sense at all?

Honu

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:Vxg4h.8489$B31.5092@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Sprint gave you a free replacement phone as a matter of good will,
> eventhough they are of the opinion that the defective phone was immersed.
> Why then do you feel there is still a need to hold on to the old phone for
> the
> purpose of being able to prove it was NOT immersed? Why should
> you care what Sprint believes? The email they sent you means that at this
> point they don't care if the phone was immersed or not, and there will be
> no repercussions even if they decide later that the old phone was
> immersed.
>

I just explained that. I didn't believe they'd remove the charge for the
new phone.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:LI- dndlLvMuuWszYnZ2dnUV
Z_smdnZ2d@hawaiiante
l.net...
>
> The days and days of postings you have made have been *NOTHING BUT*
> whining. You have been whining since your very first post. Whining is all
> you have done since you started this thread. I am inclined to believe
> that the only thing in life that you *ARE* good at is whining. No,
> wait...and making shit up as you go along....yup, you are good at that,
> too. Wait...there is more...being a immature idiot...you are *VERY* good
> at that!
>

You have a strange understanding of whining.

Hertz_Donut

2006-11-08, 7:33 am

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:I8k4h.4288$ig4.3028@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:LI- dndlLvMuuWszYnZ2dnUV
Z_smdnZ2d@hawaiiante
l.net...
>
> You have a strange understanding of whining.
>

LOL! You have the audacity to call someone else strange?

You have done nothing *BUT* whine.

Honu

Zman

2006-11-08, 10:33 am

Upon reading your other lengthy post, the reason they want the phone back is
to examine it and put this issue to rest. This is standard practice; I do it
often with my customers when I am giving them a free phone in replacement
for a phone they say is defective.

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
news:7544h.4000$ig4.3179@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:vx34h.1131$6t.853@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I didn't think so. That means Sprint was not cheated in any way by my
> decision to return the phone at the end of the warranty period instead of
> immediately as they desired.
>
>

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 10:33 am

"Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Fin4h.8541$B31.1967@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Upon reading your other lengthy post, the reason they want the phone back
> is
> to examine it and put this issue to rest. This is standard practice; I do
> it
> often with my customers when I am giving them a free phone in replacement
> for a phone they say is defective.
>

What is the issue? Three Sprint employees have examined it. The first one
found it had been immersed, the other two were unable to find any water
damage, Sprint's position is it has been immersed.

AZ Nomad

2006-11-08, 12:33 pm

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:03 -0500, Bill Marriott <wjm@wjm.org> wrote:

>b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in which
>you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not customer
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the troll has managed to do. (right now
it's just 40 posts, but there no reason not to expect 60-80 posts before
everybody gives up arguing with the idiot)

AZ Nomad

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:16:36 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:03 -0500, Bill Marriott <wjm@wjm.org> wrote:

>Unfortunately, that is exactly what the troll has managed to do. (right now
>it's just 40 posts, but there no reason not to expect 60-80 posts before
>everybody gives up arguing with the idiot)

Already 61 posts; I forgot to count another thread the troll has going.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:mX%3h.3413$L6.2801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to
> service as a refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?
>
>
>

Haven't read through all the other bashings (I mean resposnes),

but in the most simplistic terms, yes a "phone" can be refurished no
matter the damage or condition.

If the electronics are toasted, they can re-use the LCD display, battery,
case, etc. and refurbish for 50% or less the cost of a new phone.
Additonally, manufacturers are required by law to provide replacement
parts for servicing for a specified period of time. These parts can be
used to simply service a unit, or more often to provide quicker service
to the customer, swap it for another unit that was repaired and certified
(eg: refurbished) previously.

This reduces the turnaround time and flushes out the spare parts reducing
the overhead for the production run of each product line.

The downside is of course most electronics these days are not "user field
servicable". Not like your old RCA television from 1970, where you could
go to the electronics store and get new bulbs and tubes. So for a
consumer a damaged item is usually a lump of junk.

If this is not the answer you expected (eg: want), you can try asking
your question again; sometimes the magic 8 ball varies it's responses.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Steven is asking in reference to his other thread.
He is trying to justify the handset, if it was in fact damaged from
immersion - which he denies, had no value to the vendor or manufacturer.

It had no value to the consumer, though my SIL dropped her cell phone in
a toilet 7 times before it quit working, and my father dropped his in a
pond once and it worked 3 days later after a good airing/drying out.

However the components that make up the phone have a value to a
manufacturer or repair facility in nearly all cases. For example, the
rubberizedoverlay for the buttons consists solely of silicon and plastic
-- impervious to most liquids.

The ciruit board under it, not so much. the plastic case, very reusable,
they can often buff out scratches easily.

"Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:IL04h.8277$B31.4795@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

> 99.99999999999% of the time it has become a soggy paper weight. I
> have only seen one survive in the last 7 years....
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mX%3h.3413$L6.2801@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> a
>
>
>

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:Tr14h.3949$ig4.3651@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.thatcanbespammed> wrote in message
> news:4550A066.29B05215@ddress.thatcanbespammed...
>
> Nor have I, but at least one person in another thread said they're
> covered under Sanyo's warranty to Sprint. I believe he's mistaken.
>
>
>

You are not giving the full story.
Sprint originally claimed your daughter's phone was inoperable due to
immersion damage. They later recanted and shipped a replacement with a
Return Kit. You opted to not return the damaged phone fearing they would
reasses it, claim it was damage caused by immersion (despite a 2 to 1
stacking of CSR tehcnicians in your favor) and charge you full price for
replacing the handset.

When you did not return the handset within the specified 10 days, Sprint
charged you for the new phone they sent you; which of course makes sense
since you obtained a second handset rather than swapping them out by
returning the defunct (to a consumer) unit as specified.

As I mentioned in another post, I broke my Samsung N400 display.
Obviously not covered under warranty. But I worked out a deal with Sprint
to do a handset exchange. So as to not incur the cost of a new [to me]
handset I had to relinguish the broken handset to complete the
"exchange".

To not give the old handset, which had no value to me, but did to them
woudl have resulted in a cash exchange in order to obtain a new handet
and still retain the broken one.

Regardless of warranty status.

Why did it have value? They could use a spare or slavaged LCD display to
refurbish the phone, thereby making it available for another exchange in
the near future.

Again, it was worthless to me as a consumer, but not to the reseller or
manufactuer.

Notan

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Steph wrote:
>
> Steven is asking in reference to his other thread.
> He is trying to justify the handset, if it was in fact damaged from
> immersion - which he denies, had no value to the vendor or manufacturer.
>
> It had no value to the consumer, though my SIL dropped her cell phone in
> a toilet 7 times before it quit working, and my father dropped his in a
> pond once and it worked 3 days later after a good airing/drying out.
>
> However the components that make up the phone have a value to a
> manufacturer or repair facility in nearly all cases. For example, the
> rubberizedoverlay for the buttons consists solely of silicon and plastic
> -- impervious to most liquids.
>
> The ciruit board under it, not so much. the plastic case, very reusable,
> they can often buff out scratches easily.
>
> <snip>

Whether parts are salvageable, or not, is moot.

Sprint asked that the phone be returned, and it wasn't.

Notan

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:Uij4h.4278$ig4.3828@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:9JSdnU0BrJWir8z
YnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
>
> There was no agreement for replacement of the phone for me to violate.
>
>

Again, from your own posting
You took delivery of a unit sent to you for exchange.
Then you activated it. There had to be at least 3 times when you were
made aware of the implications of this exchange.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprint Customer Solutions" <ecare@cc.sprintpcs.com>
To: "Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@earthlink
.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Mcnicoll- Handset Problem (KMM20183982I123L0KM
)

Dear Steven,

This email is in continuation to your correspondence regarding the
handset problem.

I am the supervisor at E-Care and this email has come up as an
escalation.

I am extremely sorry for the frustration you have experienced due to
the
behavior of the representative at the Sprint Store and Customer
service.

I have reviewed your account and noticed that the Sanyo 2300 phone was
activated on July 09, 2005 on the phone number NNN-NNN-NNNN. Since
this
phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following actions on
your
account:

1. I am sending a new Sanyo 2300 handset at the following address:

1851 South Sunkist Circle
De Pere, WI- 54115

The handset processing confirmation number is PK9J343.

2. I am applying the temporary credit of $189.99 (equal to the price of
the handset) on your account;

3. I am also sending the Return Kit for the Sanyo 2300 handset you
currently have so that you can return the same.

Upon receipt of the handset and the Return Kit, please take the
following actions:

1. Call us at 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone to get the new
handset activated;
2. Return the Sanyo 2300 handset you currently have by keeping the same
in the Return Kit.
3. Write back to us with the tracking number of the Return Kit.

When the handset is received in the Warehouse, I will apply the
permanent credit of $189.99 to your account. However, if the handset
does not reach Warehouse within 10 days, your account will be charged
$189.99 (equal to the price of the new handset).

Please feel free to write back if you have any other questions. Have a
great day!

Nikki G.
E-Care
Sprint together with Nextel
"Where our customers come first!"

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steph" < CUT_skipatrol@hotmai
l.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns987579A845A7
Askipatroluunet@130.191.3.6...
>
> You are not giving the full story.
> Sprint originally claimed your daughter's phone was inoperable due to
> immersion damage. They later recanted and shipped a replacement with a
> Return Kit. You opted to not return the damaged phone fearing they would
> reasses it, claim it was damage caused by immersion (despite a 2 to 1
> stacking of CSR tehcnicians in your favor) and charge you full price for
> replacing the handset.
>

That's not correct. Sprint did NOT recant, it is still their position that
the original phone was immersed and the warranty void.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:h344h.3998$ig4.3898@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Hemant Shah" <shah@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote in message
> news:eiqfm9$hic$1@ne
w7.xnet.com...
>
> No, I can't do that because there isn't any moisture to get rid of.
> My phone was not immersed, it was never even slightly damp, Sprint's
> agent just declared it to have been immersed to avoid warranty
> coverage.

And yet they offerred you an exchange UNDER WARRANTY (or good faith).
But you did not complete the "exchange" portion, which would mean
relinguishing ownership of the item to be replaced. You took ownership of
a new/refurb sent to you, but failed to maintain a in-house stock of
quantity 1.

As for moisture, they have these VERY sensitive (IMHO) indicators inside
cell phones. If EVER exposed to water they permanently change, so no
matter how much drying you do - if the unit was EVER exposed to moisture,
it might continue to work or not, but it will always indicate it was
exposed at some point. As I said, my father's phone would show signs of
immersion, though it continues to work perfectly.

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steph" < CUT_skipatrol@hotmai
l.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns98757A3C1283
skipatroluunet@130.191.3.6...
>
> Again, from your own posting
> You took delivery of a unit sent to you for exchange.
> Then you activated it. There had to be at least 3 times when you were
> made aware of the implications of this exchange.
>

I posted the definition of "agreement" once, now you'll have to look it up
yourself.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Except to true pain in the asses in some cases.
But even those numbers are likely to reduce as those same PITAs then let
their account go overdue and get sent to collections.

The OP question was can a phone be repaired. As I detailed, the term
"repair" is ambigious. The unit has a value to the manufacturer to be
used as parts. The entire phone is not destroyed when exposed to
immersion, silicon, plastic, etc. pieces are impervious.

Can a consumer have such a phone "repaired"? It is normally cost-
prohibitive for a consumer to repair most micro sized electronics these
days, regardless of the failure. Sucks but true.

Again, in another post of mine, I admitted fault to breaking my phone's
display. I took issue with the inability to offer repair services and
forcing me to buy a new phone. I argued I was not asking for warranty
coverage and would pay the repair cost. The sprint store I was at, and
it's manager was unable to satisfactorily come up with a solution for
repairing the N400, despite me showing a half-dozen pages from Samsung
and sprint directing user's to a Sprint CS for repair.

In the end the Manager did a no cost exchange and I relinguished the
phone with a broken display. Who ate the true cost? I assume Sprint; and
rightfully so. They were specified as a repair center for a phone they
were still selling at the time. I offerred to pay any price to fix the
existing phone.

So they sentit back to Samsung and it was probably outfitted with a new
display and given as a refurb to someone else with a true warranty
replacement need (or total equipment protection plan).

"Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:vx34h.1131$6t.853@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> No manufacturer or provider will cover a water-damaged phone under
> warranty.
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in message
> news:O714h.3316$l25.1965@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> be
> provides
> I
>
>
>

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:7544h.4000$ig4.3179@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:vx34h.1131$6t.853@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I didn't think so. That means Sprint was not cheated in any way by my
> decision to return the phone at the end of the warranty period instead
> of immediately as they desired.
>
>
>

And you were not wronged in any way to have a charge for the value of
that phone (on Sprint books) applied to your account until the time you
return the phone at which time it might be credited back to your account
at it's depreciated stock value.

If on the other hand you argue it had no value to either consumers or
resellers/manufactuers it would be because it WAS water damaged. But of
course, if it was not damaged via immersion as you maintained, then you
knowingly are liable for the cost.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:trn4h.3827$l25.2064@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Zman" <zman@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:Fin4h.8541$B31.1967@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> What is the issue? Three Sprint employees have examined it. The
> first one found it had been immersed, the other two were unable to
> find any water damage, Sprint's position is it has been immersed.
>
>
>

Actually per the message from Sprint to you dated May 10, 2006 which you
posted, Sprint conceeded it was covered under warranty and they hoped to
get you operational and happy as quick as possible.

Catch-22 time.
So, let's say the phone was damaged via immersion.
Therefore it is NOT covered under warranty, you would not be eligible for
a free replacement, ergo your daughter just cost you an additional $189
to get a working Sanyo 2300 handset.

Sprint's cost $0
Your cost $189

Okay, the phone failed for various manufacturing reasons, not related to
immersion or other water damage. Phone is covered under warranty for
repair/replacement. Sprint opts to expedite the process and ships you a
new/refurb unit and a Return Kit box requiring you to return the
exchanged unit within 10 days to their stock.
Your cost $0
Sprint's cost $x for shipping to and from total of 3 packages
Sanyo's cost $ "sunken" into product line

.... but you didn't return the failed unit.
You also argue it was not afflicted with water damage due to immersion.
Sprint applied the cost of the new/refurb unit they sent you to your
account.
Your cost $189
Sprint's cost $x for shipping (see above)
$y to Sanyo for additional handset lost from inventory
(from May 10, 2006 until you decide to send the defunct unit back)
Sanyo's cost $z loss of one unit that is not refurbished

Nice job Steven, in normal catch-22 situations the outcome is always the
same. In your case you managed to screw everybody; I hope you at least
grounded your daughter.

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:Vk34h.3363$l25.2249@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:a46dndpErMRTAM3
YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> Who do you presume to speak for?
>
I'll come forward and let Bill speak for me.
I agreed with everything, that is 100% of what he wrote.
So he speaks for at least himself and one other, that is sufficient for
the proper use of "we".

Don't worry, I will speak up if Bill misrepresents my opinion on this
matter; but until then he has my permission to continue to represent my
opinion in his postings.

Do you think you will find someone to agree with 100% of your opinion?

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:9l44h.3399$l25.1355@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
> news:Q8- dnayCWvlmVc3YnZ2dnUV
Z_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was
> not immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.
>
Well we hope it is worth $189, because it so far has cost you much more
than that. I would guess $189 + 3 months service @ $30 per + late charges
= $279.

Add to that a possible early termination fee (once the account was
deactivated for non-payment) and you are probably looking at collections
coming after you for about $480.

Now would be a good time to slap your head and realize you have made an a
error and ask how to best resolve it. Then again, if ths all transpired
in May... why start hashing it around now?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steph" < CUT_skipatrol@hotmai
l.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns98757B0D1845
Bskipatroluunet@130.191.3.6...
>
> And yet they offerred you an exchange UNDER WARRANTY (or good faith).
> But you did not complete the "exchange" portion, which would mean
> relinguishing ownership of the item to be replaced. You took ownership of
> a new/refurb sent to you, but failed to maintain a in-house stock of
> quantity 1.
>

Sprint maintains the warranty was void.

>
> As for moisture, they have these VERY sensitive (IMHO) indicators inside
> cell phones. If EVER exposed to water they permanently change, so no
> matter how much drying you do - if the unit was EVER exposed to moisture,
> it might continue to work or not, but it will always indicate it was
> exposed at some point. As I said, my father's phone would show signs of
> immersion, though it continues to work perfectly.
>

I covered that:

"Mr. Tisch told me water damage usually shows up as white deposits in the
accessories port. They also pointed out two black rectangles in the battery
compartment and one white rectangle on the battery itself. They told me
rectangles were moisture detectors and would change color if exposed to
moisture. The detectors in my daughter's phone showed no exposure to
moisture. The battery compartment cover is a good fit, but the compartment
is certainly not watertight. If this phone had been "immersed", as Ms.
Blondheim claims, the moisture detectors would surely have been tripped."

Isn't it odd that a Sprint "Retail Comunications Cunsultant" [sic] such as
Ms. Christina Lynn Blondheim would be unfamiliar with these moisture
detectors? Isn't it odder still that Sprint maintains the phone was
water-damaged knowing as they do that the moisture detectors were not
tripped?

The oddest thing is the consensus here that I was wrong not to trust Sprint!

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Now Paul, let's not be overly cruel to Mr. McNicoll.
If his entire account is accurate we will recall the phone was his
daughter's and resided in her purse with bottled water that leaked. His
daughter claiming to have remove the phone before it was exposed to the
leaking bottle is moot. The point being, the sub-text infers she visited
the Sprint store on her own leading one to hopefully believe her to be of
at least 16 years of age and again hopefully inferring that mister Mc
Nicoll was have reached at least the tender age of 26 by this point and
hopefully for those more conservative (and realistic) 32. Further use of
physcology and profiling would lead me to guess Mr. Steven McNicoll has
recently passed the big 4-0 marker.

Yes he argues like my 6 year old, maybe Mrs. McNicolls will send him to
his room soon.

Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in
news:qjg2l2lbkmllrui
hf5t62g2l5882noq137@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:32:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>< roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> It might be a great time for you to go back and review your story. You
> said that multiple times now.
>
>
>
> You may not be embarrassed by your actions now, but I think you
> probably will be once you get a little older, say into your twenties.
>

Notan

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Steph wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
> news:9l44h.3399$l25.1355@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> Well we hope it is worth $189, because it so far has cost you much more
> than that. I would guess $189 + 3 months service @ $30 per + late charges
> = $279.
>
> Add to that a possible early termination fee (once the account was
> deactivated for non-payment) and you are probably looking at collections
> coming after you for about $480.
>
> Now would be a good time to slap your head and realize you have made an a
> error and ask how to best resolve it. Then again, if ths all transpired
> in May... why start hashing it around now?

I think the OP should hold out, no matter what the cost.

His thinking, and associated posts, have become quite amusing! <g>

Notan

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steven P. McNicoll" < roncachamp@nospamear
thlink.net> wrote in
news:CX84h.4117$ig4.766@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Hertz_Donut" <nowhere@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ztednf7- fqhChczYnZ2dnUVZ_tqd
nZ2d@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> Your insistence that I'm wrong will not make it so.
>
>
>
> Nonsense. The phone was not water damaged, it had failed during the
> warranty period. Sprint was required to repair or replace it under
> the contract.
>
>
You are absolutely right.
How dare they not abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the
warranty. the phone failed during normal wear and use within the stated
warranty period and should have been repaired or replaced.

I understand the definition of repair as simplisitically, to make whole
again or restore. While of course we all agree replace means to
substitute with another.

What's that? Sprint did send you another handset as a waranty
replacement? Those bastards! <sarcasm>Well you were right to not send
the broken handset which they acknowledged as being covered under the
warranty back to them right away; in fact I think you should keep that
broken handset for about 1.5 years; yup, that ought to show those
stockholders who the boss is.</sarcasm>

Remember Popeye cartoons with Wimpy J. Wellington?
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Little different than, "I'll gladly pay you next x-mas for a new cell
phone today. What oh you sent it already and I have 10 days to pay for
it?" No thanks, bite me.

>
> My reasoning is completely logical.

"I see in my dreams the visions an insance person sees while awake"?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steph" < CUT_skipatrol@hotmai
l.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns98757D2C8EC9
5skipatroluunet@130.191.3.6...
>
> And you were not wronged in any way to have a charge for the value of
> that phone (on Sprint books) applied to your account until the time you
> return the phone at which time it might be credited back to your account
> at it's depreciated stock value.
>

Stock value wouldn't have been acceptable.

>
> If on the other hand you argue it had no value to either consumers or
> resellers/manufactuers it would be because it WAS water damaged. But of
> course, if it was not damaged via immersion as you maintained, then you
> knowingly are liable for the cost.
>

It is Sprint that maintains it was water damaged, and thus of no value to
either consumers or resellers/manufacturers. So why did they charge me
$189.99 for it?

Steven P. McNicoll

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

"Steph" < CUT_skipatrol@hotmai
l.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns98757EDF8B78
Dskipatroluunet@130.191.3.6...
>
> Actually per the message from Sprint to you dated May 10, 2006 which you
> posted, Sprint conceeded it was covered under warranty and they hoped to
> get you operational and happy as quick as possible.
>

Actually, they didn't say "covered under warranty", they said "still under
warranty". In a message dated June 2nd they said, "the warranty was void as
the phone was immersed in water".

Steph

2006-11-08, 3:33 pm

Wow.. for someone that loves to post about history, military, labor laws,
and politics you are one messed up paranoid guy.
You now have quoted two messages from Sprint representatives stating they
wer sending you "a free replacement phone". Both messages also spelled
out you were required to return the defective unit to them.

As I pointed out (many times now), sometimes Sprint actually just does
what is right by the Customer, outside of legal obligations. Whether your
phone is/was water-damaged or not is moot. they offerred to replace it to
make you happy and retain you as a Customer in good standing.

They replaced my Samsung N400 after I cracked the LCD screen which
obviosuly was not covered under warranty. But we were unable to reach an
agreeable alternative and they opted to comp me a refurbished phone in
exchange for the broken one and we all slept well that night.

You on the other hand have bought into some conspiracy theory that they
would get your phone back to the lab, label it with a big sticker that
says SCREW STEVEN P. MCNICOLL on it and drop it in the toilet three or
four times then call up your daughter and tell her she owed $189 on her
account becuase the phone they had offerred to replace for free truly was
damaged and they changed their mind andwere going to charge you instead.

I get it now, the above scenario is not only plausible to you, it is
probably exactly what yuo were thinking; that is why you held onto the
broken phone. That and you are thinking everybody sues these days, you
will keep it as proof so you can sue for damages later.

Well congratulation, as paranoia often does, you created a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Not really that hard to do when you throw honesty,
logic, and common sense out the window. Well that and pride. So they say
the phone was damaged and not a manufacturing fault. So what. Unlike your
4 dozens posts in this newsgroup at that point it was only your personal
pride that was hurt and noone else (except maybe your daughter) was the
wiser.
Now there are at least 2 dozen people that have read AND RESPONDED to
your tri