Verizon has Public recall, why not Sprint ?

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

".com" <wimax0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040625210621.10857.00000659@mb-m02.aol.com...
> <http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=062504onlin
> e_recallbattery>
>
>
> Verizon steps to the plate and issues a public recall.
>
> Sprint has biodegradeable Sanyo phones with similar heating problems for
> batteries, and keeps its recalls secret.

So Phillipe, why hide behind this different id? Lose all credibility with
the rest of your 111 other ids?

There has never been an issue with Sanyo batteries with SPCS.

Bob

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626081028.11031.00000553@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > There has never been an issue with Sanyo batteries > with SPCS.
>
>
> Not publically announced. That's the whole point.
>
>
> Sprint techs have ~70 pages of "known issues" with Sanyo phones at a
hidden
> page available to them at pinpoint.com

What you failed to mention is that there are also "known solutions"
contained on the same pages.

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

..com wrote:
> <http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=062504onlin
> e_recallbattery>
>
>
> Verizon steps to the plate and issues a public recall.
>
> Sprint has biodegradeable Sanyo phones with similar heating problems for
> batteries, and keeps its recalls secret.

There is no content at that URI.
-mike

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

In article <_3MDc.16815$bs4.14080@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> .com wrote:
> > <http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=062504onlin
> > e_recallbattery>
> >
> >
> > Verizon steps to the plate and issues a public recall.
> >
> > Sprint has biodegradeable Sanyo phones with similar heating problems for
> > batteries, and keeps its recalls secret.
>
> There is no content at that URI.
> -mike

I wouldn't brag if I didnt know how to cut and paste a url.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index [...] 62504onlin
e_recallbattery

works fine, still.

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

Robert M. wrote:

> I wouldn't brag if I didnt know how to cut and paste a url.
>
> http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index [...] 62504onlin
> e_recallbattery
>
> works fine, still.

No, no content.
Nice banner and menus though.
-mike

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

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message news:uiiGc.9127$yy1.6706@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
>>
>> I wouldn't brag if I didnt know how to cut and paste a url.
>>
>> http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index [...] 62504onlin
>> e_recallbattery
>>
>> works fine, still.
>
> How about some more detail, eh?
>
> http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index [...] 62504onlin
>
> is the only valid link in your post. That is to say, it is the only
> string in your post that does not violate the pertinent RFCs.
>
> Now, there's more stuff on the next line, so let's deal with that.
>
> http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index [...] 62504onlin
> e_recallbattery
>
> This can't be a link. It would violate RFC2396 paragraph 2.4.3.
>
> The hex 0D character appears before the "e_recallbattery" fragment.

Yep, been saying that for months. Robert M.'s news client puts a carriage return
(hex 0D) in the middle of URLs. Which of course 'breaks' the URL in the sense
that it's no longer a clickable link. Requiring the reader to cut and paste in
order to reassemble a URL is the opposite of user friendly, it's user hostile,
and so unnecessary.

--

John Richards