Seth Dimbert wrote:
> James,
> 
> Don't you think it's presumptuous of you to assume that we thought the offer
> was an error?
> 

Awwww c'mon, now Seth.... isn't it presumptuous of you to think we'll 
believe that??? :)

If you spent any time at all looking around, you saw one page said $0... 
while the next link said a $500 phone down to what was it.... $299 after 
rebates...  you're intellingent, and I know it.... sorry bubba, I won't 
buy that for a dollar... =)

> Cell Phone companies give phones away for free all the time, with service
> activation. This was a sprint-branded cell phone; might it not have been
> possible that this was simply similar "Free Phone" offer, since the
> instrument itself is useless without a hefty monthly fee?

Awwww c'mon (2) Seth.... $50 dollar phones maybe, not $500 dollar phones.

> 
> I don't mean to "judge or sound rude" either, BTW.

ditto... just pointing out the flaws in the above logic.
> 
> -SD
> 

<conjectured opinion>
I must add, I'm somewhat perturbed by the amount of folks on the list 
that seem to always want something for nothing... and yes, I understand 
nowadays nothing costs you something...
</conjectured opinion>

later,
E