"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5up7fvF1im164U2@mid.individual.net:

> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>
>> Go to any of their investor pages and pull up any one of their
>> quarterly reprts that are filed with the SEC. Each and every one
>> will have a line item for equipment subsidies.
>>
>
> No no. You said they list equipment subsidies as a loss. I said they
> do not. They are two distinctly different things. They are expenses,
> as I said, and not losses. You don't consider buying food a loss do
> you? You trade money for food. A loss is giving something and getting
> nothing in return.
>
>> It doesn't get any more public than that. And you can argue the
>> semantics of the terminology used all you want- that's not going to
>> change the reality of the situation.
>
> It is not meerly semantics that I am arguing. You used a well defined
> word very much incorrectly and applied it to subsidies. Subsidies are
> very much NOT a loss to a carrier.
>

You didn't look, did you? You asked for a link, I provided three, and you
didn't look. If you did, you wouldn't be posting anymore.

Take a look at the way it is reported and then come back.

Until then, go away. I'm not going to argue perceived technicalities with
the clueless.