Replies from Skip....
> Att: Skip,
> I am replying to your personal public slander of me, which leaves me
> no option but to reply in the same public forum, although this would not
> be my choice.
> I would prefer to deal with you personally.
Skip: What does that mean Bill?
> Sorry to bore the rest of the PDML members. No I am not the bad
> defrauding person that has prompted you to warn others of my
> un-substantiated mis-deeds.
> If your aim was to hurt me or get even for some perceived wrong-doing,
> then you have certainly accomplished your goal.
> The following points give my side of the story:
> 1) April 3, you wrote to PDML "The way he dropped from 150 to 115 for
> such a pristine SF1N body so very quickly, and then offered a "wild"
> lens to up the amount again, really put me off... While it looked like
> a good buy, I was never sure it was authentic"
> - On Tuesday March 27 I listed the camera body at 150usd (or best
> offer)
> You told me on Thursday March 29, that you had seen an excellent SF1N
> body for sale on KEH for 133 USD and you offered to pay me 115, I did
> not quickly drop the price but agreed with your price of 115 USD.
Skip: Isn't that what I said???? You didn't negoiate at all. I knocked down
the price a considerable amount, and you just said, okay great...
> - This "wild" lens was manufactured in Japan under license from
> Zeiss-Jena back
> in the mid sixties with a pentax mount. As an after-thought I offered
> the Zeiss lens w/UV filter and two replacement lithium batteries to you
> at 105 USD extra.
> -You advised me that you would need to check out the Zeiss lens
> with a friend and you are not sure that you want to purchase it and if
> you buy the complete package then it would have to be an escrow type of
> deal.
> - That weekend I accepted a local offer for the body w/Zeiss lens
> and on Monday I informed you that the camera and lens are no longer for
> sale.
Skip: Bill, you are not as entirely innocent here as you make yourself out
to be. We were negotiating a deal. You had an honest offer of $115 from me
for the camera which you accepted right away, but then later decided that it
was not of any importance whatsoever when you sold the camera without
informing me of what your new other offer was. I might have matched or
bettered it... So tell me, why didn't you even try, if you were not
"offended" by an escrow deal?
Also, the main reason we did not go straight ahead with the original camera
deal was your subsequent throwing in of a lens, (for addl' monies by the
way), that I'd never heard of. Which only served to confuse the matter.
> 2) On April 2 you wrote to PDML "I mean after all a brand new SF1N and a
> Carl
> Zeiss-Jena 28-80 zoom f1.4-5(???) lens (which a knowledgeable person has
> told me that he never knew Zeiss-Jena made a zoom), with a skylight
> filter thrown in too, for only $100.00 more?" and "Just don't go and
> offend this cat by mentioning escrow transactions and you should be ok!
> And his address, given only after being requested, Western Canada, is
> not that big a place, right? Should be able to track him down easily if
> you should get shafted, right?"
> - The camera was not "brand new" and at 115usd I considered it a fair
> price
Skip: I received the pictures of it AFTER I'd offered the $115. And they
startled me; the camera sure looked brand new to me. And SF1n bodies in
this nice of a condition are going for $200 (USD) and up, at KEH...
> - A similar Zeiss-Jena zoom lens is presently listed on e-bay at
> 85usd therefore I consider the 100usd to be a fair price.
> - I was not offended by being asked to make it an escrow deal.
> - My address was at the bottom of the listing to PDML on Tuesday
> March 27
Skip: After it was requested by someone else on this list. It says (and I
quote) "Located in Western Canada. Will courier at your expense."
That's a BIG address...
> - No, Western Canada is a fairly big place, about 1/3 the area of
> the USA.
> You must be American, is it true that geography (outside of the USA)
> is not
> a required school subject? (sorry if I offended you, but I find your
>
> observation about the size of Western Canada quite humourous)
Skip: Insulting the nationalities of people will not help your cause here.
But I'm glad you found the remark humorous. That's what it was meant to be.
I've seen Western Canada...
> - And then what would you do once you tracked me down, if in fact I
> am the
> bad guy you make me out to be?? (just kidding Skip, pleeeeeeease
> don't write
> another slanderous letter to PDML, you scare me)
Skip: Another humorous remark. And I said, myself, also, that IF (IF! IF!)
you were not on the level here, how would anyone ever track you down at the
address given, "Western Canada"?
>
> 3) On April 2 you wrote to PDML, "Now I'm not saying anything was wrong
> with
> Mr Bill Visser's deal. No. But I'd just thought I'd mention it to other
> PDML members"
> - If there was nothing wrong with my deal, then what was the purpose
> of your
> slanderous assault??
Skip: You see the above remarks as "a slanderous assault? Where? How? I
think you do protest too much...
> - One of the PDML members (Gerald Sermak) wrote recently and I
> quote:
> "There is nothing wrong or illegal about sharing your business
> experiences and
> leaving it up to the reader to draw his own conclusions. The illegal
> comes when
> you start to slander the individual/business by injecting your own
> opinions
> without supporting evidence"
Skip: Funny, I thought those remarks were made in support of me? I never
said anything personal and direct against you or your business.
(I don't know what your business even is...) I described the deal, and yes,
I definitely inferred that I thought the deal was screwy. (And still do...)
> 3) On April 2 you wrote to PDML "I don't know now. Maybe I was wrong in
> reporting my transactions the way I did. It's true the deal just didn't
> feel right
> to me... I was (and am now) not wanting to hurt any ones reputation. I
> was trying to warn others about a possible (and only possible) danger.
> Perhaps I could've been
> fairer"
Skip: What I felt uncomfortable about here was in describing "how hot you
were for the deal" until I proposed an escrow transaction... (Although this
to me is still true, because of the way you handled it.)
I just probably could've described it a little nicer. I apologize for that.
And I also apologize for suspecting you of "being Santa Claus"...
> - THE FACT IS THAT YOU DID HURT MY REPUTATION. The question now is,
> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? A a public apology is in order.
I may not be hurting your reputation here as much as you are. IMO, the next
time you want to deal you should be more above board and straight forward
about it. In any case, if you were strictly honest about the whole thing,
(outside of your silent dismissing of my prior offer for the camera,) then
what we have here is a case of mishandled communication on both our parts.
And for my part in it, I do apologize.
Skip
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
