Butt out. Stop slanderiing me with no evidence Whatsover on the matter other than The other partied self admitted incomplete Memory of the resolution.
You were not involved and have no Right to be continuing with this Nonsense based on your incorrect "hunches". JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:47 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:30:55 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes I misread that one. Most likely because its > A double negative. Most satisfactory would have > Have been just as easy but you don't want you > Use anything but the term unsatisfactory in your > posts on the Issue of course. The word "satisfactory" is inappropriate in this context. When one has a dispute, and the other person is rude and unpleasant, the outcome can never be satisfactory whether one obtains a full refund or not. Perhaps our intellectual capabilities are rather different, but I don't think a double negative is a very difficult concept to grasp. The fact is that the deal was unsatisfactory for both of you - you had to waste time and make a refund; Shel had to waste time and put up with your rudeness. Of course we only have Shel's word for all this, but it is supported by 400 abusive posts from you as circumstantial evidence. And before you tell me that there were only 378 or whatever, I confess that my figure was just a guess. However, I note that this latest post from you contains no abuse, just sarcasm. That is a major step forward. John > jco > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Forbes > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:29 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:11:22 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> Are both you and him retarded or what? >> Why would he chose the LEAST satifactory > > Just read what I wrote, you halfwit. "Least UNsatisfactory" > > Your rudeness is unbelievable, but your stupidity is worse. > > John > > >> Option I gave him. He wouldn't he chose >> The BEST option I gave him of course which >> Was even better than a full refund including >> Shipping both ways which is a complete >> Cancellation of the deal with zero cost >> To the customer. >> >> He has no freaking right to complaing if >> Chose his so called worst option because that's his >> Own stupidity if he is standing by that. >> >> Secondly, I already stated this many times, >> I did not verbally abuse him and my TOTAL >> Refund offer is about as good as it gets >> When there is a dispute. Thirdly, did you >> Read the part about where he made the dispute >> WELL AFTER he received the item and I still >> Gave him both the full refund offer and partial >> Refund offers. You are an idiot if you >> Think that I didn't treat him fairly on >> That deal because that is as fair as >> It gets on item condtion disputes. >> >> And Fourth, he thought I sold him a "PERFECT" >> Lens when the listing made no such condition >> Claims whatsoever. He was doomed for dissatisfaction >> Right from the start if he expected a PERFECT >> Lens when it wasn't listed that way. You cant >> Expect MORE than listed and complain about >> It if you don't get MORE than listed. >> He is just being a malicious person for even >> Starting this issue on the thread and IMHO >> He had no right to make his initial post the >> Way he did considering how that deal was >> Handled by both me (good) and him (bad). >> >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of >> John Forbes >> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:28 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey >> >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:24:40 +0100, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> Boy, there must be something out there lessoning me. I had a recent >> deal >>> that I was not too happy about. Not the item, but the way the seller >> was >>> acting. In the end it worked out, but I was up in the air about >>> feedback. Now this here, and a thread on another list made my think > it >>> through, and I realized I could not give a rating based upon what I >>> felt, but had to base it upon how the transaction turned out. I just >>> left him a positive. >>> >>> Anyone can make a mistake. All you can do when that happens is offer >> to >>> make sure it does not cost your customer anything. That means a full >>> refund including all shipping. If John offered that then there is no, >>> not any, in any, way that the customer has a valid complaint. >> >> Sorry, I disagree. As Shel has posted, he took a partial refund as the >> least unsatisfactory option. Any Ebay dispute is worrying, and I can >> imagine that dealing with JCO would be highly traumatic. >> >> John >> >>> Now, I will be the first to note that he has no idea of when to shut >> up, >>> but he seems to share that with a lot of folks here on the list, >>> including yours truly at times. But, damn it, once a deal is done it >> is >>> done. I have always hated those folks who save up complaints to dump >> on >>> you maybe years later. However, I am going to filter out any further >>> posts with JCO in the title, flame wars are not fun to me. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
