I don't want it to continue any longer but I am being forced to rebut the continuing Insinuations and falsehoods being post. He never should have posted it to the list And this wouldn't being happening if he Didn't. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:13 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey If you want this to stop, then stop posting yourself. It's quite simple. John On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:51:30 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > STOP with this nonsense. That matter > Was between me and the other party > And it was NOT handled rudely or unfairly. > You keep seeming to make implications > That the other party must have been right > Based on my other recent unrelated posts > And that is NOT the case. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Forbes > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:19 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > > Whilst you persist in your unpleasant posts, I shall persist, when I > feel > like it, to post in response, you impertinent guttersnipe. > > And since you are posting to a public forum, I have EVERY right to > comment. > > And finally, which of my so-called hunches were incorrect? If you can > demonstrate that I have maligned you in any way, I shall apologise. But > I > would point out that it is not libel (which is what slander is caled > when > it is done in writing) to write the truth. > > John > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:43:49 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> 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
