RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
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. 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
My manner on the deal wasn't questionable Either, People should not think because Of the rude stuff posted this week means That old ebay deal was handled in same Manner, it WASN'T. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom C Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:21 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey I don't think I'm being obtuse. He also had the opportunity to totally back out of the deal at no cost to himself. If he didn't do that and complains about it later, it's not JCO's fault. He simply, in a hasty moment, used the transaction as a vehicle to reiterate that JCO's manner may not be desirable. The fairness and equitableness of the transaction are not in question. Probably enough talk about Shel, eh? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:54:58 +0100 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:34:04 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. There is nothing apparent about it. Shel has pointed out that he definitely wasn't satisfied. Because you accept an offer to resolve a dispute doesn't necessarily make you satisfied. It just means you have ended the dispute. You are being a little obtuse in ignoring this point. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
HOW many times do I have to rebut this? I wasn't Rude to him in the emails, He didn't email me Any complaint until well after he got it and I Told him that is not acceptable behavior because Its too easy for someone to damage an item and Then claim it came that way and he freaked out Saying I accused him of something. But I was Never rude, he just took it that way. You are Out of line to continue to post this bullshit About what happeded on that deal and how the Emails were handled because you don't know Anything about it and were not invovled. BUTT OUT. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Screw you, he may not have been satisfied But If I did the very best any seller can Do which is offer a full reversal of the Deal and let him buy another one elsewhere Than he really has no right to be unsatisfied. I cant guarantee him or any other psycho Is going to be satisfied ( He was expecting A PERFECT lens when it was not listed as Such for example which is major WRONG action On his part for not reading the ad carefully). All I can do, or any other seller is offer A full refund ( and I offered shipping refund too!) Wanting more that that is being an asshole Especially when he never should have even Bid if he wanted a perfect lens. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:34:04 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. There is nothing apparent about it. Shel has pointed out that he definitely wasn't satisfied. Because you accept an offer to resolve a dispute doesn't necessarily make you satisfied. It just means you have ended the dispute. You are being a little obtuse in ignoring this point. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Look I really don't care if anyone on the list buys Stuff from me, what got me so upset is that its A personal attack on my character to say my ebay Selling is in anyway unfair to anyone. That's my Point in the whole matter. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Agreed Tom, but the way he's acted/responded with the aperture simulator convinces me I'll never have anything to do with him. He's cooked his own goose. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] ToSubject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 01:15:02 GMT snip But you are ever the contrarian, snip Is that similar to, but not exactly like, a libertarian? I get so confused by US politics. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On 26/10/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: Look I really don't care if anyone on the list buys Stuff from me, what got me so upset is that its A personal attack on my character to say my ebay Selling is in anyway unfair to anyone. That's my Point in the whole matter. I wouldn't have a problem buying from JCO. I have experienced first hand in dealing with Shel and the man can be extremely rude himself (as witnessed by a third party, details supplied), not to mention IMO awkward and insolent. The fact that he overwhelms the list with his seemingly wisened pervasiveness means that people think he is some sort of photographic genius. I cannot verify that, but what I can verify is his unforgiving pedantic nature and I would certainly not buy or sell to the man again. The only redeeming feature I can see over JCO, is that at least he doesn't dig himself into a hole, pour dirt on top, and have it concreted over by incessantly replying to each and every post with admittedly nasty vehemence (actually he might but I've killfiled Shel so I wouldn't know). JCO may be a nutty distant cousin to the devil, but Shel is no angel IMO. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:04:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 01:15:02 GMT snip But you are ever the contrarian, snip Is that similar to, but not exactly like, a libertarian? I get so confused by US politics. Well, I couldn't really call Tom a libertine. John - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 08:50:02 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:04:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 01:15:02 GMT snip But you are ever the contrarian, snip Is that similar to, but not exactly like, a libertarian? I get so confused by US politics. Well, I couldn't really call Tom a libertine. That would be at least difficult, living out in the boonies as he does. Although I understand that home delivery is a major part of the US consumer lifestyle. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:09:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 08:50:02 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:04:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 01:15:02 GMT snip But you are ever the contrarian, snip Is that similar to, but not exactly like, a libertarian? I get so confused by US politics. Well, I couldn't really call Tom a libertine. That would be at least difficult, living out in the boonies as he does. Although I understand that home delivery is a major part of the US consumer lifestyle. Yes, but I'n not sure that Tom would be interested in male order. John - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 09:45:32 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:09:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 08:50:02 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:04:00 +0100, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/26 Thu AM 01:15:02 GMT snip But you are ever the contrarian, snip Is that similar to, but not exactly like, a libertarian? I get so confused by US politics. Well, I couldn't really call Tom a libertine. That would be at least difficult, living out in the boonies as he does. Although I understand that home delivery is a major part of the US consumer lifestyle. Yes, but I'n not sure that Tom would be interested in male order. Those who have killfiled this thread don't know what they are missying. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Cotty wrote: XXX may be a nutty distant cousin to the devil, but YYY is no angel IMO. Come on folks, what kind of crap is that. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
I remembered your total refund offer, I just didn't recall that you offered postage as well. But that doesn't change the way you communicated with me, and that's the real issue here - your rude and abusive method of communicating, that you accused me of damaging the lens, and that dealing with you was, for me, an unpleasant experience. Yes, you have a pretty good eBay rep, based on the numbers of positive eBay feedbacks. But if one reads the feedback some interesting patterns emerge. If one were to check your reaction to negative comments or criticism, they'd see for themselves something of how you may have communicated with me. While I may not have recalled the exact words you used to describe the condition of the lens, I do know that you described the lens such that I believed it to be in good, workable condition, and that it could be placed on the camera and used without need for repair. Would you say that your description of the lens, regardless of the words used, strongly suggested such a condition? BTW, I cast no dispersions upon you. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell But if you read my posts on the matter You would know that it isnt true. By His own admission he didn't even remember My total refund offer or how the condition Was listed. I have a right to complain About him as a buyer. He is totally wrong On the entire matter and wrong to cast Dispersions on me as a seller without Giving the truth, the whole truth, and Nothing but the truth. Its damaging when Its not all that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey 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. The term least unsatisfactory is about the only descriptor one could use to describe something that one decides to do from a variety of given optiions, with none of the options being desirable. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Let it go. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I remembered your total refund offer, I just didn't recall that you offered postage as well. But that doesn't change the way you communicated with me, and that's the real issue here - your rude and abusive method of communicating, that you accused me of damaging the lens, and that dealing with you was, for me, an unpleasant experience. Yes, you have a pretty good eBay rep, based on the numbers of positive eBay feedbacks. But if one reads the feedback some interesting patterns emerge. If one were to check your reaction to negative comments or criticism, they'd see for themselves something of how you may have communicated with me. While I may not have recalled the exact words you used to describe the condition of the lens, I do know that you described the lens such that I believed it to be in good, workable condition, and that it could be placed on the camera and used without need for repair. Would you say that your description of the lens, regardless of the words used, strongly suggested such a condition? BTW, I cast no dispersions upon you. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell But if you read my posts on the matter You would know that it isnt true. By His own admission he didn't even remember My total refund offer or how the condition Was listed. I have a right to complain About him as a buyer. He is totally wrong On the entire matter and wrong to cast Dispersions on me as a seller without Giving the truth, the whole truth, and Nothing but the truth. Its damaging when Its not all that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave On 10/26/06, 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
It's fairly easy to understand, Kostas, and it isn't crap. And Cotty isn't folks, he's Cotty. As English presumably isn't your first language, I am sure you will not mind me pointing out that a final s usually denotes a plural. As folk is a collective noun, it is impossible to address a single person as either folk or folks. John On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:45:25 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Cotty wrote: XXX may be a nutty distant cousin to the devil, but YYY is no angel IMO. Come on folks, what kind of crap is that. Kostas -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
And what is exactly wrong with a TOTAL REFUND including all shipping costs In the event of a dispute? If he wasn't happy with the lens he Didn't have to keep it but he did. No, no one likes to return things but When the return reason is questionable ( He expected PERFECT lens when it was not listed as such ), then getting a full refund including postage costs both ways should have been enough to please anyone. What more could he ever expect in Such a situation? Are you crazy Or what? That's a great way to Settle the matter for the buyer. Very very few ebay sellers will Make that good a refund offer. They usually Refuse to refund shipping either One or both ways. I am not saying Its good for either party to be Doing refunds but full refunds Are the only recourse in such cases So there is nothing really to complain About it IMHO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey 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. The term least unsatisfactory is about the only descriptor one could use to describe something that one decides to do from a variety of given optiions, with none of the options being desirable. William Robb -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
I WAS INVOLVED. Y O U W E R E N ' T ! Its pure specualtive BS coming from you At my expense. That's wrong. BUTT OUT! J C O -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave On 10/26/06, 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Well the TOTAL refund INCLUDING postage Costs both ways is as good as it gets In the event of a dispute as it's a FULL Reveral of the purchase which about the Best possible policy ANYONE on ebay has In the event a dispute. Secondly, that lens had a very slight Loosenees of the front filter ring (not the front element) which is common on many used lenses including Pentax and other brands and it in no way affected function whatsover including filter usage. For you to imply I sent you a lens that Needed ANY repairs for full usage is not Correct. I was not rude to you, you were rude to Me by starting this whole matter on the List when at the time you gladly accepted The lens and a partial refund without Any complaints and REFUSED to accept The full refund including all postage Costs. I is totally unfair for you to Complaing about a deal when you didn't Complain about the resolution at the time And REFUSED a total refund IMHO. Lastly, I did not use abusive language At the time, I just informed you what Was wrong with not emailing me at The time you received the item which You didn't, it was well after that And for warranty and insurance claim Reasons that's a no-no on your part. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:44 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey I remembered your total refund offer, I just didn't recall that you offered postage as well. But that doesn't change the way you communicated with me, and that's the real issue here - your rude and abusive method of communicating, that you accused me of damaging the lens, and that dealing with you was, for me, an unpleasant experience. Yes, you have a pretty good eBay rep, based on the numbers of positive eBay feedbacks. But if one reads the feedback some interesting patterns emerge. If one were to check your reaction to negative comments or criticism, they'd see for themselves something of how you may have communicated with me. While I may not have recalled the exact words you used to describe the condition of the lens, I do know that you described the lens such that I believed it to be in good, workable condition, and that it could be placed on the camera and used without need for repair. Would you say that your description of the lens, regardless of the words used, strongly suggested such a condition? BTW, I cast no dispersions upon you. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell But if you read my posts on the matter You would know that it isnt true. By His own admission he didn't even remember My total refund offer or how the condition Was listed. I have a right to complain About him as a buyer. He is totally wrong On the entire matter and wrong to cast Dispersions on me as a seller without Giving the truth, the whole truth, and Nothing but the truth. Its damaging when Its not all that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- 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 -- 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
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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Dear John O'Connell, If you want people to do something, try asking them politely. It usually works. Best wishes John On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:11:44 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I WAS INVOLVED. Y O U W E R E N ' T ! Its pure specualtive BS coming from you At my expense. That's wrong. BUTT OUT! J C O -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave On 10/26/06, 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
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,
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
You arrogant sod. Which part of: If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. ...don't you understand? By airing this in public you've made it a topic free for anyone to comment on. Oh and by the way, what exactly was I speculating on in my last message? Dave On 10/26/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I WAS INVOLVED. Y O U W E R E N ' T ! Its pure specualtive BS coming from you At my expense. That's wrong. BUTT OUT! J C O -Original Message- From: David Savage You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Give Kostas a break. He's good people. ;) On 10/26/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's fairly easy to understand, Kostas, and it isn't crap. And Cotty isn't folks, he's Cotty. As English presumably isn't your first language, I am sure you will not mind me pointing out that a final s usually denotes a plural. As folk is a collective noun, it is impossible to address a single person as either folk or folks. John On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:45:25 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Cotty wrote: XXX may be a nutty distant cousin to the devil, but YYY is no angel IMO. Come on folks, what kind of crap is that. Kostas -- 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 -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:02:55 +0100, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give Kostas a break. He's good people. ;) Don't you mean Kosta? John On 10/26/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's fairly easy to understand, Kostas, and it isn't crap. And Cotty isn't folks, he's Cotty. As English presumably isn't your first language, I am sure you will not mind me pointing out that a final s usually denotes a plural. As folk is a collective noun, it is impossible to address a single person as either folk or folks. John On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:45:25 +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Cotty wrote: XXX may be a nutty distant cousin to the devil, but YYY is no angel IMO. Come on folks, what kind of crap is that. Kostas -- 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 -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Scott Loveless wrote: Give Kostas a break. He's good people. ;) Thanks Scott. Forbes goes straight to /dev/null anyway. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Listen ASSHOLE- my whole point of this Thread was that it never should have Been posted to the list. I am FORCED To respond because it was and in a very B.S. half-truth ( =lie ) manner. You are an idiot if you think I wanted Or like this topic but expect me to Just say nothing when attacked publically Without cause. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey You arrogant sod. Which part of: If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. ...don't you understand? By airing this in public you've made it a topic free for anyone to comment on. Oh and by the way, what exactly was I speculating on in my last message? Dave On 10/26/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I WAS INVOLVED. Y O U W E R E N ' T ! Its pure specualtive BS coming from you At my expense. That's wrong. BUTT OUT! J C O -Original Message- From: David Savage You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On 10/26/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:02:55 +0100, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Give Kostas a break. He's good people. ;) Don't you mean Kosta? Yes, Johns, that's exactly what I meant. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
By your definition Shel could never be satisfied, and he may not be but their contract was satisfied. The dispute ended by mutual consent and mutually agreed upon terms, for must business purposes that's satisfaction it's not being happy it's following through on a contract. Shel might not have been totally happy, but he took the lens. John might not have been totally happy when he gave a partial refund. No one lost no one won. If Shel wasn't thought it was good enough, he could have asked for all of his money back, (plus all shipping costs, if I can believe John, which I think I can). Would that have made him happier, maybe but as long as John fulfilled his part of the bargain then that's all Shel could expect, the terms of the transaction were satisfied. Diplomatic courtesy is not necessarily expected. Shel could warn others that John is prickly, as if we don't know that. But he was a bit snide about it, so he's not entirely in the clear.. This worked out is a damned sight better than seller who totally misrepresented the A 1.4 50mm that I bid on and won. It turned out to be an M 2.0 in an A1.4 box. I contacted the seller who agreed upon a full refund for the return of the lens and box. I sent it back and never received my refund and was also out shipping and insurance both ways. Now that's not satisfaction.. John Forbes wrote: On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:34:04 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. There is nothing apparent about it. Shel has pointed out that he definitely wasn't satisfied. Because you accept an offer to resolve a dispute doesn't necessarily make you satisfied. It just means you have ended the dispute. You are being a little obtuse in ignoring this point. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Hook, line and sinker. John, your nothing if not predictable. Dave At 12:38 AM 27/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Listen ASSHOLE- my whole point of this Thread was that it never should have Been posted to the list. I am FORCED To respond because it was and in a very B.S. half-truth ( =lie ) manner. You are an idiot if you think I wanted Or like this topic but expect me to Just say nothing when attacked publically Without cause. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey You arrogant sod. Which part of: If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. ...don't you understand? By airing this in public you've made it a topic free for anyone to comment on. Oh and by the way, what exactly was I speculating on in my last message? Dave On 10/26/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I WAS INVOLVED. Y O U W E R E N ' T ! Its pure specualtive BS coming from you At my expense. That's wrong. BUTT OUT! J C O -Original Message- From: David Savage You've been carping on about this for a couple of day's now in a public forum. If you don't want people to comment, take it off list. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
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. 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. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Shel Belinkoff wrote: My experience with JCO was not a pleasant one, and, because of that, I will not do business with him again. As an eBay buyer - especially one dealing with a fellow list member - I don't want confrontational and accusatory emails. Sh!t happens, and there's no reason not to be pleasant about such things. Pot. Meet kettle. I'm afraid so. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Are both you and him retarded or what? Why would he chose the LEAST satifactory 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
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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. You may not like JCO personally, but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:34:04 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. There is nothing apparent about it. Shel has pointed out that he definitely wasn't satisfied. Because you accept an offer to resolve a dispute doesn't necessarily make you satisfied. It just means you have ended the dispute. You are being a little obtuse in ignoring this point. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
I don't think I'm being obtuse. He also had the opportunity to totally back out of the deal at no cost to himself. If he didn't do that and complains about it later, it's not JCO's fault. He simply, in a hasty moment, used the transaction as a vehicle to reiterate that JCO's manner may not be desirable. The fairness and equitableness of the transaction are not in question. Probably enough talk about Shel, eh? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:54:58 +0100 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:34:04 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. There is nothing apparent about it. Shel has pointed out that he definitely wasn't satisfied. Because you accept an offer to resolve a dispute doesn't necessarily make you satisfied. It just means you have ended the dispute. You are being a little obtuse in ignoring this point. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Agreed Tom, but the way he's acted/responded with the aperture simulator convinces me I'll never have anything to do with him. He's cooked his own goose. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] ToSubject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey I'd just like to point out that those who are judging JCO on his deal with Shel are doing so with prejudice, based upon the way he's acted on this list. As to the actual details of the transaction, absent any proof otherwise, we have no real knowledge of how it played out, other than the fact that he and Shel both agree that it was concluded and not reversed... both being apparently 'satisfied' with the transaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:15:02 +0100 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Your wording least unsatisfactory, being a bit of a double negative, can be confusing when read quickly, even by fullwits. I disagree, but perhaps you have a looser definition of fullwit. Can you think of a better way to describe a situation where there are no satisfactory options, only a choice of unsatisfactory ones? Let me share an experience of mine. I bought a lens on Ebay last year. It arrived promptly, and well-packed. However, it didn't focus properly at any distance. I explained the situation to the seller, who responded immediately and very apologetically, and requested me to send it back for an immediate fix or full refund. I sent it back on a Monday, and it was returned to me on the Wednesday (!) in full working order with a ten pound note attached which much more than paid for my return postage. The problem was that somebody had serviced it and reversed an element. I left glowing feedback, and would be extremely happy to deal with that seller again. Things go wrong, but what is important is how people deal with the situation when that happens. You may not like JCO personally, You are clearly omniscient. but it sounds like, in the end, from both sides of the transaction, that JCO bent over backwards to have a satisfied customer. Shel said JCO responded aggressively, and implied it was Shel's fault. I can well believe that, based on JCO's normal behaviour, and I honestly cannot understand how you could describe such an approach as bending over backwards to have a satisfied customer. But you are ever the contrarian, and perhaps standards of service in your locality are poor. We'll probably never know the exact words that were exchanged. It is noteworthy that JCO hasn't felt inclined to publish the exact words. I accept that he may have deleted them, and if so, it doesn't surprise me. They are unlikely to reflect well on him. I'd point out that your exchanges with JCO are no better than his, as far as rudeness or politeness is concerned. JCO is rude to everybody, whilst I am only rude to a selected few. Four people in total, if memory serves. One was being uncharacteristically silly, another was being characteristically silly, one has left the list, and the last has left the planet. No guesses as to the identity of that one. John Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:28:56 +0100 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
Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
- Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: The JCO survey This said. Based on what I have seen here, I have no reason not to make business with you. Unless you end up with a defective product, anyway But I do think Shel has a very valid point in his third paragraph. It seems that you are not fully aware how your language and general list behaviour come across. Remember; this is a family list. Children, and others, might get scared. I can hardly imagine that's your purpose. JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
But its PURE FUCKING BULLSHIT. I didn’t abuse him and I Treated him MORE than fairly. My ebay feedback backs me up on this. Both you and him are FULL OF SHIT. He took a super cheap shot. You Don’t go running your mouth About vendors when they treat you Fairly AND I DID treat him fairly. It plain out slander and just a cheap Way for him to try to damage my Ebay business reputation and it was TOTALLY unjustified. Stay the hell Of the this because you are only Making a bad situation worse by Trying to imply it is or was Justible action for him to post That when it wasn’t based on the Options I gave him at the time ( INCLUDING A FUUL REFUND ) and the friendly Resolution reached on the matter. (AT THAT TIME). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: The JCO survey This said. Based on what I have seen here, I have no reason not to make business with you. Unless you end up with a defective product, anyway But I do think Shel has a very valid point in his third paragraph. It seems that you are not fully aware how your language and general list behaviour come across. Remember; this is a family list. Children, and others, might get scared. I can hardly imagine that's your purpose. JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
In a message dated 10/24/2006 11:12:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. === An issue discussed in private email (or in person) is private -- confidence is confidence. We don't know if it was an abusive email, as our own feelings about constitutes abuse may differ from Shel's. I have seen both JCO and Shel be about what I would call equally abusive back and forth in the JCO survey thread. So I withhold judgment. About the only way Shel could prove anything at this point in time, is to actually share JCO's email that he thinks was abusive on list. Which would further violate confidence and Net Etiquette. And it would have to be all the emails they shared back and forth. IMHO, if the buyer/seller matter was settled to both parties satisfaction privately, then it really shouldn't be brought up out of context later to make a point in a public forum. Marnie aka Doe But I will shut up on this now. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
No, he did share private emails by stating They were abusive but in fact I did no such Thing. He also stated he would never deal with Me again like some kind of warning to anyone Else reading this list. I gave him full benefit Of the doubt on that deal and I even offered him A total fucking refund INCLUDING shipping BOTH Ways and he has the nerve to even bring up That matter? What a complete jerk. My ebay record Is superb as a seller, he is just trying to Destroy my reputation without cause because Of the abusive posts ( two way street I might add ) this week. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
See my last post, it's a fucking lie. I used no such abusive language or manner With him on the ebay deal and went out Of my way to see he was treated fairly Then he Posts that horseshit? Its incredibly Out of line slanderous thing to say About anyone considering what I did For him on that one. If he stated the whole Story it would have been one thing and it Would have been very clear that I gave Him proper service but he didn't and that's The scummy thing about it. I had to defend Myself because of his insane, slanderous remarks. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
But it obviously wasn't settled to Shel's satisfaction. I assume that Shel accepted a compromise, being the least unsatisfactory option open to him. Had he known what he was going to get, Shel would not have contracted with JCO in the first place. And he won't again! That shows how satisfied he was. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:47:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 11:12:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. === An issue discussed in private email (or in person) is private -- confidence is confidence. We don't know if it was an abusive email, as our own feelings about constitutes abuse may differ from Shel's. I have seen both JCO and Shel be about what I would call equally abusive back and forth in the JCO survey thread. So I withhold judgment. About the only way Shel could prove anything at this point in time, is to actually share JCO's email that he thinks was abusive on list. Which would further violate confidence and Net Etiquette. And it would have to be all the emails they shared back and forth. IMHO, if the buyer/seller matter was settled to both parties satisfaction privately, then it really shouldn't be brought up out of context later to make a point in a public forum. Marnie aka Doe But I will shut up on this now. -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Well if he wasn't satisfied then why didn't he Say so at the time or accept the COMPLETE AND FULL REFUND I offered him including shipping costs BOTH WAYS? It Doesn't get any better than that in a dispute, a complete Reversal of the deal was offered to him And he chose to accept a partial refund instead, I Didn't force it on him. Your theory is wrong. This guy just slandered Me bigtime for no reason and it's a very very bad thing To do. Go see my ebay feedback. I think I have Like 2 negatives as a seller out of thousands Of transactions. One, because I don't overgrade, And two, I don't stick people with bad items Or situations if a some kind of problem does occur on occasion. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:22 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey But it obviously wasn't settled to Shel's satisfaction. I assume that Shel accepted a compromise, being the least unsatisfactory option open to him. Had he known what he was going to get, Shel would not have contracted with JCO in the first place. And he won't again! That shows how satisfied he was. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:47:17 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 11:12:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. === An issue discussed in private email (or in person) is private -- confidence is confidence. We don't know if it was an abusive email, as our own feelings about constitutes abuse may differ from Shel's. I have seen both JCO and Shel be about what I would call equally abusive back and forth in the JCO survey thread. So I withhold judgment. About the only way Shel could prove anything at this point in time, is to actually share JCO's email that he thinks was abusive on list. Which would further violate confidence and Net Etiquette. And it would have to be all the emails they shared back and forth. IMHO, if the buyer/seller matter was settled to both parties satisfaction privately, then it really shouldn't be brought up out of context later to make a point in a public forum. Marnie aka Doe But I will shut up on this now. -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
In my view Shel was at fault by not leaving you a neg. I imagine you have browbeaten a number of other dissatisfied sellers into behaving the same way. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:29:43 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, he did share private emails by stating They were abusive but in fact I did no such Thing. He also stated he would never deal with Me again like some kind of warning to anyone Else reading this list. I gave him full benefit Of the doubt on that deal and I even offered him A total fucking refund INCLUDING shipping BOTH Ways and he has the nerve to even bring up That matter? What a complete jerk. My ebay record Is superb as a seller, he is just trying to Destroy my reputation without cause because Of the abusive posts ( two way street I might add ) this week. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
So let's see what was actually written. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:33:44 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See my last post, it's a fucking lie. I used no such abusive language or manner With him on the ebay deal and went out Of my way to see he was treated fairly Then he Posts that horseshit? Its incredibly Out of line slanderous thing to say About anyone considering what I did For him on that one. If he stated the whole Story it would have been one thing and it Would have been very clear that I gave Him proper service but he didn't and that's The scummy thing about it. I had to defend Myself because of his insane, slanderous remarks. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
How can he be unsatified with a total and Complete reversal of the sale via full refund Including all shippig coats? Are you stupid Or what? That's not brow beating, that's a Refund and that's one of the options I gave Him. You cant get better customer service That that. He is just a lowlife scumbag Trying to screw up my ebay reputation on This list WITHOUT cause whatsoever. Screw Him and the horse he rode in on. What a Loser jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey In my view Shel was at fault by not leaving you a neg. I imagine you have browbeaten a number of other dissatisfied sellers into behaving the same way. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:29:43 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, he did share private emails by stating They were abusive but in fact I did no such Thing. He also stated he would never deal with Me again like some kind of warning to anyone Else reading this list. I gave him full benefit Of the doubt on that deal and I even offered him A total fucking refund INCLUDING shipping BOTH Ways and he has the nerve to even bring up That matter? What a complete jerk. My ebay record Is superb as a seller, he is just trying to Destroy my reputation without cause because Of the abusive posts ( two way street I might add ) this week. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. Shel didn't share email with the list. He claimed that when he raised an issue about an eBay transaction JCO responded with an abusive email message. That's a very different thing. Accusing Shel of offences of which he is innocent isn't helping things. -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Fuck you forbes. I already posted I offered Him a TOTAL refund including shipping both Ways. If he didn't accept that then he Most have been satisfied with the partial Refund he chose instead. Hes not posting He wasn't satified due to reality, hes posting That shit to try to screw up my selling reputation And hes a fucking low life for doing that After what I did for him ON THAT DEAL. There is no merit to his claim (or yours) That he was unsatified when it was all done Because I offered to reverse it all for him If he wanted to and he didn't want to. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Just ask him if I offered him a a full refund Including two way shipping costs? I did. And that Pretty much will end the story and define who Is the guilty party. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey So let's see what was actually written. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:33:44 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See my last post, it's a fucking lie. I used no such abusive language or manner With him on the ebay deal and went out Of my way to see he was treated fairly Then he Posts that horseshit? Its incredibly Out of line slanderous thing to say About anyone considering what I did For him on that one. If he stated the whole Story it would have been one thing and it Would have been very clear that I gave Him proper service but he didn't and that's The scummy thing about it. I had to defend Myself because of his insane, slanderous remarks. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
When one gets involved in a transaction, one doesn't want to end up with a rude seller, or a partial refund. One wants a polite person and a good item. The fact that you offered a refund was acknowledgement that the transaction was not satisfactory, and having to accept a refund when what you want is what you paid for is not satisfactory. And your continuing aggression does nothing to dispel my impression that you were at fault. Furthermore, the more you continue in this vein, the more people will see what sort of person you are, and will make a note not to buy from you. So keep going. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:41:50 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fuck you forbes. I already posted I offered Him a TOTAL refund including shipping both Ways. If he didn't accept that then he Most have been satisfied with the partial Refund he chose instead. Hes not posting He wasn't satified due to reality, hes posting That shit to try to screw up my selling reputation And hes a fucking low life for doing that After what I did for him ON THAT DEAL. There is no merit to his claim (or yours) That he was unsatified when it was all done Because I offered to reverse it all for him If he wanted to and he didn't want to. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
He wanted a lens (or whatever it was). Not hassle, rudeness, and a refund. Or can't you see that? John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:43:40 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just ask him if I offered him a a full refund Including two way shipping costs? I did. And that Pretty much will end the story and define who Is the guilty party. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey So let's see what was actually written. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:33:44 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See my last post, it's a fucking lie. I used no such abusive language or manner With him on the ebay deal and went out Of my way to see he was treated fairly Then he Posts that horseshit? Its incredibly Out of line slanderous thing to say About anyone considering what I did For him on that one. If he stated the whole Story it would have been one thing and it Would have been very clear that I gave Him proper service but he didn't and that's The scummy thing about it. I had to defend Myself because of his insane, slanderous remarks. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly treated. William Robb Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too personally, Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Marnie aka Doe -- 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 -- 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
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Well, I was gonna let this drop. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the eBay transaction with JCO, but his incessantly rude and abusive posts here just got me to the point where I felt that, if I showed him that his method of communication here is similar to what I experienced in doing business with him, JCO _might_ see what I, and others, have been complaining about. I really did not intend for this to get so out of hand. Anyway, JCO listed a K50/1.4 on eBay and described it as being in perfect shape. I'd been looking for just that lens for quite some time, and actually had been trying to contact Mark Roberts about one that he'd offered to the list around that time. Some people here know how difficult it can be to contact MR by email. Anyway, after several attempts it became clear that, for whatever reason, I wasn't going to hear from Mark and that I should keep looking for a good example of the lens. I bid on and won the lens. I don't recall if the auction was BIN or not. I paid promptly, JCO shipped the lens promptly, and I received it in a timely fashion. I did not have a chance to look at the lens for three or four days. When I did, the front was loose and wobbly. I told JCO and the first thing he did was jump on my ass for not contacting him sooner, and suggested that, since I didn't contact him upon receipt of the lens, perhaps I had caused the problem. His method of communication was similar to that which he uses here, accusatory, YELLING, and so on. He did say that he would refund in full, although I don't recall any offer to pay postage both ways. I really wanted a K50/1.4, there were none other on eBay that seemed acceptable for any number of reasons (price, condition, terms, etc.), so I took his offer of a partial refund. It was not what I wanted, but of the options then available it was the most acceptable. By that I mean it was the only way, _at that time_, I could have gotten a K50/1.4. By accepting his offer does not mean that I was satisfied or pleased. It meant only that, after weighing the options, the partial refund was acceptable, or, to put it another way, it was the least unacceptable. My experience with JCO was not a pleasant one, and, because of that, I will not do business with him again. As an eBay buyer - especially one dealing with a fellow list member - I don't want confrontational and accusatory emails. Sh!t happens, and there's no reason not to be pleasant about such things. Did JCO rip me off? I don't think I'd go so far as to say that. Of course, I never did say that in any message posted here or to him at the time, contrary to JCO's ranting. Did I receive the lens in the described condition? No, I did not. I did not leave him any feedback - good or bad. I felt that leaving positive feedback would not have been appropriate, and, based on how he responded when I told him the lens had a problem, I felt that leaving negative feedback would have just caused more vitriolic comments and created more problems than it was worth. As for his accusation here that I've slandered him, that's complete nonsense. The truth is not slander. Nor was (or is) it my intention to ruin his business. I just wanted to point out _to him_ that his behavior and style goes beyond what he writes on this list, and that it _does_ affect how others relate to him. At least it affects how I relate to him. Oh, as for the lens itself, I had to send it out for repair. I neither had the tools nor the skills to fix it. It would not have been a simple repair for me. In the end, it cost me more than the $15.00 that I got from JCO to fix the lens and make it right. So, my apologies to the list for stirring up another hornet's nest. I honestly didn't think my offhand comment to JCO was such that it would create so much of a commotion. I will, however, stand by my comments above wrt JCO's behavioral and method of communicating, which is what this was all about, not so much the quality of the goods he was selling on eBay. That would be in another thread, at another time, in a galaxy far, far away. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes He wanted a lens (or whatever it was). Not hassle, rudeness, and a refund. Or can't you see that? J. C. O'Connell wrote: Just ask him if I offered him a full refund Including two way shipping costs? I did. And that Pretty much will end the story and define who Is the guilty party. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
We disagreed on the condition of the item. It was Not a case of obvious misrepresation or oversight. If it was Something major he would not have kept it would he? Secondly, if I offered him a full money back including shipping if Not satified even though I disagreed with him On the conditon, I was giving him the benefit Of the doubt wasn't I? There no fucking way You are going to tell me I caused his Dissatisfaction with that deal because he Agreed to keep it at a reduced cost, it was his choice To keep it, not mine. If he wasnt satisfied Then he could have reversed the deal completely very simply. I did not force the partial refund on him like youre implying. So this is a case of pure bullshit on his part. We came to a peaceful and equitable resolution and I did everything I could for him and he just trashed me for NO Reason on the list as a cheap shot to hurt My reputation without any merit whatsoever. I thinks its time for you to butt the hell out Of this because your talking too much shit On this and its something you were not even Involved in. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:00 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey When one gets involved in a transaction, one doesn't want to end up with a rude seller, or a partial refund. One wants a polite person and a good item. The fact that you offered a refund was acknowledgement that the transaction was not satisfactory, and having to accept a refund when what you want is what you paid for is not satisfactory. And your continuing aggression does nothing to dispel my impression that you were at fault. Furthermore, the more you continue in this vein, the more people will see what sort of person you are, and will make a note not to buy from you. So keep going. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:41:50 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fuck you forbes. I already posted I offered Him a TOTAL refund including shipping both Ways. If he didn't accept that then he Most have been satisfied with the partial Refund he chose instead. Hes not posting He wasn't satified due to reality, hes posting That shit to try to screw up my selling reputation And hes a fucking low life for doing that After what I did for him ON THAT DEAL. There is no merit to his claim (or yours) That he was unsatified when it was all done Because I offered to reverse it all for him If he wanted to and he didn't want to. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors.
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
What the hell makes you think that this Ebay deal years ago was even remotely Similar to the vulgar trading of posts this Last week on the list regarding The aperture cam sensor. It wasn't Of course. I suggest you shut the hell up Because for you to defend someone Who did what he did after voluntarily Choosing to NOT get a full and complete Refund is inexcusable. He cant Choose to keep it and say he's not Satisfied. If he wasn't satisfied With that conclusion then why Did he take that option? Because he Wanted that lens and that conclusion in that situation, that's why. Sure Im sure he would rather had no issues at all ( so would I ) but a complete reversal offer is fair as it possibly gets. What do you suggest, a double his money back offer or what? Its just pure bullshit for him To say I abused him, I caused His satifaction problems etc, when I did Everything possible for him Including giving a full reversal/refund offer Even though I disagreed with him on the Whole matter to begin with. I suggest You see my complete feedback at ebay And don't judge me by one sick puppy Which is what he is to do what he did In his half-truth post( aka : a lie ) to the list about his claim of me being abusive or not worthy of dealing with. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* additional examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a dispute. Shel wrote: When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front element was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll never do business with you again. The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, *leaving out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor and that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute that was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed Shel's words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all fall prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? See how my words cast aspersions as well? Tom C. Original Message Follows From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't find that claim in any way unbelievable. On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out of my junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them from the inbox. However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties satisfaction. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If a vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Your entire post is horseshit because I NEVER Sell anything described as PERFECT. I sold It as excellent condtion, not perfect and not Like new. I sometimes sell things as like new When they appear just like new but I DID NOT List that lens as perfect or even like new. Secondly, thanks for reminding me about your complaint delay. It even proves my point more about how I bent Over backwards for you on that sale to make you Happy because Its not generally correct to ask For refunds well after the received dates on Items for the very reason I stated to you at The time, its too easy for someone to abuse Or damage the item while using it after receiving OK and then Pretend they got it that way days or weeks later When they first make the complaint. And if you do have your old emails check them because I DID offer you a full refund INCLUDING all shipping Fees BOTH WAYS. NOW do you understand why its wrong for you to say You were not satisfied. You don't even remember the Refund offer I gave you. That's the best refund Offer in the business in the case of a dispute and I gave it to you in the case of a very late Complaint well after you received the item. I don't want to go on and on about this but If you cant even remember the listed conditon ( I NEVER claimed perfect or like new on that one) And you cant remember key things like the shipping Refund too then you never should have ran Youre big fucking mouth at my expense. You Have to have you facts very clear before you Do the kind of thing you did to me and you Obviously don't. I stand by all my posts on the matter. Check Your emails. Check the listing if you saved It. Check whatever. You had no reason to Do what you did other than to hurt my reputation Based on your own incorrect fautly memories Or even worse to possibly slander me on purpose. I don't forget the dual shipping costs refund offer When I make it and I certainly did or I wouldn't Be so fucking pissed off at your posts. Now that You remind me of your very late complaint on It too, it even makes me more pissed off at Your total irresponsiblity with regards To the whole matter and what you posted to the list. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:50 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Well, I was gonna let this drop. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the eBay transaction with JCO, but his incessantly rude and abusive posts here just got me to the point where I felt that, if I showed him that his method of communication here is similar to what I experienced in doing business with him, JCO _might_ see what I, and others, have been complaining about. I really did not intend for this to get so out of hand. Anyway, JCO listed a K50/1.4 on eBay and described it as being in perfect shape. I'd been looking for just that lens for quite some time, and actually had been trying to contact Mark Roberts about one that he'd offered to the list around that time. Some people here know how difficult it can be to contact MR by email. Anyway, after several attempts it became clear that, for whatever reason, I wasn't going to hear from Mark and that I should keep looking for a good example of the lens. I bid on and won the lens. I don't recall if the auction was BIN or not. I paid promptly, JCO shipped the lens promptly, and I received it in a timely fashion. I did not have a chance to look at the lens for three or four days. When I did, the front was loose and wobbly. I told JCO and the first thing he did was jump on my ass for not contacting him sooner, and suggested that, since I didn't contact him upon receipt of the lens, perhaps I had caused the problem. His method of communication was similar to that which he uses here, accusatory, YELLING, and so on. He did say that he would refund in full, although I don't recall any offer to pay postage both ways. I really wanted a K50/1.4, there were none other on eBay that seemed acceptable for any number of reasons (price, condition, terms, etc.), so I took his offer of a partial refund. It was not what I wanted, but of the options then available it was the most acceptable. By that I mean it was the only way, _at that time_, I could have gotten a K50/1.4. By accepting his offer does not mean that I was satisfied or pleased. It meant only that, after weighing the options, the partial refund was acceptable, or, to put it another way, it was the least unacceptable. My experience with JCO was not a pleasant one, and, because of that, I will not do business with him again. As an eBay buyer - especially one dealing with a fellow list member - I don't want confrontational and accusatory emails. Sh!t happens, and there's no reason not to be pleasant about such things. Did JCO rip me off? I don't think I'd go so far as to say that. Of course, I never did say that in any message posted
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Shel Belinkoff wrote: My experience with JCO was not a pleasant one, and, because of that, I will not do business with him again. As an eBay buyer - especially one dealing with a fellow list member - I don't want confrontational and accusatory emails. Sh!t happens, and there's no reason not to be pleasant about such things. Pot. Meet kettle. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Mostly, I would say you are correct. As an example, we had a list member a while back, I don't recall her name, who did exactly that to me. And yes, I was annoyed. However, one must balance ettiquettes sometimes. As well, if you are treated badly in a store when trying to rectify a defective goods issue, it is only natural to tell your friends. Even if the situation rectifies itself to your satisfaction, the amount of hassle required to do it may make that store (or eBay vendor) more trouble to deal with than you are willing to risk. There is nothing wrong with telling people what you think of a vendor, I recall a few times you have lashed out at Wal-Mart. What Shel did is no different in principle than what you have done yourself, and what many of us have done in relation to some vendors. Basically, if you want to be respected, then treat people in a respectful manner. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
Shel was satisfied enough to keep the lens and not reverse the transaction. . . The point was not really whether Shel was satisfied or not, it was that he left out the part about reaching a settlement they both must have thought was equitable, which casts a much darker shadow over the whole affair. From Shel's later post, it's apparent he would not mention it all if he had it to do over. Tom C. Original Message Follows From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:24:11 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
But if you read my posts on the matter You would know that it isnt true. By His own admission he didn't even remember My total refund offer or how the condition Was listed. I have a right to complain About him as a buyer. He is totally wrong On the entire matter and wrong to cast Dispersions on me as a seller without Giving the truth, the whole truth, and Nothing but the truth. Its damaging when Its not all that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled to their mutual satisfaction. Define mutual satisfaction. If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- 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
RE: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey
You are not reading my posts on this matter. I DID NOT treat him in a abusive matter or Unfairly. THAT is why I so freaking pissed When he wrote that total B.S. He has no Right to do it when its NOT TRUE. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:18 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be shared on list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time shared something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on list, and I didn't appreciate it at all. But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. Regardless regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. Mostly, I would say you are correct. As an example, we had a list member a while back, I don't recall her name, who did exactly that to me. And yes, I was annoyed. However, one must balance ettiquettes sometimes. As well, if you are treated badly in a store when trying to rectify a defective goods issue, it is only natural to tell your friends. Even if the situation rectifies itself to your satisfaction, the amount of hassle required to do it may make that store (or eBay vendor) more trouble to deal with than you are willing to risk. There is nothing wrong with telling people what you think of a vendor, I recall a few times you have lashed out at Wal-Mart. What Shel did is no different in principle than what you have done yourself, and what many of us have done in relation to some vendors. Basically, if you want to be respected, then treat people in a respectful manner. William Robb -- 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
