Re: The JCO survey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/20/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: RE: The JCO survey Aren't you? You've said so many times that you have no intention to buy new lenses. If that is the case why should Pentax care about fully supporting K/M lenses. They have already got they're pound of flesh from you. JCO, by his onw admission, has never bought a K/M lens from Pentax. They haven't gotten anything from him. Well in that case Pentax definitely have no obligation to him. Dave But if he sells all his K/M lenses and buys FA*, DA, etc lenses, then because he is supporting them, they will put back the aperture simulator. :) rg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey
At 04:49 AM 10/11/2006, Gonz wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/20/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: David Savage Subject: RE: The JCO survey Aren't you? You've said so many times that you have no intention to buy new lenses. If that is the case why should Pentax care about fully supporting K/M lenses. They have already got they're pound of flesh from you. JCO, by his onw admission, has never bought a K/M lens from Pentax. They haven't gotten anything from him. Well in that case Pentax definitely have no obligation to him. Dave But if he sells all his K/M lenses and buys FA*, DA, etc lenses, then because he is supporting them, they will put back the aperture simulator. :) It's a terrible catch 22. g Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
Not even worthy of a response. John Forbes wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:54:19 -, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not even worthy of a response. Nonetheless, it seems to have elicited one. :-) John John Forbes wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- 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: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
The age of the lenses is irellavant, its whether they are compatible with the current mount and K/M lenses are fully compatible with the latest mount, pentax is just choosing to disable some of their functions for no technical reason whatsoever. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. Not even worthy of a response. John Forbes wrote: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- 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: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. The age of the lenses is irellavant, its whether they are compatible with the current mount and K/M lenses are fully compatible with the latest mount, pentax is just choosing to disable some of their functions for no technical reason whatsoever. They have indicated it was a business decision. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
The post topic was about the age of the lenses not pentaxnomics. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. The age of the lenses is irellavant, its whether they are compatible with the current mount and K/M lenses are fully compatible with the latest mount, pentax is just choosing to disable some of their functions for no technical reason whatsoever. They have indicated it was a business decision. 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: The JCO survey
I find this to be true on my M bodies. You can't just use your fore or mid finger to twist the shutter dial easily. My KX bodies, however, don't have as much friction that way. I think this depends on the body. I have 3 MX bodies and 4 KX bodies, so I suspect I have a reassonable sampling of the two. All of my MX bodies are equally stiff on shutter dial, and all the KXen are equally smooth; noticably better than the MXs. J. C. O'Connell wrote: ...And aperture rings on lenses and the aperture rings Were and are much easier to adjust manually than The shutter speed dial with your eye to the finder. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
The JCO survey - I need a prize.
Heck folks, I'm usually a lurker but I DID start The JCO survey. It was intended as a survey, but I'm now thinking it is one of the largest, stupidest, and most bitter threads yet spawned here. I think I deserve a prize. Thistles thrown at twenty paces? Pizza without sauce or cheese? Rocks in my socks? Being doomed to listen to JCO forever? Penitent, I am, I am... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Lon Williamson wrote: Thistles thrown at twenty paces? Pizza without sauce or cheese? Rocks in my socks? Being doomed to listen to JCO forever? Penitent, I am, I am... I think being banned forever ought to suffice. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lon Williamson Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Heck folks, I'm usually a lurker but I DID start The JCO survey. It was intended as a survey, but I'm now thinking it is one of the largest, stupidest, and most bitter threads yet spawned here. I think I deserve a prize. Thistles thrown at twenty paces? Pizza without sauce or cheese? Rocks in my socks? Being doomed to listen to JCO forever? Penitent, I am, I am... -- 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: The JCO survey
I cant apeak for anyone else but with the old film bodies, I adjust the Aperture ring with my left hand while holding The camara with my finger on the shutter release With my right. Thus, I can shift the AE aperture And shutter speed combination while still being Able to shoot at any moment. With manual shutter speed Changes, I have to take my finger off the shutter Release button to adjust he shutter dial, so its worse. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lon Williamson Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:42 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey I find this to be true on my M bodies. You can't just use your fore or mid finger to twist the shutter dial easily. My KX bodies, however, don't have as much friction that way. I think this depends on the body. I have 3 MX bodies and 4 KX bodies, so I suspect I have a reassonable sampling of the two. All of my MX bodies are equally stiff on shutter dial, and all the KXen are equally smooth; noticably better than the MXs. J. C. O'Connell wrote: ...And aperture rings on lenses and the aperture rings Were and are much easier to adjust manually than The shutter speed dial with your eye to the finder. -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. D'oh! -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
oooh I thought JCO stood for Just Counting Opinions ann ducks Cotty wrote: On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. D'oh! -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
Cotty wrote: On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. If you can call that word(s). More like a mix of random letters strewn about with commas sprinkled in. Ok, so you use ' every now then, just not all the time (its in this case should be it's it is). I really like the creative use of the comma as a period (after them which is the end of that sentence). And, of course, the first-letter-in-a-line capitalization and extra s like I thinks gives this post a real consistency. -- Christian -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
Please stop with your grammer lessons. Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Cotty wrote: On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. If you can call that word(s). More like a mix of random letters strewn about with commas sprinkled in. Ok, so you use ' every now then, just not all the time (its in this case should be it's it is). I really like the creative use of the comma as a period (after them which is the end of that sentence). And, of course, the first-letter-in-a-line capitalization and extra s like I thinks gives this post a real consistency. -- Christian -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
On 2/11/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? You've gone too far this time Christian. What have our mothers done to you!! -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
I think we have had this debate before. Please give the man a break Christian. We have just finished one flame war, no point in creating another one IMO. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: 2. november 2006 21:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Cotty wrote: On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. If you can call that word(s). More like a mix of random letters strewn about with commas sprinkled in. Ok, so you use ' every now then, just not all the time (its in this case should be it's it is). I really like the creative use of the comma as a period (after them which is the end of that sentence). And, of course, the first-letter-in-a-line capitalization and extra s like I thinks gives this post a real consistency. -- Christian -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
1) Turn off using Word as the email editor: Tools - Options - Mail Format Tab - uncheck both Use MS Office Word... 2) Turn off auto corrections: Tools - Options - Spelling - uncheck Use AutoCorrect On 11/2/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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 -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:17:28 -, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please stop with your grammer lessons. Quite right. Start with the spelling lessons. Grammar can follow. Blame Bill Gates. Anybody but the real culprit. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Merriam Webster please note new word. Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. Try harder. Everybody else gets it right. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Cotty wrote: On 2/11/06, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed: I thinks its time to add, don't start surveys And put OTHER people's names on them, if it was Your survey, which it was in this case, than call it yours. jco That *must* be the last word. If you can call that word(s). More like a mix of random letters strewn about with commas sprinkled in. Ok, so you use ' every now then, just not all the time (its in this case should be it's it is). I really like the creative use of the comma as a period (after them which is the end of that sentence). And, of course, the first-letter-in-a-line capitalization and extra s like I thinks gives this post a real consistency. -- 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
Mail text formatting: was Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
John, you may find these tips useful for MS Outlook: in your Inbox - Click on Tools/Options Click the Spelling tab Click the Auto-correct options button. Check all the options on, and edit the list of replacement options below as needed. Click OK Back at the Spelling tab: Check all the options on. Click Ok to save your changes. The only thing you now need to remember is to only hit Enter when you need to start a new paragraph: otherwise, Outlook will assume that you are starting a new sentence, and will capitalise the first letter for you. You should also be able to accept or reject any spelling mistakes that Outlook thinks you have made! HTH John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:18 AM Subject: RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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: Mail text formatting: was Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
Many Thanks, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Coyle Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 7:02 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Mail text formatting: was Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. John, you may find these tips useful for MS Outlook: in your Inbox - Click on Tools/Options Click the Spelling tab Click the Auto-correct options button. Check all the options on, and edit the list of replacement options below as needed. Click OK Back at the Spelling tab: Check all the options on. Click Ok to save your changes. The only thing you now need to remember is to only hit Enter when you need to start a new paragraph: otherwise, Outlook will assume that you are starting a new sentence, and will capitalise the first letter for you. You should also be able to accept or reject any spelling mistakes that Outlook thinks you have made! HTH John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 8:18 AM Subject: RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize. Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
MUCHO GRACIAS! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perry Pellechia Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. 1) Turn off using Word as the email editor: Tools - Options - Mail Format Tab - uncheck both Use MS Office Word... 2) Turn off auto corrections: Tools - Options - Spelling - uncheck Use AutoCorrect On 11/2/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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 -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- 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: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
We all expect perfect messages from you now. On 11/2/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MUCHO GRACIAS! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perry Pellechia Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 6:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. 1) Turn off using Word as the email editor: Tools - Options - Mail Format Tab - uncheck both Use MS Office Word... 2) Turn off auto corrections: Tools - Options - Spelling - uncheck Use AutoCorrect On 11/2/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatand where is the setting(s) I need to change then? I have looked all over in many, many, menus for These settings. I DO blame Bill Gates because these Are the default settings and they are not easy To find or shut off, even with the help information Provided with the programs. Thanks in advance, JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Blame Bill Gates. My ms-outlook/word program Is automatically changing **some** spelling From what is typed and also capitolizing Some words ( every first word in each Line, even if it's in the middle of a Sentence. I have tried and tried many times to turn This stuff off in the program settings, but to no avail. jco You're (you are) the only one it would seem. Sure, push off responsibility to someone else. Why not blame global warming, the economy, our mothers, George W. Bush, sun spots or Cotty? They have about as much to do with your (possessive) inability to make a simple email client work properly. My MOM can use MS Outlook/Outlook Express! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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 -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- 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 -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I need a prize.
On 11/02/06 7:32 PM, Perry Pellechia, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all expect perfect messages from you now. On 11/2/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MUCHO GRACIAS! JCO But now he is ALL CAPITAL! Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
You're right. I was just testing Don to make sure he'd picked up on this point :-) John On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:33:16 -, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the lens mount is the same as it was 32 years ago! That's why. You cant say its OK because the K/M lenses Are old. So is the current lens mount. There is nothing Technically that cause the need for removal of full KM support on these bodies because there is no new mount Or mount feature which necessitated dropping the KM full Support. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- 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: The JCO survey
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/31 Tue PM 10:59:05 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: The JCO survey Arghhh! It's back. It's Halloween, and the thread from hell is back!! It _is_ the day when dead things rise. The only question is if we are talking about the thread or the aperture sensor mechanism. JCO won't lie down, so it can't be him. 8-) On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and purchased it. It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of five bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some may realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of the steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, we _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design has been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of shake reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of that type of work as possible. Shel -- 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 - 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: The JCO survey
It's the camera that replaced the K1000. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: Never heard of that one, either. Shel [Original Message] From: keith_w keith_ Shel Belinkoff wrote: The ZX-M? Never heard of it. Mfg. 1997. Same camera as the MZ-M in the U.S. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
I started this here thread as a survey. It is depressingly long running. JCO, many of the people here who have lambasted you would LIKE TO HAVE decent K/M lens support. Most think it ain't gonna happen. And, I like you, would like to see it. Look at Wm Robb's lenses to see why he actually voted AYE. Mark Roberts doesnt think it's important, nor does G. G. We're all a little different. Hell, I'm loading buckshot in the ole Blunderbluss just in case some Whippersnapper appears on my front door to present me with some danged progress. I apologize to the list members who have found this thread difficult..but.. A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. I'm not trying to prolong the debate. I just happen to have a pile of K/M lenses, and a smattering of A lenses (50mm/f1.7, 35-70/f4, 100mm). Like JCO, I'd be happy as yer average Pig In The Proverbial Mud to use them with no significant penalty on a FLAGSHIP body. (relurking now, as Nurse Druckett tells me I need some Meds Right Now and she should know.) -Lon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey
Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and purchased it. It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of five bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some may realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of the steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, we _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design has been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of shake reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of that type of work as possible. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey
Arghhh! It's back. It's Halloween, and the thread from hell is back!! On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and purchased it. It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of five bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some may realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of the steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, we _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design has been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of shake reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of that type of work as possible. Shel -- 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: The JCO survey
Just to be clear, I posted my message more than a week ago. The thread is now just another goblin. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Arghhh! It's back. It's Halloween, and the thread from hell is back!! On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and purchased it. It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. [BIG SNIP] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- 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: The JCO survey
The ZX-M? Never heard of it. I'll have to check Boz's site. Anyway, I'm not in the market for a film camera right now. Got enough of them ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson Shel, consider the ZX-M. Not an exensive camera. I've used it, and purchased it. It has the bits you mentioned. It's actually kinda sweet. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a million units adds up quickly enough. [BIG SNIP] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
On 31/10/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). In the same vein, please do use petrol to start those bonfires on November 5th (UK etc ) ;-))) -- 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: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
Because the lens mount is the same as it was 32 years ago! That's why. You cant say its OK because the K/M lenses Are old. So is the current lens mount. There is nothing Technically that cause the need for removal of full KM support on these bodies because there is no new mount Or mount feature which necessitated dropping the KM full Support. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:20:26 -, Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A flagship is a flagship, and if there's a K1D in the future, it should be as complete as the LX was in its day. Quite right. As complete, not more. I don't recall that the LX mounted screw-thread lenses without an adaptor. And I don't recall that the adapter was able to stop down the lens when you pressed the shutter. In other words, the LX provided only partial support for six year-old lenses. So why should the K1D provide full support for thirty two-year old lenses (assuming it makes its debut in 2007). John -- 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: The JCO survey
Shel Belinkoff wrote: The ZX-M? Never heard of it. I'll have to check Boz's site. Anyway, I'm not in the market for a film camera right now. Got enough of them ;-)) Shel Mfg. 1997. Same camera as the MZ-M in the U.S. Me too! keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey
Never heard of that one, either. Shel [Original Message] From: keith_w keith_ Shel Belinkoff wrote: The ZX-M? Never heard of it. Mfg. 1997. Same camera as the MZ-M in the U.S. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often.....
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: The JCO survey - I should start lurking more often. Because the lens mount is the same as it was 32 years ago! That's why. You cant say its OK because the K/M lenses Are old. So is the current lens mount. There is nothing Technically that cause the need for removal of full KM support on these bodies because there is no new mount Or mount feature which necessitated dropping the KM full Support. Money. 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
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
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: The JCO survey
The irony is that everytime somebody asks people to stop adding to the thread, they are themselves adding to it. If you don't want others to post, take your own advice! John On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:14:46 +0100, Peter Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know the words Cotty and understated are rarely used in the same sentence, but as a fellow Brit I hear him saying in a typically British understated way, enough children, you're all clearly very tired and fractious so it's time to come in, drink your Ovaltine and go to bed For the sake of everyone's sanity can we put this one to bed please. PUHLEASE Peter - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:55 PM Subject: Re: The JCO survey On 24/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: An add-on aperture simulator? Goddammit CoTty you stupid frigging Idiot. Its called a aperture Cam sensor! :-) -- right back at ya (spelling, punctuation, grammer and random caps for added comic effect only) You think yor some kind of SMART ASS You fucking dumb shit. What the hell kind Of game are you playing? I've constantly Said the same thing ver and ver again and You just don't get it. You and that william blobb dude And if you can't see that then youre heads aare Stuck so far up your asses as to be gone forever. I never said anything of the kind and anyway I like the feling Of rough metal over my buttocks - not that PLAASTIC SHIT On A lenses and those cheap nasty zooom things That you JERKOFFS use all the time. GET REAL You total dickehads, see I'm not abusive AT ALL. sco -- 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
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: The JCO survey
On 26/10/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: The irony is that everytime somebody asks people to stop adding to the thread, they are themselves adding to it. If you don't want others to post, take your own advice! Right. -- 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 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 disagree
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
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 acting
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
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
Bullying a bully (WAS)RE: The JCO survey
Bill, as I read this post you basically claim to bully JCO in the name of a greater good. Indirectly you also claim JCO to bully simply because he is a dickhead (replace this with whatever abusive words you prefer). So you are good, and he is bad. Bill God. (Pardon my pun, but is so tempting to use it to make my point clearer). Let me start over: Bill Robb. Speaking of dogs. Do you shit at the floor to house train your dogs? I don't think you do. No, when you see that the puppy is going to do his things, you simply take it outside. When it does its stuff at the right arena you praise him, and then take him inside again. As we both know, this is a simple three step procedure. 1. Stop the unwanted behaviour. 2. Teach alternative behaviour. 3. Enforce wanted behaviour. If you are good at this, as I'm sure you are, you does everything in you power to react in the same instant as the puppy shows signs of shitting behaviour. And you repeat this procedure as many times as needed. Now to a bully behaving dog. Do you wait for 15 minutes, maybe two hours, and then bully him back to train him not to bully? Sorry Bill, but I don't believe you do. Why doesn't I believe it. Because I believe you are a good dog trainer. I believe you do the exact same basic thing. You try to analyse the motifs the dog has for his aggressive behaviour. And based on this analyse you decide what alternative behaviour you will teach the dog. If you believe the dog is aggressive because he is afraid, you may teach it to run away. Or you may teach it to handle its fear. If you believe he does it because he wants something from you, you may train it to get what it wants by asking for it. If you based on your observations believe the dog is aggressive because he is a dominant dog you teach that you are the boss, and that you are a good boss. And don't bullshit us pretending to do differently. Claiming a greater good does not excuse your behaviour on this topic. I think thats enough said ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: 25. oktober 2006 01:51 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The JCO survey - Original Message - From: ann sanfedele Subject: Re: The JCO survey come on guys - take it off list or lighten up or both annsan for peace and friendliness The guy that built my house is a jco type. He also uses bullying and abuse to get what he wants. The problem with letting people get away with this sort of crap is that they tend to keep doing it, and become very hair triggered. It is self reinforcing behaviour By this, I mean that eventually, as soon as someone crosses them, they become abusive and bullying, secure in the knowledge that they will win, since they always have in the past. I see this sort of behaviour in dogs on a regular basis. The dog that runs it's fence chasing off anyone who walks by is showing the same behaviour. I expect that jco has used his bullying methods of getting his own way for a very long time, probably it is something that he learned in grade school and has escalated through his entire life, to the point now that he jumps down anyone's throat who dares to have a differing opinion, he treats any slight as a personal attack, and he escalates anything that crosses him to the most extreme position he can. It's easy to write this sort of psychotic behaviour off as a mental illness, and I have recieved a few private emails asking me to stop the bear baiting. Bullying and abuse does not classify as a mental illness. Bullies know exactly what they are doing, they just have so little regard for people that they continue doing it. Bullies tend to be wife beaters, or animal abusers, they tend to go looking for fights, but will only pick on those they see as unable to defend themselves. The more fights they win, the bolder the bullying becomes. Eventually, they see anyone as fair game, they see themselves as a superior, unassailable being who has the right to do exactly what he is doing. If I didn't have the right to do it, someone would stop me is essentially the mindset that they take. Since everyone backs down, the behaviour continues unabated, and tends to escalate. So, one is faced with a choice: Does one let the bully win, thereby reinforcing his loutish behaviour, or does one stand up to the bully and not let him win, thereby essentially castrating him? This is not the first time that jco has teed off on people on this list. At one time Rob Studdert and I had a running game about when jco would get himself wound up again. For a while it was about once every three weeks, like clockwork. Let it go if you like, let the Wookie win, so to speak. You can be secure in the knowledge that he will continue his abuse, perhaps not today or tomorrow, but again at some point, and that the next time he will be even more antisocial
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
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: (annoying typing requirements of the web was: The JCO survey
Bob, the frustrating thing for me is that apostrophe is considered a single quote by ebay -- when I write a note on a bill on ebay - it doesn't permit quote marks or asterisks in the text - I'm constantly having to rewrite - so I sympathize with those who leave out such things on email. then there are those lower case only situations sigh ann Bob Shell wrote: What kind of keyboard do you have? On mine the apostrophe is just to the left of the return key. When I want to type joe's an idiot I use my ring finger to hit the apostrophe and don't even notice. I learned touch typing in the 60s and seem to recall that the apostrophe is somewhere else on a typewriter keyboard, but no longer have one of those beasts. Personally, I think proper punctuation is essential to accurate communication. Bob -- 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, 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
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: The JCO survey
I know the words Cotty and understated are rarely used in the same sentence, but as a fellow Brit I hear him saying in a typically British understated way, enough children, you're all clearly very tired and fractious so it's time to come in, drink your Ovaltine and go to bed For the sake of everyone's sanity can we put this one to bed please. PUHLEASE Peter - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:55 PM Subject: Re: The JCO survey On 24/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: An add-on aperture simulator? Goddammit CoTty you stupid frigging Idiot. Its called a aperture Cam sensor! :-) -- right back at ya (spelling, punctuation, grammer and random caps for added comic effect only) You think yor some kind of SMART ASS You fucking dumb shit. What the hell kind Of game are you playing? I've constantly Said the same thing ver and ver again and You just don't get it. You and that william blobb dude And if you can't see that then youre heads aare Stuck so far up your asses as to be gone forever. I never said anything of the kind and anyway I like the feling Of rough metal over my buttocks - not that PLAASTIC SHIT On A lenses and those cheap nasty zooom things That you JERKOFFS use all the time. GET REAL You total dickehads, see I'm not abusive AT ALL. sco -- 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 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: The JCO survey
At 11:14 PM 25/10/2006, Peter Jordan wrote: For the sake of everyone's sanity can we put this one to bed please. PUHLEASE No! 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
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
Re: The JCO survey
Of course, Shel never uses foul language at all. Nope. Never. In fact reports that he verbally abused another list member acting as a financial go-between during a non-ebay transaction when I bought his *ist Ds from him a while back are totally untrue. And shit doesn't stick neither. -- 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: The JCO survey
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/10/24 Tue AM 12:30:14 GMT To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: The JCO survey Look I don't think it's right AT ALL for you to bring up Our personal business matters on the list. THAT is far More FOUL than any four letter word name calling. I have a spectacular Reputation at ebay and I don't want people like you Trashing me for no reason because we settled that minor Dispute didn't we? You are getting really [EMAIL PROTECTED] low To make comments like that about me on this list. I do not rip people off and I am not a crooked ebay dealer. Did we come to an equitable agreement on that Issue or NOT? Now I am really f%#$%#ing pissed. That's totally uncalled for. I suggest everyone Go to ebay and check my feedback. You are a freaking Low life to say something like that especially After we settled that minor problem to a mutual agreement At the time. In fact, that's it, FUCK YOU dude! My ebay record speaks for itself, you are one full of Shit asshole lowlife to say that kind of horseshit About my business practices when there is nothing To back it up. Arguing cameras is one thing but to slander Me with this horsehit is going WAY WAY to far. P.s. FUCK YOU AGAIN! I cant believe you did that. What A freaking scumbag. SINCERELY, JCO. I don't quite understand. Are you annoyed with Shel? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The JCO survey You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I've not used any such tones with you. You have done so with others as well, often calling people dumb or idiots, and worse, for expressing their opinions, especially those opinions run counter to yours. You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I have gotten fed up with you and replied in kind. Regardless of how people address you, you can choose to be civil, but you don't. In fact, one of the list members noted that he's left the list several times because of your posts. He wasn't even writing to you, just posting a general message. Your comment was Screw you, dude ... (See below) I think that your foul mouth and abusive language are so much a part of you that you aren't even fully aware of what you say or how you come across. 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. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell My replies are of the same tone as the posts Directed at me. I never start with the name Calling but I will certainly volley. jco -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff How about because of your vile, disgusting language and rude behavior. It's one thing to argue incessantly over the same point, but your style isn't fit for continuous human consumption. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell Screw You, dude. I don't see any reason why anyone Would need/want to leave the list because of my posts. -- 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 - 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: The JCO survey
I second that emotion! Dan M On 10/22/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please Don't Feed The Imbecile : Don't respond to JCO, don't respond to this thread, don't respond to anything else he posts. Filter all his posts to the trash. To be blunt, the PDML list will be a waste of time until the bastard croaks if you let him dominate everything with incessant, repetitious stupidity. Godfrey -- 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: The JCO survey
John. This is none of my business. Despite this, I kindly do suggest that you reread Shel's post. The way read him he does not suggest, or not even hint, that you have ripped him off or tried to rip him off in any way. All he claims is that you responded in an abusive and aggressive way, when he said the front element was loose. No more, no less. When seeing the language you have used in your response here, I have no problem imagining what kind of language he is referring to. Basically what he says, is that he dislikes being verbally abused. I'm not Shel, but I guess that's why he does not want to do business with you any more. This I can sympathise with. Abusive language makes me feel uncomfortable too. This said. Based on what I have seen here, I have no reason not to make business with you. 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. In the name of just. I also do think Shel could have made a better example. IMO it would have been more appropriate choosing something public, not personal, something from the list. One more point, also in the name of just. John is not the only one using abusive language in this so called aperture simulator threads. I could name others. You know who you are; this is a family list, remember? At the beginning of the debate I must admit that I was kind of amused. But that changed after about 100 posts. Now it is a total waste. All this swearing and aggression over a camera feature, a dead thing. This really saddens me. And folks (I'm addressing all now), if you have to swear, why don't use some creativity and come up with some colourful swearing? If swearing in black and white; please put some effort in the rendering ;-) Peace and love, Tim ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: 24. oktober 2006 02:30 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The JCO survey Look I don't think it's right AT ALL for you to bring up Our personal business matters on the list. THAT is far More FOUL than any four letter word name calling. I have a spectacular Reputation at ebay and I don't want people like you Trashing me for no reason because we settled that minor Dispute didn't we? You are getting really [EMAIL PROTECTED] low To make comments like that about me on this list. I do not rip people off and I am not a crooked ebay dealer. Did we come to an equitable agreement on that Issue or NOT? Now I am really f%#$%#ing pissed. That's totally uncalled for. I suggest everyone Go to ebay and check my feedback. You are a freaking Low life to say something like that especially After we settled that minor problem to a mutual agreement At the time. In fact, that's it, FUCK YOU dude! My ebay record speaks for itself, you are one full of Shit asshole lowlife to say that kind of horseshit About my business practices when there is nothing To back it up. Arguing cameras is one thing but to slander Me with this horsehit is going WAY WAY to far. P.s. FUCK YOU AGAIN! I cant believe you did that. What A freaking scumbag. SINCERELY, JCO. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The JCO survey You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I've not used any such tones with you. You have done so with others as well, often calling people dumb or idiots, and worse, for expressing their opinions, especially those opinions run counter to yours. You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I have gotten fed up with you and replied in kind. Regardless of how people address you, you can choose to be civil, but you don't. In fact, one of the list members noted that he's left the list several times because of your posts. He wasn't even writing to you, just posting a general message. Your comment was Screw you, dude ... (See below) I think that your foul mouth and abusive language are so much a part of you that you aren't even fully aware of what you say or how you come across. 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. Shel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: The JCO survey
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:26:44 +0100, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what do you call someone who Comes to a MUTUAL agreement on A business matter and then goes On to tell hundreds of people I ripped him off? That's incredible. He refused a full refund I offered and accepted A partial refund. Now he has the Freaking nerve to insinuate that I somehow ripped him off? That's Totally unfreaking believable. You're quite right. It isn't believable. And the reason for that is that it's not true. All Shel said was that you responded very aggressively. This we can all believe. You know no other way. To say that he told hundreds of people that [you] ripped him off is a lie. Therefore, you are a liar. An aggressive liar. A foul-mouthed, aggressive liar. An incoherent, whingeing, insensitive, stupid, irrational, foul-mouthed, aggressive liar. But don't worry, Kostas loves you. John I take ebay customer matters very seriously And I don't think that saying something Like that after what actully happened is Even remotely correct thing to do. It's massive Slander. He was just taking a super cheap shot At me for reasons I do not know but That was just way too God Damn over the Line. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The JCO survey Your a class act John. Dave At 08:30 AM 24/10/2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Look I don't think it's right AT ALL for you to bring up Our personal business matters on the list. THAT is far More FOUL than any four letter word name calling. I have a spectacular Reputation at ebay and I don't want people like you Trashing me for no reason because we settled that minor Dispute didn't we? You are getting really [EMAIL PROTECTED] low To make comments like that about me on this list. I do not rip people off and I am not a crooked ebay dealer. Did we come to an equitable agreement on that Issue or NOT? Now I am really f%#$%#ing pissed. That's totally uncalled for. I suggest everyone Go to ebay and check my feedback. You are a freaking Low life to say something like that especially After we settled that minor problem to a mutual agreement At the time. In fact, that's it, FUCK YOU dude! My ebay record speaks for itself, you are one full of Shit asshole lowlife to say that kind of horseshit About my business practices when there is nothing To back it up. Arguing cameras is one thing but to slander Me with this horsehit is going WAY WAY to far. P.s. FUCK YOU AGAIN! I cant believe you did that. What A freaking scumbag. SINCERELY, JCO. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The JCO survey You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I've not used any such tones with you. You have done so with others as well, often calling people dumb or idiots, and worse, for expressing their opinions, especially those opinions run counter to yours. You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I have gotten fed up with you and replied in kind. Regardless of how people address you, you can choose to be civil, but you don't. In fact, one of the list members noted that he's left the list several times because of your posts. He wasn't even writing to you, just posting a general message. Your comment was Screw you, dude ... (See below) I think that your foul mouth and abusive language are so much a part of you that you aren't even fully aware of what you say or how you come across. 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. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell My replies are of the same tone as the posts Directed at me. I never start with the name Calling but I will certainly volley. jco -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff How about because of your vile, disgusting language and rude behavior. It's one thing to argue incessantly over the same point, but your style isn't fit for continuous human consumption. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell Screw You, dude. I don't see any reason why anyone Would need/want to leave the list because of my posts. -- 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: The JCO survey
I never said we didn't settle things - just that your comments were challenging (you accused me of damaging the lens) abusive. Your post below is indicative of how you verbally attack and treat people. Shel [Original Message] From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 10/23/2006 5:34:39 PM Subject: RE: The JCO survey Look I don't think it's right AT ALL for you to bring up Our personal business matters on the list. THAT is far More FOUL than any four letter word name calling. I have a spectacular Reputation at ebay and I don't want people like you Trashing me for no reason because we settled that minor Dispute didn't we? You are getting really [EMAIL PROTECTED] low To make comments like that about me on this list. I do not rip people off and I am not a crooked ebay dealer. Did we come to an equitable agreement on that Issue or NOT? Now I am really f%#$%#ing pissed. That's totally uncalled for. I suggest everyone Go to ebay and check my feedback. You are a freaking Low life to say something like that especially After we settled that minor problem to a mutual agreement At the time. In fact, that's it, FUCK YOU dude! My ebay record speaks for itself, you are one full of Shit asshole lowlife to say that kind of horseshit About my business practices when there is nothing To back it up. Arguing cameras is one thing but to slander Me with this horsehit is going WAY WAY to far. P.s. FUCK YOU AGAIN! I cant believe you did that. What A freaking scumbag. SINCERELY, JCO. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The JCO survey
I never used any abusive language with him On the ebay thingy. Secondly, the front Element WAS NOT LOOSE AND WAS NEVER LOOSE. That Would ba GROSS oversight And major defect. The Front filter ring was very slightly loose But the front element was fine. The dispute Was over something very minor. Its a 5 minute Job and very easy to fix that. I never accused anyone of damaging the lens In question. Sometimes buyers claim weeks After delivery the item is damaged and in Those cases I might suggest it was user Caused damage but I dont recall that being The case here. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Øsleby Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:36 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The JCO survey John. This is none of my business. Despite this, I kindly do suggest that you reread Shel's post. The way read him he does not suggest, or not even hint, that you have ripped him off or tried to rip him off in any way. All he claims is that you responded in an abusive and aggressive way, when he said the front element was loose. No more, no less. When seeing the language you have used in your response here, I have no problem imagining what kind of language he is referring to. Basically what he says, is that he dislikes being verbally abused. I'm not Shel, but I guess that's why he does not want to do business with you any more. This I can sympathise with. Abusive language makes me feel uncomfortable too. This said. Based on what I have seen here, I have no reason not to make business with you. 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. In the name of just. I also do think Shel could have made a better example. IMO it would have been more appropriate choosing something public, not personal, something from the list. One more point, also in the name of just. John is not the only one using abusive language in this so called aperture simulator threads. I could name others. You know who you are; this is a family list, remember? At the beginning of the debate I must admit that I was kind of amused. But that changed after about 100 posts. Now it is a total waste. All this swearing and aggression over a camera feature, a dead thing. This really saddens me. And folks (I'm addressing all now), if you have to swear, why don't use some creativity and come up with some colourful swearing? If swearing in black and white; please put some effort in the rendering ;-) Peace and love, Tim ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: 24. oktober 2006 02:30 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The JCO survey Look I don't think it's right AT ALL for you to bring up Our personal business matters on the list. THAT is far More FOUL than any four letter word name calling. I have a spectacular Reputation at ebay and I don't want people like you Trashing me for no reason because we settled that minor Dispute didn't we? You are getting really [EMAIL PROTECTED] low To make comments like that about me on this list. I do not rip people off and I am not a crooked ebay dealer. Did we come to an equitable agreement on that Issue or NOT? Now I am really f%#$%#ing pissed. That's totally uncalled for. I suggest everyone Go to ebay and check my feedback. You are a freaking Low life to say something like that especially After we settled that minor problem to a mutual agreement At the time. In fact, that's it, FUCK YOU dude! My ebay record speaks for itself, you are one full of Shit asshole lowlife to say that kind of horseshit About my business practices when there is nothing To back it up. Arguing cameras is one thing but to slander Me with this horsehit is going WAY WAY to far. P.s. FUCK YOU AGAIN! I cant believe you did that. What A freaking scumbag. SINCERELY, JCO. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:11 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: The JCO survey You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I've not used any such tones with you. You have done so with others as well, often calling people dumb or idiots, and worse, for expressing their opinions, especially those opinions run counter to yours. You've replied to me with your disgusting diatribes when I have gotten fed up with you and replied in kind. Regardless of how people address you, you can choose to be civil, but you don't. In fact, one of the list members noted that he's left the list several times because of your posts. He wasn't even writing to you, just posting a general message. Your comment was Screw you, dude ... (See below) I think that your foul mouth
