I reship lost or damaged shipments...it happens [rarely, and almost all are very honest...thank goodness] and I 'eat' it. Is that a defense? So far as loss and damage goes...offer insurance?
I see your point...that thin line between explanation and defense in a field where a small percentage of customers are emotionally oriented and can't seem to think their way out of a wet paper bag, read or follow the clearest directions. I had one person call and complain that they hadn't gotten electrodes with their generator...they were holding them in a small brown envelope stapled to the directions on how to insert them in one hand, and the phone in the other. Hey! I've done that too! [cringe :-)] Never hurts to ask directions out of a wet paper bag. Everyone gets lost in their own bedroom sometimes. [Ever look for a fork in the fridge, then forget what you're looking for and wind up staring at the food?] "Satisfaction gauranteed" requires that the vendor be notified of dissatisfaction. If the first indication of dissatisfaction rears up on list, I think it permissable to indicate that there was no notification and the vendor had no chance to remedy the situation. Then perhaps the complainer should post what happened after communication [off list, of course..or, on list, as the customer sees fit] was established. If they don't, perhaps the vendor could request it be done. If still not done...communications be posted by the vendor? But a statement like, "It's a $145 cheap shoddy piece of crap that fell apart in my hands and the vendor does not respond to repeated attempts at communication or basically said, 'buyer beware'" [go-f*k-u].... is pretty clear. ken At 11:46 AM 10/26/01 -0400, you wrote: >Ode Coyote wrote: > >> Personally speaking [as a vendor], I would want to know what I did wrong so I could set it right if possible. >> Ken > >I agree. What is a vendor to do if a shipment gets lost and the complaint here is the first they heard about it? What if the complaint can be easily explained. I.E. our product DOES show a little fallout upon setting. The reason is that we do not filter out any larger particles since we found that filters contaminate the CS and cause real stability problems. How would one differentiate between the discussion of the "reason" for something, and a defense of an unacceptable action? > >Marshall > > > >-- >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: >silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > >To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html >List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > >
