Fuck you forbes. I already posted I offered Him a TOTAL refund including shipping both Ways. If he didn't accept that then he Most have been satisfied with the partial Refund he chose instead. Hes not posting He wasn't satified due to reality, hes posting That shit to try to screw up my selling reputation And hes a fucking low life for doing that After what I did for him ON THAT DEAL. There is no merit to his claim (or yours) That he was unsatified when it was all done Because I offered to reverse it all for him If he wanted to and he didn't want to. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > > We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture > simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. > > After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* > additional > examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a > dispute. > > Shel wrote: > > "When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front > element > was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, I'll > never do business with you again." > > The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was handled > to > their mutual satisfaction. I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he would never deal with JCO again. John By recounting this event to the list, > *leaving > out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do business > again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay vendor > and > that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. > > Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only wonder. > The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as a > vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute > that > was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. > > We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he > received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than > desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed > Shel's > words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we all > fall > prey to. I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his worst he is much better than JCO at his best. John > > So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more time* > that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? > > See how my words cast aspersions as well? > > Tom C. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:31:30 -0400 > > > What's damaging about it, Tom? As far as I can see all that > Shel did was to suggest that JCOs dispute resolution style was > to respond with abusive email. Judging by the way he responds > on this list to anyone who dares to disagree with him I don't > find that claim in any way unbelievable. > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:26AM -0600, Tom C wrote: > > I now read all messages from JCO or containing the characters JCO out > of > my > > junk mail folder. It means I don't have to worry about deleting them > from > > the inbox. > > > > However, I would be a little torqued as well at this kind of damaging > > remark, especially when the deal had been consumated to both parties > > satisfaction. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:02:37 EDT > > > > In a message dated 10/24/2006 9:51:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > JCO is an eBay vendor. Vendor reputations are based not only on the > > product they sell, but how they deal with customer service issues. If > a > > vedor treats his custmers like crap ( I am presuming Shel is being > > truthful based on JCO's conduct on list), then he has every right (and > > perhaps a duty to warn his friends) to tell the world he was badly > > treated. > > > > William Robb > > ======== > > Personally, I don't think things shared in private email should be > shared > on > > list. It's a basic no-no in Net Etiquette. And I know Shel one time > shared > > something we had discussed in person, and I thought in private, on > list, > and > > I > > didn't appreciate it at all. > > > > We are getting along pretty well now, so don't take this too > personally, > > Shel. And I don't want to rehash it either. > > > > But I think JCO has a perfect right to be thoroughly pissed off. > Regardless > > regardless of the content of what was shared privately between them. > > > > Marnie aka Doe > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
