We disagreed on the condition of the item. It was Not a case of obvious misrepresation or oversight. If it was Something major he would not have kept it would he? Secondly, if I offered him a full money back including shipping if Not satified even though I disagreed with him On the conditon, I was giving him the benefit Of the doubt wasn't I? There no fucking way You are going to tell me I caused his Dissatisfaction with that deal because he Agreed to keep it at a reduced cost, it was his choice To keep it, not mine. If he wasnt satisfied Then he could have reversed the deal completely very simply. I did not force the partial refund on him like youre implying. So this is a case of pure bullshit on his part. We came to a peaceful and equitable resolution and I did everything I could for him and he just trashed me for NO Reason on the list as a cheap shot to hurt My reputation without any merit whatsoever.
I thinks its time for you to butt the hell out Of this because your talking too much shit On this and its something you were not even Involved in. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Forbes Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:00 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey When one gets involved in a transaction, one doesn't want to end up with a rude seller, or a partial refund. One wants a polite person and a good item. The fact that you offered a refund was acknowledgement that the transaction was not satisfactory, and having to accept a refund when what you want is what you paid for is not satisfactory. And your continuing aggression does nothing to dispel my impression that you were at fault. Furthermore, the more you continue in this vein, the more people will see what sort of person you are, and will make a note not to buy from you. So keep going. John On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:41:50 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fuck you forbes. I already posted I offered > Him a TOTAL refund including shipping both > Ways. If he didn't accept that then he > Most have been satisfied with the partial > Refund he chose instead. Hes not posting > He wasn't satified due to reality, hes posting > That shit to try to screw up my selling reputation > And hes a fucking low life for doing that > After what I did for him ON THAT DEAL. > There is no merit to his claim (or yours) > That he was unsatified when it was all done > Because I offered to reverse it all for him > If he wanted to and he didn't want to. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Forbes > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:37 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:15:06 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> John, >> >> We all know how JCO has responded to the thread regarding the aperture >> simulator. I'm not saying his response is/was correct. >> >> After the last several weeks, the list certainly did not *need* >> additional >> examples to understand how JCO may handle himself when there is a >> dispute. >> >> Shel wrote: >> >> "When I bought the K50/1.4 from you on eBay, and told you the front >> element >> was lose, you replied with a challenging, abusive email. Of course, > I'll >> never do business with you again." >> >> The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was > handled >> to >> their mutual satisfaction. > > I disagree. Shel was not satisfied. If he was, he would not say he > would > never deal with JCO again. > > John > > By recounting this event to the list, >> *leaving >> out pertinent information*, and then ending with the *never do > business >> again* comment, Shel gave the impression that JCO was a bad e-bay > vendor >> and >> that he somehow got ripped off, when that was not the case. >> >> Whether Shel deliberately left this information out, one can only > wonder. >> The effect it had though was to call into question JCO's reputation as > a >> vendor, when his being a vendor was NEVER EVER the subject. A dispute > >> that >> was resolved in a satisfactory manner should be moot. >> >> We also don't know how Shel approached the situation when he felt he >> received damaged goods. Possibly his approach provoked a less than >> desirable response from JCO. In the years on this list I've observed > >> Shel's >> words to be less than gracious sometimes. It's a human failing we > all >> fall >> prey to. > > I agree. Shel isn't the most diplomatic person on the list. But at his > > worst he is much better than JCO at his best. > > John > >> >> So did Shel innocently make the remark to point out *just one more > time* >> that JCO may respond badly or to lob a bomb over the wall? >> >> See how my words cast aspersions as well? >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> ----Original Message Follows---- >> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[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
