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 <[email protected]> >>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >>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 <[email protected]> >> > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >> > 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 >> > [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 >>m just >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
