P N Stenquist wrote: >On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Scott Loveless wrote: >> >>> On 11/25/09, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The issue here is that one of the parties is lying: Either Apple's >>>> lying about how much contamination there is in the computer or the >>>> customer is lying about the extent of the computer's exposure to >>>> tobacco smoke. >>> >>> That's not the issue. Apple's not claiming the smoke damaged the >>> device. They're claiming that it's too dangerous for their panty >>> waist techs to work on it. >> >> It's still a difference in how smoke-contaminated the computer really >> is. Apple says "a lot", the customer claims "very little". One of >> 'em's lying. Expect a court to decide. >> >If it really happened.
Three independent complaints from different parts of the country? They could all be making it up but I doubt it. If that were the case I'd expect Apple would be saying so rather than ignoring inquiries from The Consumerist. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
