Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/25 Ken Waller :

> I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
> a right.

 But two Wrights can make an airplane.
>>>
>>> Can two rites make a ceremony?
>>
>> Dunno. Can two wrights make a play?
>
> Can three wrights make a left?

If two lights make a green...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Ken Waller]

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "eckinator" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Leica M9



2010/5/23 mike wilson :



I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
a right.


But two Wrights can make an airplane.


Can two rites make a ceremony?


Dunno. Can two wrights make a play?


Can three wrights make a left?


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Ken Waller]

I've had lots of experience with breaking technology.


MARK !

Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Steven Desjardins" 

Subject: Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9


Besides, I'm surprised cameras don't have that little dot that turns
red when it gets wet.  Cells phones all have them. I've immersed two.
Oddly, the one I quickly recovered died whereas the one I actually put
through a cycle of the washing machine dried out just fine.  I've had
lots of experience with breaking technology.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:03 AM, eckinator  wrote:

2010/5/22 Steven Desjardins :

The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind. This is especially
true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
"not a person" and do not merit ethical treatment. You can't cheat
an inanimate object.

I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
"doing business". My position is that you do yourself more harm
psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.



Amen to that!




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/24 Boris Liberman :
> This list has too many/much pun_dits...

Well, two punishments can fit one crime...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[mike wilson]

On 24 May 2010 05:17, Boris Liberman  wrote:
> This list has too many/much pun_dits...

There must be something about "two puns" and a "write" but I'm damned
if I can think of it.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

This list has too many/much pun_dits...

Boris

On 5/24/2010 2:08 AM, eckinator wrote:

2010/5/23 eckinator:

2010/5/23 Cotty:

Two Wongs can make a chop suey.


And two fangs can take a bite.
In Denmark they can buy Dong Energy.


I've been thinking... two bongs could fly my kite but it only takes
two puns to make me write but the real question is:

Does Gary Fong go to Denmark to charge his flashes?




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" 
Subject: Re: Leica M9





But two Wrights can make an airplane.


Can two rites make a ceremony?



Any more than that would be a ceremany

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/23 eckinator :
> 2010/5/23 Cotty :
>> Two Wongs can make a chop suey.
>
> And two fangs can take a bite.
> In Denmark they can buy Dong Energy.

I've been thinking... two bongs could fly my kite but it only takes
two puns to make me write but the real question is:

Does Gary Fong go to Denmark to charge his flashes?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

On 5/23/2010 4:32 AM, eckinator wrote:

2010/5/23 Tom C:
   

Do they have the right to know the full story?

If a mfr. were to make, and a retailer to sell, a shoddy product, do
they let me in on it?  Or do they hope people buy it and are then
stuck with it, and too busy or too chicken shit to raise a stink? And
even then they'll hide behind all the legalese.

That, in the end is why I have no qualms of conscience about this.  A
lie was not told when returning the item. The exchange was made, no
question asked.

I can guarantee you that there's plenty of people on this list who
would willing partake in actions on a regular basis, that my
conscience would prohibit me from doing.

So why doesn't everyone get off their high horse about it?
 

I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
a right. Three lefts do but I doubt that will get anyone a new
camera...

   

Obviously you've never driven in Boston or Atlanta.

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

On 5/22/2010 8:33 PM, paul stenquist wrote:

On May 22, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

   

On 23/05/2010, P. J. Alling  wrote:

 

I've worked in retail, sellling at different times, audio equipment and
cameras, if we couldn't sell again as new, (i.e. the camera, or other gear,
looked pristine and the all of the packaging was as new), we wouldn't give
you all of your money back, and after checking all of the cameras functions,
we'd sure as hell sell it as new.  Some places charge a restocking fee as a
matter of course.
   

I guess that's the difference, here people can sniff out something
that's been repackaged (even carefully) a mile away and will often
demand a discount for taking on shop-soiled items.

 

That's true here as well. Most packaging today has machine applied tape or 
shrink wrap. It's not hard to see if it's been opened. I look for a package 
that is still sealed. And if the opened one is the only one left, I ask for a 
discount. NIne times out of ten, it's granted.
Paul
   


Back when I was working retail, packaging wasn't so machine intensive.  
Now it appears that large chains have special repackaging equipment.



Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.
 


   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

Yes but you're describing stupidity and greed on the part of customers.  
In spite of that the law should be able to shut down the truly 
dishonest, yet it doesn't.




On 5/23/2010 1:52 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote:

Sun May 23 01:11:29 CDT 2010
Boris Liberman wrote:

   

On 5/23/2010 1:57 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
 

No corporation that consistently cheats it's customers will survive. To
do that you need a gun and the unrestricted will to use it. Otherwise
customers will flee to another haven. Free markets are free, and the
worst offenses happen in the markets that are most controlled.
   

Peter, I can give you a number of counter examples in my country.
 

Boris, - one doesn't need to go across the ocean:
Most PDMLers know a bunch of NYC-based "photo stores" that range
from "bait-n-switch" to "charge-n-send-nothing-or-crap" scammers.
Those have existed (or had existed) for many years.

Some of them are located in mid-Manhattan, some in Brooklyn.
(One can easily spot them here based on reviews:
http://photo.net/neighbor/subcategory-index?id=2 )
Resellerratings.com is yet another good source for finding long-living
resellers with consistantly bad reviews.

Peter:
In a large enough market, - the influx of fools feeding crooks is
large enough (practically infinite) to support long term "stagnation"
of the latter.

(Besides, - strictly speaking, - there are no "free markets". -
Practically all "free" markets are regulated to some degree,
as truly free markets are not sustainable long term. - But
that's a subject for a separate and pointless - within PDML - discussion.)

Igor


   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/23 Cotty :
> Two Wongs can make a chop suey.

And two fangs can take a bite.
In Denmark they can buy Dong Energy.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Cotty]

Two Wongs can make a chop suey.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/23 mike wilson :
>>
>>> I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
>>> a right.
>>
>> But two Wrights can make an airplane.
>
> Can two rites make a ceremony?

Dunno. Can two wrights make a play?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[mike wilson]

William Robb wrote:


- Original Message - From: "eckinator" Subject: Re: Leica M9




I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
a right. 



But two Wrights can make an airplane.


Can two rites make a ceremony?

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/23 William Robb :
>
>> I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
>> a right.
>
> But two Wrights can make an airplane.

And an airplane can make three lefts, some even four. Things
inevitably come full circle.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Leica M9

[Bob W]

> 
> I'd say yes it did. Abnormal use = abuse. I seriously doubt 
> that camera designers factor in an alcoholic drink being 
> spilled onto their non-waterproof body, and would certify 
> normal performance thereafter.
> 

I disagree. Abnormal use does not equal - indeed, does not even imply -
abuse. The designers of anything have a responsibility to take human factors
into account. These include taking your camera into a pub where somebody
might spill a drink on it. The designers are not obliged to guarantee that
the camera will work afterwards, but I wouldn't class something like that as
abuse, I'd call it normal wear and tear.

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Keith Whaley]

William Robb wrote:


- Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: Leica M9

 
In the case that started this discussion, the return was made in 
accordance with the retailer's published return policy.




Not quite.
Their return policy definitely states that items that have been damaged 
through customer use or abuse do not qualify for return.


“...[U]se or abuse do not qualify...” Totally clear English.

The question seems to be does spilling a drink on a non waterproof 
camera consitute customer abuse.


I’d say yes it did. Abnormal use = abuse. I seriously doubt that camera 
designers factor in an alcoholic drink being spilled onto their non-waterproof 
body, and would certify normal performance thereafter.



Answer that and you have answered if the return policy was followed.

William Robb


keith




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Igor Roshchin]

Sun May 23 01:11:29 CDT 2010
Boris Liberman wrote:

> On 5/23/2010 1:57 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> > No corporation that consistently cheats it's customers will survive. To
> > do that you need a gun and the unrestricted will to use it. Otherwise
> > customers will flee to another haven. Free markets are free, and the
> > worst offenses happen in the markets that are most controlled.
> 
> Peter, I can give you a number of counter examples in my country.

Boris, - one doesn't need to go across the ocean: 
Most PDMLers know a bunch of NYC-based "photo stores" that range
from "bait-n-switch" to "charge-n-send-nothing-or-crap" scammers.
Those have existed (or had existed) for many years.

Some of them are located in mid-Manhattan, some in Brooklyn.
(One can easily spot them here based on reviews:
http://photo.net/neighbor/subcategory-index?id=2 )
Resellerratings.com is yet another good source for finding long-living
resellers with consistantly bad reviews.

Peter:
In a large enough market, - the influx of fools feeding crooks is 
large enough (practically infinite) to support long term "stagnation"
of the latter.

(Besides, - strictly speaking, - there are no "free markets". -
Practically all "free" markets are regulated to some degree,
as truly free markets are not sustainable long term. - But
that's a subject for a separate and pointless - within PDML - discussion.)

Igor


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms"

Subject: Re: Leica M9



In the case that started this discussion, the return was made in 
accordance with the retailer's published return policy.


Not quite.
Their return policy definitely states that items that have been damaged 
through customer use or abuse do not qualify for return.
The question seems to be does spilling a drink on a non waterproof camera 
consitute customer abuse.

Answer that and you have answered if the return policy was followed.

William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returns (was Re: Leica M9)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms"

Subject: Re: Returns (was Re: Leica M9)



The only thing that bothered me about it was knowing XX management 
would blame me for giving bad customer service if the customer complained 
to management. Didn't matter if you were following company policy, and 
risked being fired if you violated that policy, the customer was unhappy, 
therefore it was your fault. That was also company policy.


Any time I found myself in that sort of conflict, if the customer request 
was so egregious that I couldn't bring myself to go along with it, I'd 
escalate it to a manager and let them make the decision.
I figure one of the things that management is paid for is to decide which 
situations fall outside of the policy guidelines that they want me to 
follow.
I never got written up for it since I never strayed from policy. Sometimes 
the individual manager wasn't happy, since he had to make a hard decision 
rather than write up an associate, but again, they get paid extra to make 
hard decisions.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: Rob Studdert

On 23/05/2010, Boris Liberman  wrote:


> When faced with request from a buyer to return the mis-sold item, the buyer
> would parry with "you're a grown up person, you should have listened better;
> it is too late now".


Here some types of contracts have an integrated cooling off period but
generally in retail shops the buyer makes the final decision to part
with their cash or not. Can't get more basic really, if I stuff up
it's off to eBay the bad purchase goes.


Most retailers have a return policy. The policy is intended to protect 
the retailer, but it does give the consumer some protection as well.


In the case that started this discussion, the return was made in 
accordance with the retailer's published return policy.


The only thing I found odd about the whole thing was knowing the name of 
the retailer, and based on my own experience with them, they hadn't 
tried to screw him on the return.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "eckinator" 
Subject: Re: Leica M9





I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
a right. 


But two Wrights can make an airplane.

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: Tom C

Do they have the right to know the full story?

If a mfr. were to make, and a retailer to sell, a shoddy product, do
they let me in on it?  Or do they hope people buy it and are then
stuck with it, and too busy or too chicken shit to raise a stink? And
even then they'll hide behind all the legalese.

That, in the end is why I have no qualms of conscience about this.  A
lie was not told when returning the item. The exchange was made, no
question asked.

I can guarantee you that there's plenty of people on this list who
would willing partake in actions on a regular basis, that my
conscience would prohibit me from doing.

So why doesn't everyone get off their high horse about it?

Tom C.


Let me add something else. This part of the discussion began about a 
return to Best Buy.


My EXPERIENCE shopping Best Buy is they knowingly sell defective items 
and then refuse to honor their own published return policies when the 
customer attempts to return them.


There's a reason I frequently advise contacting your state's Attorney 
General's office. It's also the reason I don't shop at Best Buy.


So, if someone managed to get one over on Best Buy for a change, I say 
more power to 'em.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returns (was Re: Leica M9)

[John Sessoms]

From: Tom C

Interesting.

I'm here sticking up for Christian, and I wasn't the guy that returned
the camera.  :-) 


But I understand the mindset.  It's not about ripping someone off.  If
any one is doing that it's the mfrs., the vendors, and the retailers
that have their hoards of i-dotting and t-crossing attorneys, trying
to insure that their own interests are protected in every way
possible. And often times any action a corporation wants to take is
justified in the name of 'it's our policy'.

I'm unsure what would have happened if it was told that a drink had
been spilled on the camera.  I can imagine one CS clerk saying, no
deal it must be sent in for repair, and OTOH, another one saying don't
worry about, we'll send it back, here's a new one.

If a company, retailer or vendor has a reputation for great customer
service, i.e., let's make the customer happy, I suspect they'll make
more money though gross sales alone, than they lose, through the small
% of customers that actually plan to rip them off.


Mostly, it depends on the retailer's policy regarding returns. When I 
worked at XX the policy was to accept the return if it was within 90 
days, the customer had the receipt and all the original contents were in 
the box.


Sometimes the customer would have all the original contents - CD, 
manual, cords & camera, but had discarded the internal cushioning. In 
that case we still took it back.


Customers could get a refund or exchange for a new one. Theoretically, 
we could refuse a return if the customer had "abused" the product.


Never happened while I was there.

I had customers tell me we had the best return policy and the best service.

I also had customers screaming at me, and telling me how much worse our 
policy was than our competitors because for whatever reason they didn't 
fit within the return policy and I wasn't allowed to accept the return.


Whatever.

The only thing that bothered me about it was knowing XX management 
would blame me for giving bad customer service if the customer 
complained to management. Didn't matter if you were following company 
policy, and risked being fired if you violated that policy, the customer 
was unhappy, therefore it was your fault. That was also company policy.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Cotty]

On 22/5/10, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I can guarantee you that there's plenty of people on this list who
>would willing partake in actions on a regular basis, that my
>conscience would prohibit me from doing.

Shit - I'm on Youtube?

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/23 Tom C :
>
> Do they have the right to know the full story?
>
> If a mfr. were to make, and a retailer to sell, a shoddy product, do
> they let me in on it?  Or do they hope people buy it and are then
> stuck with it, and too busy or too chicken shit to raise a stink? And
> even then they'll hide behind all the legalese.
>
> That, in the end is why I have no qualms of conscience about this.  A
> lie was not told when returning the item. The exchange was made, no
> question asked.
>
> I can guarantee you that there's plenty of people on this list who
> would willing partake in actions on a regular basis, that my
> conscience would prohibit me from doing.
>
> So why doesn't everyone get off their high horse about it?

I for one am not on one, I just happen to think two wrongs don't make
a right. Three lefts do but I doubt that will get anyone a new
camera...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/23/2010 11:10 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

Here some types of contracts have an integrated cooling off period but
generally in retail shops the buyer makes the final decision to part
with their cash or not. Can't get more basic really, if I stuff up
it's off to eBay the bad purchase goes.


Evidently your commercial eco-system is rather different than that of mine.

Boris




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Rob Studdert]

On 23/05/2010, Boris Liberman  wrote:

> When faced with request from a buyer to return the mis-sold item, the buyer
> would parry with "you're a grown up person, you should have listened better;
> it is too late now".

Here some types of contracts have an integrated cooling off period but
generally in retail shops the buyer makes the final decision to part
with their cash or not. Can't get more basic really, if I stuff up
it's off to eBay the bad purchase goes.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/23/2010 10:48 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

The retailers obligations are set by law and effectively the onus of
suitability lies with the purchaser, only if the product does not
provide the functions advertised or if it fails or is DOA/broken could
the reseller be forced to accept a return. If you want to test an item
in the shop you have to search out a retailer that provides demo
display items.

My most favoured bricks and mortar/mail order photo reseller has stock
on shelves for display but generally does not allow batteries to be
loaded in the cameras, ie all you get to do is feel. I guess that's
why it's so important to have a set of review sites that can be
trusted to adequately compare and report on gear such as cameras.


This is not how it is in Israel. But even if it were. Consider this. 
Presently we're dealing with the case of rather unscrupulous buyer. And 
what you say would protect a decent seller from such a buyer. But, OTOH, 
what you say effectively provides an opening for unscrupulous seller to 
"convince" a buyer to buy something, and once the box is open - voila, 
the pure profit is made and buyer is left with an item that they might 
not even need.


When faced with request from a buyer to return the mis-sold item, the 
buyer would parry with "you're a grown up person, you should have 
listened better; it is too late now".


I am thinking that the real solution has to take into account interests 
of both parties and that with the slight (notice, just slight) bias 
towards the consumer. It is because, in my view, the seller has more 
power and more accented interest to gain profit whereas buyer may be 
simply looking for something reasonably good and reasonably cheap.


Boris




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Rob Studdert]

On 23/05/2010, Boris Liberman  wrote:

> Rob, just a small point here. You actually assume that when entering a shop,
> customer would have a fair chance to preview the product before they buy it.
> In quite many cases (at least here) you don't have such a luxury as a buyer.
> Add to the mix the rather aggressive sales person behavior trying to
> convince you that this specific product is what will make your life barely
> possible (without it you are as good as non-existent). Then, of course, you
> come home, open the box and reasonably soon discover that you made a
> mistake. What do you do next?
>
> Now, the re-stocking fee is fine. In fact, the only buyer protection we have
> in Israel is that the shop owner are obliged by law to post clear, big and
> easily noticeable sign that will describe in detail the return policies of
> their shop. That's at least logical.

The retailers obligations are set by law and effectively the onus of
suitability lies with the purchaser, only if the product does not
provide the functions advertised or if it fails or is DOA/broken could
the reseller be forced to accept a return. If you want to test an item
in the shop you have to search out a retailer that provides demo
display items.

My most favoured bricks and mortar/mail order photo reseller has stock
on shelves for display but generally does not allow batteries to be
loaded in the cameras, ie all you get to do is feel. I guess that's
why it's so important to have a set of review sites that can be
trusted to adequately compare and report on gear such as cameras.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returns (was Re: Leica M9)

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/23/2010 6:22 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:

I once talked to someone who had been a technician at Acoustic Research,
back when AR speakers carried a lifetime warranty. He said they got one
or two a year that were burned out in a recognisable way, what you get if
you run 110 volt AC into the speaker inputs. They replaced them.


Sandy, once upon a time (seems now like 15 years ago) I bought a pair of 
Sennheiser Porta Pro's that at the time came with the life time 
warranty. I used it for several years and then one day I broke the 
plastic so that one of the ear pieces came apart from the frame. I tried 
to glue it in place, but plastic was such that no glue that I had helped.


Having forgotten about the lifetime warranty I've put them on some shelf 
and forgotten about them for couple of years.


One day I recalled that I had a lifetime warranty. At the time their 
service center was a small, really small, shop in Tel Aviv to which I 
came. I was willing and ready to pay but I liked the sound of these 
earphones so I thought I'd give it a try.


The guy took them in and came out with the brand new pair. I asked if I 
still get my warranty and his reply was - "sure thing!". A happy 
customer left the shop. I proceeded recommending the company to my 
friends and using my earphones. Later on I bought some more Sennheiser 
products, naturally.


One day, few more years later, one of the wires came apart from the ear 
piece. Bummer. I went to look for their customer service. None existed 
at the time. Another big company (Samsung or Sansui or whatever) was 
giving the service. I came in to their local service center. Big, 
bumming with people. They did not hide their look down at me but they 
got the earphones fixed for me and free of charge. This time, however, 
they gave me a piece of paper that indicated that this fix would have a 
limited in time warranty, something like half a year.


The next time the earphones broke I had to throw them to garbage.

If I were to look for new earphones, I would surely start with 
Sennheiser - they have really good sound (to my taste) and I kind of 
have a fond memories of my first Porta Pro's.


Boris



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/23/2010 1:01 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

I've never understood that type of policy, generally here it's your
responsibility to decide before purchase if the item will suite your
needs, it can only be returned if faulty after purchase, never just
because you don't like it. You just couldn't run a business here with
such open return policies and survive.


Rob, just a small point here. You actually assume that when entering a 
shop, customer would have a fair chance to preview the product before 
they buy it. In quite many cases (at least here) you don't have such a 
luxury as a buyer. Add to the mix the rather aggressive sales person 
behavior trying to convince you that this specific product is what will 
make your life barely possible (without it you are as good as 
non-existent). Then, of course, you come home, open the box and 
reasonably soon discover that you made a mistake. What do you do next?


Now, the re-stocking fee is fine. In fact, the only buyer protection we 
have in Israel is that the shop owner are obliged by law to post clear, 
big and easily noticeable sign that will describe in detail the return 
policies of their shop. That's at least logical.


Boris





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/23/2010 1:57 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:

No corporation that consistently cheats it's customers will survive. To
do that you need a gun and the unrestricted will to use it. Otherwise
customers will flee to another haven. Free markets are free, and the
worst offenses happen in the markets that are most controlled.


Peter, I can give you a number of counter examples in my country.

Boris


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Do they have the right to know the full story?

If a mfr. were to make, and a retailer to sell, a shoddy product, do
they let me in on it?  Or do they hope people buy it and are then
stuck with it, and too busy or too chicken shit to raise a stink? And
even then they'll hide behind all the legalese.

That, in the end is why I have no qualms of conscience about this.  A
lie was not told when returning the item. The exchange was made, no
question asked.

I can guarantee you that there's plenty of people on this list who
would willing partake in actions on a regular basis, that my
conscience would prohibit me from doing.

So why doesn't everyone get off their high horse about it?

Tom C.



On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:13 PM, John Francis  wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:44:07PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
>> As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return
>> policy.  Does the fact that the owner didn't say it was spilled upon
>> make him dishonest? I don't think so. Was the customer service clerk
>> happy to give him a new camera, without the need for an explanation?
>> Yes he was.  I don't see the problem here.
>
> Do you really think, having read their returns policy, that  that the
> store (and thye claerk) would have happily exchanged the camera if they
> knew the full story?
>
>> But if the retailer makes the rules, and I abide by those rules . . .
>
> Again, I don't believe this exhange *was* abiding by the sotre's rules.
>
>> (notice the rules do not require an explanation of why the item is not
>> working), then I don't see a problem.
>
> But they do spell out the conditions under which an item is returnable.
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Francis]

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:44:07PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
> As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return
> policy.  Does the fact that the owner didn't say it was spilled upon
> make him dishonest? I don't think so. Was the customer service clerk
> happy to give him a new camera, without the need for an explanation?
> Yes he was.  I don't see the problem here.

Do you really think, having read their returns policy, that  that the
store (and thye claerk) would have happily exchanged the camera if they
knew the full story?

> But if the retailer makes the rules, and I abide by those rules . . .

Again, I don't believe this exhange *was* abiding by the sotre's rules.

> (notice the rules do not require an explanation of why the item is not
> working), then I don't see a problem.

But they do spell out the conditions under which an item is returnable.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returns (was Re: Leica M9)

[Tom C]

Interesting.

I'm here sticking up for Christian, and I wasn't the guy that returned
the camera. :-)

But I understand the mindset.  It's not about ripping someone off.  If
any one is doing that it's the mfrs., the vendors, and the retailers
that have their hoards of i-dotting and t-crossing attorneys, trying
to insure that their own interests are protected in every way
possible. And often times any action a corporation wants to take is
justified in the name of 'it's our policy'.

I'm unsure what would have happened if it was told that a drink had
been spilled on the camera.  I can imagine one CS clerk saying, no
deal it must be sent in for repair, and OTOH, another one saying don't
worry about, we'll send it back, here's a new one.

If a company, retailer or vendor has a reputation for great customer
service, i.e., let's make the customer happy, I suspect they'll make
more money though gross sales alone, than they lose, through the small
% of customers that actually plan to rip them off.

Tom C.





On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Sandy Harris  wrote:
> On 5/23/10, Tom C  wrote:
>
>> As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return
>>  policy.
>
> I once talked to someone who had been a technician at Acoustic Research,
> back when AR speakers carried a lifetime warranty. He said they got one
> or two a year that were burned out in a recognisable way, what you get if
> you run 110 volt AC into the speaker inputs. They replaced them.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Returns (was Re: Leica M9)

[Sandy Harris]

On 5/23/10, Tom C  wrote:

> As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return
>  policy.

I once talked to someone who had been a technician at Acoustic Research,
back when AR speakers carried a lifetime warranty. He said they got one
or two a year that were burned out in a recognisable way, what you get if
you run 110 volt AC into the speaker inputs. They replaced them.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: Rob Studdert

On 23/05/2010, Tom C  wrote:


> I don't see how this is very different from a situation where I buy a
> camera, use it for two weeks and then decide I don't like it, or
> discover a model I like better.  If that happened I would bring the
> camera back to the store, tell them I didn't like it and get a full
> refund. The store would be left holding a camera that they can no
> longer sell as new and will take a hit as they'll likely resell it as
> a used/opened item at a discount. In fact that scenario is actually
> worse for the retailer.  In the first scenario, retailer gets a full
> credit from vendor or mfr.  In the second, they absorb the cost.


I've never understood that type of policy, generally here it's your
responsibility to decide before purchase if the item will suite your
needs, it can only be returned if faulty after purchase, never just
because you don't like it. You just couldn't run a business here with
such open return policies and survive.


I dunno. B&H has been doing business that way for years.

=
"At B&H, our goal is to ensure your complete satisfaction with your 
purchase. If, for whatever reason, you are dissatisfied with your 
purchase, you can return it to B&H within 15 days of receipt of item(s). 
Claims for missing items or items damaged in transit must be received 
within two business days of receipt of merchandise."


"You have the option of exchanging the item(s) or receiving a refund for 
the full amount of the original purchase price. Refunds on returned 
items will be issued in the same payment form as tendered at the time of 
purchase. If payment was made by credit card, once we receive the 
product we will credit your account. Please allow 7-10 days for a credit 
to appear on your credit card statement. If payment was made by check, 
the refund check will be issued after 10 business days from the date of 
purchase."

=

I think they don't get so many returns they lose money on it.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[paul stenquist]

On May 22, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

> On 23/05/2010, P. J. Alling  wrote:
> 
>> I've worked in retail, sellling at different times, audio equipment and
>> cameras, if we couldn't sell again as new, (i.e. the camera, or other gear,
>> looked pristine and the all of the packaging was as new), we wouldn't give
>> you all of your money back, and after checking all of the cameras functions,
>> we'd sure as hell sell it as new.  Some places charge a restocking fee as a
>> matter of course.
> 
> I guess that's the difference, here people can sniff out something
> that's been repackaged (even carefully) a mile away and will often
> demand a discount for taking on shop-soiled items.
> 
That's true here as well. Most packaging today has machine applied tape or 
shrink wrap. It's not hard to see if it's been opened. I look for a package 
that is still sealed. And if the opened one is the only one left, I ask for a 
discount. NIne times out of ten, it's granted.
Paul
> Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
> Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
> Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Rob Studdert]

On 23/05/2010, P. J. Alling  wrote:

> I've worked in retail, sellling at different times, audio equipment and
> cameras, if we couldn't sell again as new, (i.e. the camera, or other gear,
> looked pristine and the all of the packaging was as new), we wouldn't give
> you all of your money back, and after checking all of the cameras functions,
> we'd sure as hell sell it as new.  Some places charge a restocking fee as a
> matter of course.

I guess that's the difference, here people can sniff out something
that's been repackaged (even carefully) a mile away and will often
demand a discount for taking on shop-soiled items.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

On 5/22/2010 6:38 PM, John Sessoms wrote:

From: Steven Desjardins

The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
"not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
an inanimate object.

I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
 You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
"doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.


Alternatively, you might take the popular view amongst corporate 
apologists that, as Milton Friedman stated in "The Social 
Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" (The New York 
Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.), a corporation's ONLY 
responsibility is to increase profit by any means fair or foul, and 
Devil take the hindmost.


Couple that with a fundamental misrepresentation of the nature of Adam 
Smith's "Free Market" by those same corporate apologists and you have 
the foundation for the the massive fraud that is the heart, the 
fundamental mission, of any modern multinational corporation.


Their sole purpose for existing is to achieve an imbalance in the so 
called "free market" that allows the corporation to take everything 
and give nothing in return. That we customers receive anything at all 
in the transaction is due only to their inability to achieve the 
perfection of their aims.


Given the state of affairs that corporations have no responsibility to 
act ethically in dealing with their customers, on what basis do you 
suggest we, the customers, are obliged to give them any more respect 
than they afford us?


A little balancing of the scales of justice is in order I think.

No corporation that consistently cheats it's customers will survive.  To 
do that you need a gun and the unrestricted will to use it.  Otherwise 
customers will flee to another haven.  Free markets are free, and the 
worst offenses happen in the markets that are most controlled.


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: Steven Desjardins

The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
"not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
an inanimate object.

I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
 You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
"doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.


Alternatively, you might take the popular view amongst corporate 
apologists that, as Milton Friedman stated in "The Social Responsibility 
of Business is to Increase its Profits" (The New York Times Magazine, 
September 13, 1970.), a corporation's ONLY responsibility is to increase 
profit by any means fair or foul, and Devil take the hindmost.


Couple that with a fundamental misrepresentation of the nature of Adam 
Smith's "Free Market" by those same corporate apologists and you have 
the foundation for the the massive fraud that is the heart, the 
fundamental mission, of any modern multinational corporation.


Their sole purpose for existing is to achieve an imbalance in the so 
called "free market" that allows the corporation to take everything and 
give nothing in return. That we customers receive anything at all in the 
transaction is due only to their inability to achieve the perfection of 
their aims.


Given the state of affairs that corporations have no responsibility to 
act ethically in dealing with their customers, on what basis do you 
suggest we, the customers, are obliged to give them any more respect 
than they afford us?


A little balancing of the scales of justice is in order I think.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

The store would be left holding a camera that they can no
longer sell as new...


I've worked in retail, sellling at different times, audio equipment and 
cameras, if we couldn't sell again as new, (i.e. the camera, or other 
gear, looked pristine and the all of the packaging was as new), we 
wouldn't give you all of your money back, and after checking all of the 
cameras functions, we'd sure as hell sell it as new.  Some places charge 
a restocking fee as a matter of course.



On 5/22/2010 6:01 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 23/05/2010, Tom C  wrote:

   

I don't see how this is very different from a situation where I buy a
camera, use it for two weeks and then decide I don't like it, or
discover a model I like better.  If that happened I would bring the
camera back to the store, tell them I didn't like it and get a full
refund. The store would be left holding a camera that they can no
longer sell as new and will take a hit as they'll likely resell it as
a used/opened item at a discount. In fact that scenario is actually
worse for the retailer.  In the first scenario, retailer gets a full
credit from vendor or mfr.  In the second, they absorb the cost.
 

I've never understood that type of policy, generally here it's your
responsibility to decide before purchase if the item will suite your
needs, it can only be returned if faulty after purchase, never just
because you don't like it. You just couldn't run a business here with
such open return policies and survive.

   



--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Rob Studdert]

On 23/05/2010, Tom C  wrote:

> I don't see how this is very different from a situation where I buy a
> camera, use it for two weeks and then decide I don't like it, or
> discover a model I like better.  If that happened I would bring the
> camera back to the store, tell them I didn't like it and get a full
> refund. The store would be left holding a camera that they can no
> longer sell as new and will take a hit as they'll likely resell it as
> a used/opened item at a discount. In fact that scenario is actually
> worse for the retailer.  In the first scenario, retailer gets a full
> credit from vendor or mfr.  In the second, they absorb the cost.

I've never understood that type of policy, generally here it's your
responsibility to decide before purchase if the item will suite your
needs, it can only be returned if faulty after purchase, never just
because you don't like it. You just couldn't run a business here with
such open return policies and survive.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

As Christian pointed out some companies do have a very lenient return
policy.  Does the fact that the owner didn't say it was spilled upon
make him dishonest? I don't think so. Was the customer service clerk
happy to give him a new camera, without the need for an explanation?
Yes he was.  I don't see the problem here.

I don't see how this is very different from a situation where I buy a
camera, use it for two weeks and then decide I don't like it, or
discover a model I like better.  If that happened I would bring the
camera back to the store, tell them I didn't like it and get a full
refund. The store would be left holding a camera that they can no
longer sell as new and will take a hit as they'll likely resell it as
a used/opened item at a discount. In fact that scenario is actually
worse for the retailer.  In the first scenario, retailer gets a full
credit from vendor or mfr.  In the second, they absorb the cost.

In both cases they are willing to do so in the name of customer service.

I'm not advocating, what you mention Bill, where people return an 11ft
board, or all their old deck lumber, or pieces of a product that they
used to assemble a whole.  That's fairly ridiculous and I can't really
fathom why any business would allow that kind of return.

But if the retailer makes the rules, and I abide by those rules
(notice the rules do not require an explanation of why the item is not
working), then I don't see a problem.

What I see happening here is that there's an idea being expressed that
an individual has to own up to each and every mistake they make,
otherwise they're dishonest and not trustworthy.  Is that reality for
any one of us?

Let's say there's a police officer sitting at an intersection and you
run the red light, but he's looking down and doesn't see you. Do you
stop and turn around and say "Please Mr. Police Officer, I ran a red
light, write me a ticket?"  By all rights you should get a ticket and
those funds go to supporting the community infrastructure, but since
you escaped notice now there is not as much money in the till.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM, William Robb  wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Tom C"
> Subject: Re: Leica M9
>
>
> Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble.
>
> You can read it as justification if you want to.  I read it as an
> accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working.
>
>
> That's like saying that any car that suffers a minor accident should always
> still be drivable. Most times it will be, but sometimes it won't be.
> Would it not be more honest to go through ones insurance company when one
> causes an accident?
>
> William Robb
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: Leica M9


Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble.

You can read it as justification if you want to.  I read it as an
accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working.


That's like saying that any car that suffers a minor accident should always 
still be drivable. Most times it will be, but sometimes it won't be.
Would it not be more honest to go through ones insurance company when one 
causes an accident?


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Steven Desjardins]

Stealing from big companies doesn't  count either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qEG9EnHnw0

;-)

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Steven Desjardins  wrote:
> Besides, I'm surprised cameras don't have that little dot that turns
> red when it gets wet.  Cells phones all have them. I've immersed two.
> Oddly, the one I quickly recovered died whereas the one I actually put
> through a cycle of the washing machine dried out just fine.  I've had
> lots of experience with breaking technology.
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:03 AM, eckinator  wrote:
>> 2010/5/22 Steven Desjardins :
>>> The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
>>> they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
>>> can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
>>> true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
>>> "not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
>>> an inanimate object.
>>>
>>> I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
>>> this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
>>>  You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
>>> "doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
>>> psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.
>>>
>>
>> Amen to that!
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Desjardins
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Steven Desjardins]

Besides, I'm surprised cameras don't have that little dot that turns
red when it gets wet.  Cells phones all have them. I've immersed two.
Oddly, the one I quickly recovered died whereas the one I actually put
through a cycle of the washing machine dried out just fine.  I've had
lots of experience with breaking technology.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 4:03 AM, eckinator  wrote:
> 2010/5/22 Steven Desjardins :
>> The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
>> they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
>> can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
>> true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
>> "not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
>> an inanimate object.
>>
>> I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
>> this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
>>  You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
>> "doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
>> psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.
>>
>
> Amen to that!
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[eckinator]

2010/5/22 Steven Desjardins :
> The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
> they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
> can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
> true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
> "not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
> an inanimate object.
>
> I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
> this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
>  You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
> "doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
> psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.
>

Amen to that!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Steven Desjardins]

The way people do business reflects their own perception of the way
they are treated. If you think that companies will do anything they
can to cheat you, they you will reply in kind.  This is especially
true if they believe that big companies are in some fundamental way
"not a person" and do not merit  ethical treatment.   You can't cheat
an inanimate object.

I have no love for corporations but if you allow yourself to slip into
this way of thinking then you only degrade your own sense of morality.
 You can begin to treat other individuals in this impersonal way of
"doing business".  My position is that you do yourself more harm
psychologically/spiritually than you gain in the material transaction.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Keith Whaley  wrote:
> Steven Desjardins wrote:
>>
>> I can't help but notice that this thread about customer "dishonesty"
>> began as a thread about Leica foisting an imperfect product on
>> someone.  It doesn't surprise me that we have drifted into "whatever
>> you can get away with" since that attitude in part of as many
>> transactions between consumers and corporations.
>
> Okay.
>
> What’s your point?
>
> What do you agree with or what do you take issue with?
>
> keith
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[eckinator]

OK now I get it - TY Bill
The benefits of cheap labor, I guess...
Cheers
Ecke

2010/5/21 William Robb :
>
> - Original Message - From: "eckinator"
> Subject: Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9
>
>
>> Bill can you explain this, please - I just don't seem to catch your
>> reference?
>
> In North America, a device box is something that a wall mounted switch (a
> light switch for example) would be contained by. Due to the way they are
> constructed, things like UPC stickers are put on the side of the box, but
> the sides can be removed to allow two boxes to be attached together.
> So, a person will buy two single device boxes, take one side off of each one
> and attach the two boxes together to make a bnox that will hold two light
> switches.
> This leaves them with two side plates, which if they have done what they are
> doing correctly, will both have a UPC sticker attached.
> They bring the side plates back, hopefully get someone at the returns desk
> that isn't familiar with this particular scam or what a box should look
> like, and, if all goes well, they get a refund on the boxes for the side
> plates that they are returning.
>
> William Robb
>
>>> How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates
>>> off
>>> so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a
>>> full
>>> refund?
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Keith Whaley]

Steven Desjardins wrote:

I can't help but notice that this thread about customer "dishonesty"
began as a thread about Leica foisting an imperfect product on
someone.  It doesn't surprise me that we have drifted into "whatever
you can get away with" since that attitude in part of as many
transactions between consumers and corporations.


Okay.

What’s your point?

What do you agree with or what do you take issue with?

keith


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[Steven Desjardins]

I can't help but notice that this thread about customer "dishonesty"
began as a thread about Leica foisting an imperfect product on
someone.  It doesn't surprise me that we have drifted into "whatever
you can get away with" since that attitude in part of as many
transactions between consumers and corporations.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:41 PM, William Robb  wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms"
> Subject: Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9
>
>
>>
>> I understand what the single gang boxes are and about doubling to make a
>> two gang box (although why not just buy a two gang box?), but I don't
>> understand how you get a refund - or could expect one - from returning just
>> the side plates?
>
> 1) Be dishonest.
> 2) Find a store that has trained it's people to take refunds without
> question on the theory that the bad refunds are a very small % of the total.
>
> Of course this leads to
> 3) watch your bad refund % grow as word gets around that it is possible to
> get away with this.
>
> True stories:
>
> I was putting a cart of returned 16' deck boards back on the rack.
> There were a lot of them, probably close to 60.
> Below the second layer of new boards, the rest were used boards, complete
> with years of weathering and two screw holes every 16 inches.
>
> I had a 12' 2x4 come back on a cart. Except it was no longer 12', it was
> closer to 11'.
> And it had a screw sticking out of it.
> The only justice in this one was that it was an ACQ treated board, and the
> screw was on coated for ACQ, so probably by now their deck has fallen apart.
>
> Yesterday, a return cart of teleposts. No boxes, missing support plates and
> scew jacks.
> This one will be another write off of several hundred dollars when I get to
> it.
>
> William Robb
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
Steve Desjardins

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Well I do think that actually. :-)

I suspect I could take any one of my Pentax DSLR bodies and dump a
16oz or 24oz glass of water on it, and not see any ill effects except
for it being cleaner.

I've used my non-weather-sealed *istD in the rain numerous times with
water all beaded up on the top panel and running down the back panel.
Didn't affect it one bit.  Maybe I was just lucky.

Getting splashed or spilled on is quite different from being dunked or
submerged. I would expect a submersion event to yield a non-working
camera, but not necessarily a spill or splash.


On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:40 PM, steve harley  wrote:
>
> sure, if you really think the camera was faulty for not withstanding the
> spill, but frankly, that's unreasonable and sounds like an excuse to make
> the return seem okay
>
> i sometimes push my camera in misty/rainy situations, but i know that i take
> responsibility for the consequences; so far so good -- my k200d is "weather
> sealed", but the 16-45 is *not* (nor is the G11)
>
> Apple has apparently had so many people dunk their iPhones, dry them out,
> and attempt to return them as "it doesn't work" that they've put moisture
> sensors inside and will deny claims when they've been triggered

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[steve harley]

On 2010-05-21 12:33 , Tom C wrote:

 I read it as an
accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working.


sure, if you really think the camera was faulty for not withstanding the 
spill, but frankly, that's unreasonable and sounds like an excuse to 
make the return seem okay


i sometimes push my camera in misty/rainy situations, but i know that i 
take responsibility for the consequences; so far so good -- my k200d is 
"weather sealed", but the 16-45 is *not* (nor is the G11)


Apple has apparently had so many people dunk their iPhones, dry them 
out, and attempt to return them as "it doesn't work" that they've put 
moisture sensors inside and will deny claims when they've been triggered


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

I'm with you on this.

The difference I have would be mainly this.

If the product was defective and should have held up under said
conditions, then I believe as a consumer it's fair to receive a brand
new replacement camera immediately as opposed to sending it in
for a warranty repair (the result of which is often getting someone else's
item that was sent in for repair).

I first learned that with HP scanners several years back.  Sent it in
for repair under warranty and discovered I'd received a refurbished
model in return.  Reading the warranty fine print, strictly legal, but
not what one would expect.

Tom

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Bruce Dayton  wrote:
> I don't believe the system is noble - it is just responding to the
> human element.  If we don't teach and strive for nobility, what do we
> become?
>
> I would have a real hard time taking my 13 year old son with me to
> return something in those circumstances because I know darn well what
> I would be teaching him.  I could justify up and down all the reasons
> why it was ok, but in the end, I am trying to justify something I
> know is inherently wrong.
>
> To say the product was inferior  is only a problem of buying the
> wrong product.  To say the product should have handled it, then fine,
> exercise the warranty.  If you feel the manufacturer is screwing you,
> then don't buy from them anymore, but don't intentionally lower your
> morals and convictions.  I realize we all (myself included) and not
> perfect and have many issues and faults, but we should at least
> strive to be our best.  Condoning behavior which we know to be less
> than what it should be is worse than the behavior itself.
>
> --
> Bruce

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Bruce Dayton]

I don't believe the system is noble - it is just responding to the
human element.  If we don't teach and strive for nobility, what do we
become?

I would have a real hard time taking my 13 year old son with me to
return something in those circumstances because I know darn well what
I would be teaching him.  I could justify up and down all the reasons
why it was ok, but in the end, I am trying to justify something I
know is inherently wrong.

To say the product was inferior  is only a problem of buying the
wrong product.  To say the product should have handled it, then fine,
exercise the warranty.  If you feel the manufacturer is screwing you,
then don't buy from them anymore, but don't intentionally lower your
morals and convictions.  I realize we all (myself included) and not
perfect and have many issues and faults, but we should at least
strive to be our best.  Condoning behavior which we know to be less
than what it should be is worse than the behavior itself.

--
Bruce


Friday, May 21, 2010, 11:33:25 AM, you wrote:

TC> Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble.

TC> You can read it as justification if you want to.  I read it as an
TC> accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working.

TC> Tom C.

TC> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Dayton
TC>  wrote:
>> Everything I read indicates justification for that which you
>> inherently know is wrong - doesn't make it right, just allows you to
>> go with the flow so you can take advantage as the next guy.
>>
>> I'm saying this is part of what is wrong with our society - instead
>> of teaching morals and values we end up teaching how to beat and
>> manipulate the system.  I think this is a slow downward spiral that
>> leads to a bad ending.  As everyone becomes savvy to what you know,
>> then they all start screwing the system and then the
>> retailers/manufacturers pad the products even more.  It becomes a
>> viscous cycle.  The only loser is us - the retailer and manufacturer
>> just pass it on.  Society goes downhill and we all learn how to
>> mistrust each other and pay more for stealing from each other.  Much
>> a long term no-win scenario.
>>
>> Go back to think about what you would want to teach your own children.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:20:53 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> TC> Bruce,
>>
>> TC> The question in my mind became in this instance:
>>
>> TC> Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for
>> TC> the subsequent failure of the object?  My wife has a G9 and I have a
>> TC> G10, the predecessors to the G11.  Knowing their build quality and
>> TC> that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would
>> TC> not think that spilling something on any modern camera should
>> TC> immediately make it inoperative.
>>
>> TC> Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking
>> TC> about.  I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it.
>>
>> TC> Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always*
>> TC> require telling everything you know?  If the answer is yes, then I'm
>> TC> afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are
>> TC> certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own
>> TC> advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's
>> TC> also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well.
>>
>> TC> If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the
>> TC> same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled
>> TC> something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the
>> TC> reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement.  Had
>> TC> I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect
>> TC> a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional.
>> TC> Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed?  What about at
>> TC> Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day?
>>
>> TC> Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this
>> TC> sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority
>> TC> of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh
>> TC> profit center preying on people's insecurities.
>>
>> TC> A little story.
>>
>> TC> About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I
>> TC> accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I
>> TC> could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details).
>> TC> Though buck naked at the time... No...
>>
>> TC> I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and
>> TC> bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those
>> TC> nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the
>> TC> hotel.
>>
>> TC> I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off.
>>
>> TC> Guess what?
>>
>> TC> They did not know how to turn the fir

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Fine Bruce... don't start out though believing the system itself is noble.

You can read it as justification if you want to.  I read it as an
accident occurred and the camera should not have stopped working.

Tom C.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Dayton  wrote:
> Everything I read indicates justification for that which you
> inherently know is wrong - doesn't make it right, just allows you to
> go with the flow so you can take advantage as the next guy.
>
> I'm saying this is part of what is wrong with our society - instead
> of teaching morals and values we end up teaching how to beat and
> manipulate the system.  I think this is a slow downward spiral that
> leads to a bad ending.  As everyone becomes savvy to what you know,
> then they all start screwing the system and then the
> retailers/manufacturers pad the products even more.  It becomes a
> viscous cycle.  The only loser is us - the retailer and manufacturer
> just pass it on.  Society goes downhill and we all learn how to
> mistrust each other and pay more for stealing from each other.  Much
> a long term no-win scenario.
>
> Go back to think about what you would want to teach your own children.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:20:53 AM, you wrote:
>
> TC> Bruce,
>
> TC> The question in my mind became in this instance:
>
> TC> Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for
> TC> the subsequent failure of the object?  My wife has a G9 and I have a
> TC> G10, the predecessors to the G11.  Knowing their build quality and
> TC> that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would
> TC> not think that spilling something on any modern camera should
> TC> immediately make it inoperative.
>
> TC> Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking
> TC> about.  I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it.
>
> TC> Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always*
> TC> require telling everything you know?  If the answer is yes, then I'm
> TC> afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are
> TC> certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own
> TC> advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's
> TC> also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well.
>
> TC> If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the
> TC> same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled
> TC> something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the
> TC> reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement.  Had
> TC> I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect
> TC> a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional.
> TC> Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed?  What about at
> TC> Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day?
>
> TC> Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this
> TC> sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority
> TC> of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh
> TC> profit center preying on people's insecurities.
>
> TC> A little story.
>
> TC> About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I
> TC> accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I
> TC> could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details).
> TC> Though buck naked at the time... No...
>
> TC> I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and
> TC> bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those
> TC> nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the
> TC> hotel.
>
> TC> I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off.
>
> TC> Guess what?
>
> TC> They did not know how to turn the fire supression system off.
> TC> They did not have a procedure manual at the hotel.
> TC> They called another hotel in the same chain to see if they knew how.
> TC> Yes, but different system.
> TC> Fire department calls to see if there's a fire.  No there's a flood,
> TC> so you needn't come.
>
> TC> I go back to my room and the maintenance guy is standing in two inches
> TC> of water with a shop vac trying to vacum up the water while it's still
> TC> coming out of the ceiling.
>
> TC> I immediately told him to get out of there before he gets himself 
> electrocuted.
>
> TC> Still trying to figure out the suppression system, I am running and
> TC> relaying information from the office to the maintenance guy back at
> TC> the control panel which is in the basement/pool level of the hotel.
> TC> Still bare chest, pair of pants, bare feet.
>
> TC> As I'm running past the pool I see water dripping out of the ceiling
> TC> into the pool! From 3 floors above! Oh crap and a bunch of other
> TC> things!
>
> TC> The local Fire Department finally shows up sirens blaring.
>
> TC> They go down and just as they're about to stem the flo

Re: Leica M9

[John Francis]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 02:13:15PM -0400, Tom C wrote:
> 
> He said he would have told what happened, if he was asked.  The
> statement he made was honest  . . .

I disagree.

The statement was technically truthful, but the intent was to deceive.

That's not honest (or honourable) in my book.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Bruce Dayton]

Everything I read indicates justification for that which you
inherently know is wrong - doesn't make it right, just allows you to
go with the flow so you can take advantage as the next guy.

I'm saying this is part of what is wrong with our society - instead
of teaching morals and values we end up teaching how to beat and
manipulate the system.  I think this is a slow downward spiral that
leads to a bad ending.  As everyone becomes savvy to what you know,
then they all start screwing the system and then the
retailers/manufacturers pad the products even more.  It becomes a
viscous cycle.  The only loser is us - the retailer and manufacturer
just pass it on.  Society goes downhill and we all learn how to
mistrust each other and pay more for stealing from each other.  Much
a long term no-win scenario.

Go back to think about what you would want to teach your own children.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, May 21, 2010, 10:20:53 AM, you wrote:

TC> Bruce,

TC> The question in my mind became in this instance:

TC> Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for
TC> the subsequent failure of the object?  My wife has a G9 and I have a
TC> G10, the predecessors to the G11.  Knowing their build quality and
TC> that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would
TC> not think that spilling something on any modern camera should
TC> immediately make it inoperative.

TC> Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking
TC> about.  I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it.

TC> Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always*
TC> require telling everything you know?  If the answer is yes, then I'm
TC> afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are
TC> certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own
TC> advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's
TC> also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well.

TC> If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the
TC> same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled
TC> something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the
TC> reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement.  Had
TC> I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect
TC> a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional.
TC> Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed?  What about at
TC> Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day?

TC> Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this
TC> sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority
TC> of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh
TC> profit center preying on people's insecurities.

TC> A little story.

TC> About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I
TC> accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I
TC> could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details).
TC> Though buck naked at the time... No...

TC> I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and
TC> bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those
TC> nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the
TC> hotel.

TC> I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off.

TC> Guess what?

TC> They did not know how to turn the fire supression system off.
TC> They did not have a procedure manual at the hotel.
TC> They called another hotel in the same chain to see if they knew how.
TC> Yes, but different system.
TC> Fire department calls to see if there's a fire.  No there's a flood,
TC> so you needn't come.

TC> I go back to my room and the maintenance guy is standing in two inches
TC> of water with a shop vac trying to vacum up the water while it's still
TC> coming out of the ceiling.

TC> I immediately told him to get out of there before he gets himself 
electrocuted.

TC> Still trying to figure out the suppression system, I am running and
TC> relaying information from the office to the maintenance guy back at
TC> the control panel which is in the basement/pool level of the hotel.
TC> Still bare chest, pair of pants, bare feet.

TC> As I'm running past the pool I see water dripping out of the ceiling
TC> into the pool! From 3 floors above! Oh crap and a bunch of other
TC> things!

TC> The local Fire Department finally shows up sirens blaring.

TC> They go down and just as they're about to stem the flow of water, the
TC> system exhausts itself.  Apparently, it's a finite pressurized supply.

TC> So all the water that would have been used for the entire hotel, went
TC> out into my room, over a period of about 30 minutes. Oh crap and a
TC> bunch of other things!

TC> The hotel graciously assigned me another room.  I went and bought dry
TC> clothes and went into work.

TC> I lurked back in through the side door that evening around 8:00.
TC> Car

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:02 AM, William Robb  wrote:

> What I'm reading from what you are saying, in general terms, is that it is
> OK to try to decieve to one's advantage in business; and that it is wrong to
> get caught, since it is possible that at some point one might actually be in
> the situation that one is not in now.
> Or something..
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to clarify.
>
> William Robb
>

Bill,

No. That's not what I'm saying (not sure which of my posts you were
referring to actually, but I know that was not my intent).

The statement's been made that the owner of the non-working camera
deceived and/or lied, and/or abdicated responsibility about the reason
for the return.

I don't see it that way, frankly.  He made a simple statement that was
truthful and was not asked "Why?" or "What happened?".  Nor do I think
the customer service person should be asking those questions, because
it's essentially accusing and blaming the customer up front, which is
bad policy.

(nor do I think the camera should have stopped working after one spill)

He said he would have told what happened, if he was asked.  The
statement he made was honest and he said he would have answered
additional questions honestly.

Do you or anyone else you know go around telling on themselves the
vast majority of the time about relatively minor things?  We all make
mistakes, and even do things that can in the very strictest sense be
viewed as unethical.

Do you stand around at work and chat with co-workers for extended
periods occasionally instead of doing real work?  Do you note that on
your time card so that your employer does not have to pay you for
those wasted minutes?

Do I sometimes browse the web instead of doing real work? Do I keep
track of it and likewise let my employer know?

In both instances I'll surmise the answer is "No".

Does that make us fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy
individuals? I'd say no. Our employers also apparently do not think
so, because they keep us knowing that we are fulfilling the #1 thing
they hired us for.  Getting the job done in a satifactory, if not
superior manner.

We can nitpick and look at people with a microscopic view or we can
stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Tom C.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[P. J. Alling]

On 5/21/2010 12:33 PM, William Robb wrote:


- Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" Subject: Re: Leica M9



And compared to the blatant dishonesty I witnessed, returning a 
camera that stopped working and not volunteering that it stopped 
working after getting splashed doesn't really rate.




So it's OK to beat your wife as long as the bruises aren't visible?

William Robb


I suppose that would all depend upon your wife.

--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "P N Stenquist"

Subject: Re: Leica M9



For example, to dress several people for a television commercial,  the 
wardrobe consultant might bring thirty different outfits to a  review 
session -- all with pricetags hanging. Three will be chosen,  the rest 
returned.


But will those three be returned after the shoot or will they be  kept by 
the wardrobe department?


The stuff that is actually used is paid for. Billed to the job, so  they 
go to the client. Sometimes the clients say to give them to the  actors.




Then what you are talking about is completely unrelated to what I wrote.
The photographer in question would buy what was required for her shoot, use 
the product for profit, and then clean it up, box it up and return it all 
for a refund.
This is significantly different from taking product oput of the store on 
spec to be reiviewed by a production crew and then returning, unused, the 
unsuitable product.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[P N Stenquist]

On May 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, William Robb wrote:



- Original Message - From: "paul stenquist"
Subject: Re: Leica M9



For example, to dress several people for a television commercial,  
the wardrobe consultant might bring thirty different outfits to a  
review session -- all with pricetags hanging. Three will be chosen,  
the rest returned.


But will those three be returned after the shoot or will they be  
kept by the wardrobe department?


The stuff that is actually used is paid for. Billed to the job, so  
they go to the client. Sometimes the clients say to give them to the  
actors.


William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
and follow the directions.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms"

Subject: Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9




I understand what the single gang boxes are and about doubling to make a 
two gang box (although why not just buy a two gang box?), but I don't 
understand how you get a refund - or could expect one - from returning 
just the side plates?


1) Be dishonest.
2) Find a store that has trained it's people to take refunds without 
question on the theory that the bad refunds are a very small % of the total.


Of course this leads to
3) watch your bad refund % grow as word gets around that it is possible to 
get away with this.


True stories:

I was putting a cart of returned 16' deck boards back on the rack.
There were a lot of them, probably close to 60.
Below the second layer of new boards, the rest were used boards, complete 
with years of weathering and two screw holes every 16 inches.


I had a 12' 2x4 come back on a cart. Except it was no longer 12', it was 
closer to 11'.

And it had a screw sticking out of it.
The only justice in this one was that it was an ACQ treated board, and the 
screw was on coated for ACQ, so probably by now their deck has fallen apart.


Yesterday, a return cart of teleposts. No boxes, missing support plates and 
scew jacks.
This one will be another write off of several hundred dollars when I get to 
it.


William Robb


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Leica M9

[Bob W]

> > And compared to the blatant dishonesty I witnessed, 
> returning a camera 
> > that stopped working and not volunteering that it stopped 
> working after 
> > getting splashed doesn't really rate.
> > 
> 
> So it's OK to beat your wife as long as the bruises aren't visible?
> 

Burqa and sunglasses - that should do the trick.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Bruce,

The question in my mind became in this instance:

Did spilling a single drink on the camera make the owner at fault for
the subsequent failure of the object?  My wife has a G9 and I have a
G10, the predecessors to the G11.  Knowing their build quality and
that I use the G10 in wet and windy conditions when skiing, I would
not think that spilling something on any modern camera should
immediately make it inoperative.

Back to the moral issues since that seems to be what we're talking
about.  I'll say what I think and am willing to take the brunt of it.

Big picture, not just this incident - Does being honest *always*
require telling everything you know?  If the answer is yes, then I'm
afraid one will find themselves at a severe disadvantage as there are
certain types of people who will capitalize on that to their own
advantage and to other's disadvantage. There is honesty but there's
also discretion, both are admirable attributes and serve one well.

If it were me with the G11 drink spill, I would have likely done the
same as occurred. If asked, I would have told the truth that I spilled
something on it. If not asked, I would figure they did not deem the
reason important and were simply happy to give me a replacement.  Had
I been asked, I'd have made the claim that I certainly wouldn't expect
a spill to cause the camera to immediately become non-functional.
Let's see, will it work at SeaWorld when splashed?  What about at
Yosemite in the spray of Bridal Veil Falls, a rainy day?

Do you know how many extended warranties are purchased to cover this
sort of thing that are never used? Now there is a scam. The majority
of them, never utilized, goes straight to the bottom line. A hugh
profit center preying on people's insecurities.

A little story.

About eight years ago, through a totally stupid act of my own doing, I
accidentally set off the fire suppression system in my hotel room (I
could make this story very funny if I gave you all the details).
Though buck naked at the time... No...

I pulled on some pants, threw my laptop bag out into the hallway, and
bounded down two flights of stairs to the office, just as those
nauseating alarms and flashing lights started going off all over the
hotel.

I told them what I'd done that set the sprinklers off.

Guess what?

They did not know how to turn the fire supression system off.
They did not have a procedure manual at the hotel.
They called another hotel in the same chain to see if they knew how.
Yes, but different system.
Fire department calls to see if there's a fire.  No there's a flood,
so you needn't come.

I go back to my room and the maintenance guy is standing in two inches
of water with a shop vac trying to vacum up the water while it's still
coming out of the ceiling.

I immediately told him to get out of there before he gets himself electrocuted.

Still trying to figure out the suppression system, I am running and
relaying information from the office to the maintenance guy back at
the control panel which is in the basement/pool level of the hotel.
Still bare chest, pair of pants, bare feet.

As I'm running past the pool I see water dripping out of the ceiling
into the pool! From 3 floors above! Oh crap and a bunch of other
things!

The local Fire Department finally shows up sirens blaring.

They go down and just as they're about to stem the flow of water, the
system exhausts itself.  Apparently, it's a finite pressurized supply.

So all the water that would have been used for the entire hotel, went
out into my room, over a period of about 30 minutes. Oh crap and a
bunch of other things!

The hotel graciously assigned me another room.  I went and bought dry
clothes and went into work.

I lurked back in through the side door that evening around 8:00.
Carpets were pulled up all over the place with big blowers running.

Wow I think, several weeks later, they haven't sued me.

Not quite that lucky.

Months later, after having stayed at the hotel for the next four
months, out of a misplaced sense of guilt, I receive a letter.

It's from the hotel chain's, insurance company's, risk management company.

They're demanding payment of $27,000 in damages, including my room,
the 3 floors below, and lost income because other hotel residents left
(the alarm system kept malfunctioning and going off intermittently for
the next 8 - 10 hours).

I finally got some advice and called my home owners insurance to see
if I was in some way covered through it. Yes. So they took up the
litigation in my defense.

My argument was, that while I was indeed responsible for having set
the system off, I was not responsible for the hotel not knowing how to
control it and turn it off. I would have thought they should be able
to turn it off in under 5 minutes. So I figured I was responsible for
no more than 1/6 of the damages.

Under Washington State law, a tenant is only responsible for their
room. The arbitrator also agreed with the argument that the hotel
itself was to blame for thei

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: eckinator

Bill can you explain this, please - I just don't seem to catch your reference?
TIA
Ecke

>
> How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off
> so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full
> refund?


Yeah, I'll second that.

I understand what the single gang boxes are and about doubling to make a 
two gang box (although why not just buy a two gang box?), but I don't 
understand how you get a refund - or could expect one - from returning 
just the side plates?


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: "William Robb"

From: "Boris Liberman"

> On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

>> Not at Best Buy...

>
> That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return 
> it and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... 
> OMG... *sigH*


To bring this back somewhat to on topic (relevent to photography, if not 
Pentax), many years ago I was told of a local photographer who specialized 
on food and lifestyle photography.
She shopped at the local higher end stores, buying place settings, cutlery, 
glasswear, linens, whatever was needed for the project she was working on at 
the time.

When she was done, it all went back for a refund.
Or so I was told, anyway.

William Robb


Yeah, I've known people who did that sort of thing.

It's one of those gray area things. I guess they're within the "letter 
of the law" if the stores allow it, and I won't say they're dishonest 
doing it, but I couldn't do that myself.


No one's 100% honest all the time. Certainly I can't pretend to be, but 
that's just not the way I'm bent.


I've developed a fine eye for second-hand goodies to use when I need 
props. I spend some idle time wandering the thrift shops, Goodwill and 
the like. If I find something and it's not too expensive, I'll buy 
something to use it.


And afterwards, if it's just going to clutter up the place and I'll 
never have further use for it, I might sell it again ... or even donate 
it back.


Plus, I have, on occasion, rented stuff from thrift shops for a shoot.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "eckinator"

Subject: Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9


Bill can you explain this, please - I just don't seem to catch your 
reference?


In North America, a device box is something that a wall mounted switch (a 
light switch for example) would be contained by. Due to the way they are 
constructed, things like UPC stickers are put on the side of the box, but 
the sides can be removed to allow two boxes to be attached together.
So, a person will buy two single device boxes, take one side off of each one 
and attach the two boxes together to make a bnox that will hold two light 
switches.
This leaves them with two side plates, which if they have done what they are 
doing correctly, will both have a UPC sticker attached.
They bring the side plates back, hopefully get someone at the returns desk 
that isn't familiar with this particular scam or what a box should look 
like, and, if all goes well, they get a refund on the boxes for the side 
plates that they are returning.


William Robb

How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates 
off
so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a 
full

refund?




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "paul stenquist"

Subject: Re: Leica M9



For example, to dress several people for a television commercial, the 
wardrobe consultant might bring thirty different outfits to a review 
session -- all with pricetags hanging. Three will be chosen, the rest 
returned.


But will those three be returned after the shoot or will they be kept by the 
wardrobe department?


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms" 
Subject: Re: Leica M9




And compared to the blatant dishonesty I witnessed, returning a camera 
that stopped working and not volunteering that it stopped working after 
getting splashed doesn't really rate.




So it's OK to beat your wife as long as the bruises aren't visible?

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[eckinator]

Bill can you explain this, please - I just don't seem to catch your reference?
TIA
Ecke
>
> How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off
> so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full
> refund?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[paul stenquist]

On May 21, 2010, at 1:57 AM, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman"
> Subject: Re: Leica M9
> 
> 
>> On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>>> Not at Best Buy...
>> 
>> That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return it 
>> and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... OMG... 
>> *sigH*
> 
> To bring this back somewhat to on topic (relevent to photography, if not 
> Pentax), many years ago I was told of a local photographer who specialized on 
> food and lifestyle photography.
> She shopped at the local higher end stores, buying place settings, cutlery, 
> glasswear, linens, whatever was needed for the project she was working on at 
> the time.
> When she was done, it all went back for a refund.
> Or so I was told, anyway.
> 
> William Robb
> 
A lot of photographers, set designers and wardrobe people work that way. The 
pros usually develop relationships with certain stores. The retailer knows that 
a few items will be purchased -- disposables and clothing that might be abused. 
The rest is returned. But it's generally done with an understanding. 

For example, to dress several people for a television commercial, the wardrobe 
consultant might bring thirty different outfits to a review session -- all with 
pricetags hanging. Three will be chosen, the rest returned.

Paul
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: Bruce Dayton

Having followed this thread, and being a father of 4, I have to say
this would be a poor way to teach my children to behave.  What goes
around comes around - teach them to abuse the system and where will
they be in the future.  Seems to smack of the entitlement attitude so
prevalent in our society.

Whether you can justify the dishonesty by passing the buck on to
others than yourself, it is still a character issue.  Would you want
to be treated this way?  Would you want your loved ones to behave
this way?  I would hope not.

If they had asked what happened, would you have told them the truth?
And if you did, would you expect a refund?  And if you wouldn't have
expected a refund, why would you attempt to return it?  Seems you
would be going expecting to abuse the system, because you knew you
could.  Is this morally right?  The very fact that justifications are
needed to feel 'good' about it is telling.


I don't justify it. Such blatant dishonesty pissed me off. And it pissed 
me off any more that the store & management wouldn't fight it.


They were always giving the employees a hard time about productivity and 
keeping costs down, but they wouldn't take action to stop outright 
thievery that certainly was increasing those costs.


And compared to the blatant dishonesty I witnessed, returning a camera 
that stopped working and not volunteering that it stopped working after 
getting splashed doesn't really rate.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Northeast Media]

My Father had similar experiences in his business, particularly in the shoe 
department where ladies would purchase fashion shoes before a big local 
social event, wear them once and return them for a refund.


Phil Northeast

www.northeastmedia.biz
northeastme...@bigpond.com

Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Leica M9




- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman"

Subject: Re: Leica M9



On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

Not at Best Buy...


That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return 
it and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... 
OMG... *sigH*


To bring this back somewhat to on topic (relevent to photography, if not 
Pentax), many years ago I was told of a local photographer who specialized 
on food and lifestyle photography.
She shopped at the local higher end stores, buying place settings, 
cutlery, glasswear, linens, whatever was needed for the project she was 
working on at the time.

When she was done, it all went back for a refund.
Or so I was told, anyway.

William Robb


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Leica M9

[Bob W]

> To bring this back somewhat to on topic (relevent to 
> photography, if not 
> Pentax), many years ago I was told of a local photographer 
> who specialized 
> on food and lifestyle photography.
> She shopped at the local higher end stores, buying place 
> settings, cutlery, 
> glasswear, linens, whatever was needed for the project she 
> was working on at 
> the time.
> When she was done, it all went back for a refund.
> Or so I was told, anyway.
> 

That's quite a common practice in that type of photography. I first heard of
it happening in London in the early 80s. Some of the stylists do actually
borrow stuff legitimately to use in a shoot, and credit the lender
accordingly.

Worst of all is a practice I heard about from a fashion 'designer' who
copied catwalk designs and dumbed them down for the mass market. She used to
go to stores and buy stuff that she was going to 'adapt for the market' then
return it for a refund. On one occasion she needed to cut up the underwear
she was copying. The rags went into a shopping bag, which her assistant
later inadvertently picked up and took back to the shop for a refund. I
believe in this instance it was unsuccessful, but embarrassing for the
assistant.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Boris Liberman"

Subject: Re: Leica M9



On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

Not at Best Buy...


That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return 
it and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... 
OMG... *sigH*


To bring this back somewhat to on topic (relevent to photography, if not 
Pentax), many years ago I was told of a local photographer who specialized 
on food and lifestyle photography.
She shopped at the local higher end stores, buying place settings, cutlery, 
glasswear, linens, whatever was needed for the project she was working on at 
the time.

When she was done, it all went back for a refund.
Or so I was told, anyway.

William Robb


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: Leica M9




Not trying to be argumentative.

I just think the condemnation I'm hearing regarding the G11 return is
rather unwarranted. He just as easily could have gotten a defective
one from the store and would have had to return it. There was no
visible damage to the camera otherwise BB would have bulked. BB will
do exactly the same thing with this camera as they would with any
other returned as not working.  BB willl receive the credit from Canon
or their distrubutor. they will refurbish and resell.


What I'm reading from what you are saying, in general terms, is that it is
OK to try to decieve to one's advantage in business; and that it is wrong to
get caught, since it is possible that at some point one might actually be in
the situation that one is not in now.
Or something..

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to clarify.

William Robb



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "eckinator" 
Subject: Re: Leica M9




Personally, I pay 2.5% p.a. on the amount I want to receive for any
insured item in the event that it becomes unusable for any reason
whatsoever, theft, loss, damage, failure, coffee spill etc. no
questions asked.

I suspect this is available with some credit card purchases.

William Robb


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Bruce Dayton]

Having followed this thread, and being a father of 4, I have to say
this would be a poor way to teach my children to behave.  What goes
around comes around - teach them to abuse the system and where will
they be in the future.  Seems to smack of the entitlement attitude so
prevalent in our society.

Whether you can justify the dishonesty by passing the buck on to
others than yourself, it is still a character issue.  Would you want
to be treated this way?  Would you want your loved ones to behave
this way?  I would hope not.

If they had asked what happened, would you have told them the truth?
And if you did, would you expect a refund?  And if you wouldn't have
expected a refund, why would you attempt to return it?  Seems you
would be going expecting to abuse the system, because you knew you
could.  Is this morally right?  The very fact that justifications are
needed to feel 'good' about it is telling.

--
Bruce



Thursday, May 20, 2010, 9:09:00 PM, you wrote:

BL> On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>> Not at Best Buy...

BL> That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return
BL> it and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... 
BL> OMG... *sigH*

BL> Boris




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Returning defective goods : was RE: Leica M9

[John Coyle]

I would normally always 'fess up to damage that I had caused, just as I will
always return excess change where the cashier makes a mistake.  Sometimes,
however, the retailer/supplier has a generous policy which doesn't impose a
penalty for doing so.  Yesterday, I found that one of the keys on my
11-month old laptop had been broken off, presumably when my grand-daughter
and her friends were using it to play DVD's.  Took it to the retailer, they
couldn't fix it, and suggested I took it to the Toshiba service centre,
about 20 minutes drive away.There the service department receptionist
agreed that it had to have been broken off by maltreatment, but said their
policy was to replace it under warranty anyway, so I wound up with a new
keyboard fitted at no charge within 20 minutes.  That sort of service will
persuade me to choose Toshiba over competitors in any future buying
decision, so the cost to them of this very high level of service will
probably be recouped many times over.


John in Brisbane






-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 4:10 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Leica M9


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Leica M9


I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.

It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read.

:-)

IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.  He brought the item back
stating it stopped working. That was true. He was not asked anything
further.

Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
returned, regardless of reason.

Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman hand
tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked, regardless of
how the item was abused. Do we pay for that policy at the get go when
purchasing a Craftsman hand tool? Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the
idea that I can use a flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it
breaks I simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go
get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far as I can
tell.

The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?

Tom C.




How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off

so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full 
refund?
The customer is always right, and so they get their refund, which means they

have effectively gotten their "purchase" for free.
Or the guy who cuts a board on the wrong side of the line and so returns it 
for a refund, even though there was nothing wrong with the product, it was 
as advertised.
Regarding the pricing, if this sort of thing never happened, prices would be

somewhat lower since the supply chain would not have to pad prices to pay 
for it.

The one and only time I tried to have a Craftsman tool replaced, I was given

somewhat of a hard time by the sales clerk. She wanted a bill of sale, etc.
This for a socket that had cracked under normal use (I didn't put the thing 
onto an impact driver).
I know how the system works, it just galls me that so many people use the 
threat of bad mouthing a store to take advantage of the system. They get an 
immediate advantage, but everyone ends up paying for it.

William Robb




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Subject: Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: "Ken Waller"

Totally agree.

Society today, in the U.S. does not take responsibility for its actions. 
Witness the plethora of law suits.


I blame it all on the rise of the idea that a corporation is a person.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Boris Liberman]

On 5/21/2010 12:32 AM, John Sessoms wrote:

Not at Best Buy...


That's kind of a horror story to me. To buy something in order to return 
it and get some money in the process out of thin air, effectively... 
OMG... *sigH*


Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Ken Waller]

Totally agree.

Society today, in the U.S. does not take responsibility for its actions. 
Witness the plethora of law suits.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Whaley" 

Subject: Re: Leica M9


Tom C wrote:

I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.

It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I 
read. :-)


IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.


Excuse me Sir, that’s pure bull excrement...there certainly WAS dishonesty
involved.
When the defunct camera owner said, “It just quit operating” or words to 
that

effect, that was an out and out lie. The implication was, “Gee, “It was the
camera’s fault or was some other unknown circumstance.“
That is a bald-faced fabrication. The causative agent was the camera owner 
who
spilled something liquid on it. It was HE that caused the camera to short 
out

or otherwise fail to operate normally. He did know why it wasn’t working. It
was a clear case of cause and effect.
Those sure seem to be the facts. Why all this denial, and why is everybody
standing up for the perpetrator?


He brought the item back stating it stopped working.
That was true. He was not asked anything further.


Oh, so now it’s the clerk‘s fault for not asking the key questions. Shift 
the

blame time.


Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
returned, regardless of reason.


Purely offering up a justification for getting away with a lie and 
displaying

an abdication of responsibility ~ so endemic in today’s society...
“Hell, *I* didn’t do it!”
Nobody has enough guts to own up to their own fallibility anymore, and take
the licks coming to them. Sad commentary. Shameful behavior...

[...]


The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?

Tom C.


keith



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

I'll say it again just to be pedantic... it.

Spilling a drink on a modern camera should not wreck it. 99.99% of the
liquid ran of the camera in the 1st split second unless the camera was
sitting in a soup bowl and or the body itself was open.  You know how
your other cameras hold up in wet weather conditions...

Unless it sat there unattended to in a puddle, it was essentially splashed...

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Christian Skofteland
 wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 08:13:43PM +0200, eckinator wrote:
>> 2010/5/19 Christian Skofteland :
>> >
>> > I bought my G11 a few weeks ago at BestBuy in Virginia.  While in New York 
>> > on business I accidentally spilled a collegues
>> > cocktail all over it.  Needless to say it stopped working.  I went back to 
>> > BestBuy on my return, after gathering the
>> > original receipt and packaging, and told the return clerk that the camera 
>> > "stopped working after a week."
>> > He appologized and replaced the camera without asking any further 
>> > questions.
>>
>> Can't believe you did that. Hate to step on your or anyone's toes but
>> instead of taking responsibility you ripped them off and knew so.
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
> No. I disagree.  I was in customer service for a decade or so.  The customer 
> is always right and you never say "no."
>
> There are stories of retail clothing stores taking snow tires in exchanges 
> from customers.  I worked in the hotel business and never said "no" even 
> though I knew the hotel guests were full of shit and I pounded it into my 
> employees head that they should never say "no."
>
> The guy at BestBuy could have asked what happened but as a good customer 
> service person he did not.  I'm a terrible liar and I would have confessed if 
> asked if it got wet.  I totally take responsibility for wrecking the camera 
> as I've admitted to what happened here and to all my friends and family.  i 
> made an attempt to recover my loss and was successful.  My conscience is 
> clear.
>
> --
>
> Christian
> -
> http://404notfound.blogspot.com
> http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Larry Colen]

Let's take this thread off into an entirely different digression

On 5/20/2010 12:44 PM, Keith Whaley wrote:

Tom C wrote:

I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill. Mostly agree. There are
customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.

It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I
read. :-)

IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.


Excuse me Sir, that’s pure bull excrement...there certainly WAS
dishonesty involved.
When the defunct camera owner said, “It just quit operating” or words to
that effect, that was an out and out lie. The implication was, “Gee, “It
was the camera’s fault or was some other unknown circumstance.“


About 20 years ago I bought a parts car for the Cortina I was racing. 
The problem being that the car ran perfectly, and was actually nicer 
than my racecar.  I ended up selling the partscar which we "Bluefin" 
because it was blue Cortuna, to my friend Craig.


Shortly thereafter, Craig's mother was visiting from out of state. A 
while after that she asked about the car and Craig said, that it wasn't 
running because it had a massive radiator leak. Which was a completely 
true statement. He did not, however, mention that the reason the 
radiator was leaking was that he had spun it into the side of a mountain 
on hwy 9.


A couple hours after his improvisational customization of his car's body 
work, I came home from work to see Craig and his girlfriend sitting on 
the sofa in my living room. Their response to the crisis was "Let's go 
see good Ol' Uncle Larry, he'll know what to do."


On the bright side, he ended up giving the car back to me, and the motor 
had a lot more power than the one in my racecar, which had something 
over 300,000 miles on it, and close to 100,000 since the last complete 
rebuild (though I had freshened up the bearings and done a lowbucks 
valve job on it).



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Francis]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:14:11PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
> Does Home Depot have a "customer is always right" policy?

No.  Theirs is more like "the customer is always wrong".

When one of their staff wrote up the wrong product code for one
of my windows a few years ago I ended up with a $150 window that
wasn't what I wanted.  Home Depot agreed that the mistake had
been made by their employee, but because I'd signed at the bottom
of the order form I had to take it.  Apparently I'm supposed to
know what the Home Depot SKU product codes mean.

That was the last thing I bought at Home Depot, and it's why the
$40,000 kitchen remodel going on next door to me as I type is
using cabinets, countertops, flooring and installation services
from Lowes.  (The appliances and some of the fittings come from
somewhere else because Lowes didn't have the models we wanted).


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[John Sessoms]

From: mike wilson

On 20 May 2010 14:48, Christian Skofteland  wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 08:13:43PM +0200, eckinator wrote:

>> 2010/5/19 Christian Skofteland :

>> >
>> > I bought my G11 a few weeks ago at BestBuy in Virginia. ?While in New York 
on business I accidentally spilled a collegues
>> > cocktail all over it. ?Needless to say it stopped working. ?I went back to 
BestBuy on my return, after gathering the
>> > original receipt and packaging, and told the return clerk that the camera 
"stopped working after a week."
>> > He appologized and replaced the camera without asking any further 
questions.

>>
>> Can't believe you did that. Hate to step on your or anyone's toes but
>> instead of taking responsibility you ripped them off and knew so.



> No. I disagree. ?I was in customer service for a decade or so. ?The customer is always 
right and you never say "no."
>
> There are stories of retail clothing stores taking snow tires in exchanges from customers. ?I 
worked in the hotel business and never said "no" even though I knew the hotel guests were 
full of shit and I pounded it into my employees head that they should never say "no."
>
> The guy at BestBuy could have asked what happened but as a good customer 
service person he did not. ?I'm a terrible liar and I would have confessed if 
asked if it got wet. ?I totally take responsibility for wrecking the camera as 
I've admitted to what happened here and to all my friends and family. ?i made an 
attempt to recover my loss and was successful. ?My conscience is clear.


Very interesting perspective.  Is this common practice?


Not at Best Buy.

I've never been in there but there wasn't someone having a screaming fit 
at the "customer service" desk because they bought something that won't 
work and Best Buy won't honor the return.


But customers scamming retail stores on returns is fairly common. The 
cocktail spilled on the camera is fairly benign as far as that goes.


Saw it all the time when was running the photo-lab at XX. I also had 
to work the service desk. XX had a 90 day with receipt return 
policy. We had regular customers, i.e. shopped there EVERY DAY, who 
would come in and buy clothes for their kids. Kids wore them to school 
for a week, and then mama would return the clothes for refund.


Nothing we could do about it. She kept the tags and had the receipts. 
Management was aware of it and wouldn't do anything about it.


Another customer would buy clothes for her kids and transfer the tags to 
old clothes of like kind that came from XX over 90 days old. Usually 
it would be a similar item, but I noticed it once enough to compare the 
item number barcode on the sales tag with the item number embedded in 
the label and noticed the switch. I called the duty front end manager, 
who completed the return & refund.


The biggest item was coupon/rebate fraud. I'm not sure the exact details 
of how they made it work, but I think it has to do with how coupons are 
scanned after all purchases are scanned.


Certain "customers" came in and purchased massive quantities of like 
items, most often cosmetic & beauty (shampoo, toothpaste, OTC drugs & 
vitamins, ...), using coupons to get them at a discount. The "customer" 
always paid with a debit card. Apparently they could use the receipt to 
claim mail-in rebates.


They would then "return" the items for refund at at different store. 
XX's POS system allowed returns for refund to be accomplished by 
credit card lookup. If you didn't have your receipt, the customer 
service desk could process your credit or debit card to determine if the 
item had been purchased at any XX store within the preceding 90 
days. If so, XX would refund the purchase, and if the purchase was 
made with a debit card the customer could get the refund in CASH.


And the kicker was, the debit card lookup didn't show the coupon 
discount, the customer got the full retail price refunded. If the 
customer bought 10 $3.00 tubes of toothpaste with a coupon that allowed 
$1.00 off each tube, the customer paid $20.00, and then returned them 
for $30.00 refund.


We had regular "customers" who did this. I mean two, three times a week 
they would come into the store and return 10 toothpaste, 10 hairspray, 
10 room freshners, 10 hair color, 10 of this, 10 of that, and 10 of the 
other. Refund anywhere 50 to 100 dollars every time.


We all knew it was fraud, but there was nothing we could do about it. 
Objecting to it would just get you written up for not being "customer 
friendly". And I'm not talking about saying something to the customer, 
I'm talking about saying something to management about it out of the 
customer's presence.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: was: Leica M9 now: honesty in returns

[Charles Robinson]

On May 20, 2010, at 14:44, Keith Whaley wrote:

> Tom C wrote:
>> I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
>> customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
>> for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.
>> It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read. 
>> :-)
>> IMO, there was no dishonesty involved. 
> 
> Excuse me Sir, that’s pure bull excrement...there certainly WAS dishonesty 
> involved.
> When the defunct camera owner said, “It just quit operating” or words to that 
> effect, that was an out and out lie. The implication was, “Gee, “It was the 
> camera’s fault or was some other unknown circumstance.“
> That is a bald-faced fabrication. The causative agent was the camera owner 
> who spilled something liquid on it. It was HE that caused the camera to short 
> out or otherwise fail to operate normally. He did know why it wasn’t working. 
> It was a clear case of cause and effect.
> Those sure seem to be the facts. Why all this denial, and why is everybody 
> standing up for the perpetrator?
> 

I have to agree with Keith on this one.  The exchange without saying WHY the 
camera stopped working (ie, the customer soaked it in a drink) was dishonest.

All this talk about BBuy "deserving" it, or Canon "counting on a certain 
percentage of returns" is masking the issue that the replacement was received 
through fraudulent means (ie, looking up in the air, whistling innocently and 
just saying "it doesn't work").

The "oh, they're big and they can afford it" defense is equivalent to 
justifying shoplifting.  "They won't miss this one jacket if I just take it 
with me".

At this point I'll borrow eckinator's disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: the preceding text is written mind in glasshouse, the author
has made mistakes and wronged people and doesn't see himself above
anyone but is trying to point out a standard that should be considered
desirable by everyone imvho =)"

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[eckinator]

Disclaimer: the following is written mind in glasshouse, the author
has made mistakes and wronged people and doesn't see himself above
anyone but is trying to point out a standard that should be considered
desirable by everyone imvho =)

>From what I'm reading here this seems to be a cultural issue for the
most part and comes down to the question of who is perceived as being
entitled to basic civility (which I consider honesty a part of) and
who is not. IMHO doing this bites the hand that feeds you and then
cries on the shoulder it is attached to, metaphorically speaking.
Unless one will just as willingly let oneself get ripped off and lied
to this cannot be argued let alone legitimated.

Personally, I pay 2.5% p.a. on the amount I want to receive for any
insured item in the event that it becomes unusable for any reason
whatsoever, theft, loss, damage, failure, coffee spill etc. no
questions asked.

Anyway, of course this is already built into the price so the
replacement G11 was in essence paid for by people buying Canon from
BestBuy in the same accouting period. Meaning they're the ones ripped
off. Now being neither Canon nor BestBuy, are they entitled or not?
And if Canon and BestBuy are evil in the first place, would it not
have been better to boycot them in the first place?

Cheers
Ecke

2010/5/20 Tom C :
> Does Home Depot have a "customer is always right" policy?
>
> If so, then they are willingly accepting that burden. (not that what
> some customers do is justfied by any stretch of the imagination).
>
> If they don't, then possibly it's just the management at the local
> store that wants to avoid confrontation.
>
> Not trying to be argumentative.
>
> I just think the condemnation I'm hearing regarding the G11 return is
> rather unwarranted. He just as easily could have gotten a defective
> one from the store and would have had to return it. There was no
> visible damage to the camera otherwise BB would have bulked. BB will
> do exactly the same thing with this camera as they would with any
> other returned as not working.  BB willl receive the credit from Canon
> or their distrubutor. they will refurbish and resell.
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM, William Robb  wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Tom C"
>> Subject: Re: Leica M9
>>
>>
>> I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
>> customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
>> for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.
>>
>> It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read.
>> :-)
>>
>> IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.  He brought the item back
>> stating it stopped working. That was true. He was not asked anything
>> further.
>>
>> Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
>> yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
>> but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
>> item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
>> being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
>> all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
>> returned, regardless of reason.
>>
>> Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman hand
>> tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked, regardless of
>> how the item was abused. Do we pay for that policy at the get go when
>> purchasing a Craftsman hand tool? Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the
>> idea that I can use a flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it
>> breaks I simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go
>> get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far as I can
>> tell.
>>
>> The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
>> tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
>> extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?
>>
>> Tom C.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off
>> so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full
>> refund?
>> The customer is always right, and so they get their refund, which means they
>> have effectively gotten their "purchase" for free.
>> Or the guy who cuts a board on the wrong side of the line and so returns it
>> for a refund, even though there was nothing wrong with the product, it was
>> as advertised.
>> Regarding the pricing, if this sort of thing never happened,

Re: Leica M9

[Keith Whaley]

Tom C wrote:

I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.

It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read. :-)

IMO, there was no dishonesty involved. 


Excuse me Sir, that’s pure bull excrement...there certainly WAS dishonesty 
involved.
When the defunct camera owner said, “It just quit operating” or words to that 
effect, that was an out and out lie. The implication was, “Gee, “It was the 
camera’s fault or was some other unknown circumstance.“
That is a bald-faced fabrication. The causative agent was the camera owner who 
spilled something liquid on it. It was HE that caused the camera to short out 
or otherwise fail to operate normally. He did know why it wasn’t working. It 
was a clear case of cause and effect.
Those sure seem to be the facts. Why all this denial, and why is everybody 
standing up for the perpetrator?



He brought the item back stating it stopped working.
That was true. He was not asked anything further.


Oh, so now it’s the clerk‘s fault for not asking the key questions. Shift the 
blame time.



Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
returned, regardless of reason.


Purely offering up a justification for getting away with a lie and displaying 
an abdication of responsibility ~ so endemic in today’s society...

“Hell, *I* didn’t do it!”
Nobody has enough guts to own up to their own fallibility anymore, and take 
the licks coming to them. Sad commentary. Shameful behavior...


[...]


The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?

Tom C.


keith


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Does Home Depot have a "customer is always right" policy?

If so, then they are willingly accepting that burden. (not that what
some customers do is justfied by any stretch of the imagination).

If they don't, then possibly it's just the management at the local
store that wants to avoid confrontation.

Not trying to be argumentative.

I just think the condemnation I'm hearing regarding the G11 return is
rather unwarranted. He just as easily could have gotten a defective
one from the store and would have had to return it. There was no
visible damage to the camera otherwise BB would have bulked. BB will
do exactly the same thing with this camera as they would with any
other returned as not working.  BB willl receive the credit from Canon
or their distrubutor. they will refurbish and resell.

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM, William Robb  wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Tom C"
> Subject: Re: Leica M9
>
>
> I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
> customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
> for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.
>
> It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read.
> :-)
>
> IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.  He brought the item back
> stating it stopped working. That was true. He was not asked anything
> further.
>
> Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
> yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
> but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
> item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
> being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
> all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
> returned, regardless of reason.
>
> Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman hand
> tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked, regardless of
> how the item was abused. Do we pay for that policy at the get go when
> purchasing a Craftsman hand tool? Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the
> idea that I can use a flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it
> breaks I simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go
> get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far as I can
> tell.
>
> The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
> tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
> extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
> How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off
> so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full
> refund?
> The customer is always right, and so they get their refund, which means they
> have effectively gotten their "purchase" for free.
> Or the guy who cuts a board on the wrong side of the line and so returns it
> for a refund, even though there was nothing wrong with the product, it was
> as advertised.
> Regarding the pricing, if this sort of thing never happened, prices would be
> somewhat lower since the supply chain would not have to pad prices to pay
> for it.
>
> The one and only time I tried to have a Craftsman tool replaced, I was given
> somewhat of a hard time by the sales clerk. She wanted a bill of sale, etc.
> This for a socket that had cracked under normal use (I didn't put the thing
> onto an impact driver).
> I know how the system works, it just galls me that so many people use the
> threat of bad mouthing a store to take advantage of the system. They get an
> immediate advantage, but everyone ends up paying for it.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Tom C]

Of course all that stuff's stated in the warranty.  It's how THEY get
out of REALLY taking responsibility for incidental damages, which are
as real as the product itself.

I may have posted this on the list before...

Was I dishonest or not?

When Circuit City was still around, they had a DVD Recorder/VCR combo
I wanted.  I saw it advertised online for a price with the statement
that the price was also good in the store.

Call it $300.

I went to the store.

It was marked at $400.

Call floorperson over and explain.

No he's sure that price is only good online.

We walk over to PC and open web browser so he can show me he's right.

OK, I'm right.

So he proceeds to right up a sales ticket for --> $200 <--

What to do?

I'm pretty sure it'll get caught at the point of sale.

Walk over to register.

Checkout girl rings it in. Needs a manager override for the price change.

Call and wait for manager.

Manager comes over.  Looks at the screen for 20 seconds.  Types in the
override code.

Done.

Transaction complete.

OK, was I honest or dishonest?

1. They did not have the price marked correctly
2. I had to go though the hassle of price lookup with the floor person
3. Floor person either not trained well enough or not observant enough
to right down the correct price
4. Manager clearly has the opportunity to decide yes or no, and likely
could see at least what the original selling price was vs. the price I
would get it for
5. OK'd it anyway

Whereas in some cases I might have corrected the error, I'd been
inconvenienced enough and was convinced that the whole problem was
that their store staff did not receive proper training, or just were
inferior workers.  Moreover it's not my responsibility to enforce
their policies or prices. And, how many people walked into the store
not realizing the item was on sale and paid the full price?

Because of my belief in the proper operation of cause and effect, I let it go.

Even with Best Buy's policy of not accepting returns on items that are
damaged, it is not Christians's responsibility to enforce their
policies for them.

Tom C.


On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM, steve harley  wrote:
>
> few manufacturers offer a warranty for damages incurred from a defective
> product; this is clearly spelled out in every warranty i've read; the
> sellers responsibility is covered by their policies (see below) plus local
> laws (e.g. lemon laws) which in the U.S. rarely cover damages; people who do
> high-value work with equipment know they are responsible for managing the
> risk of equipment failure, whether by redundancy, support plans, additional
> insurance, or some other plan
>
>> I'm not trying to rationalize any form of dishonesty, and again I
>> personally don't think he was. He was under no obligation to state why
>> it was not working and they really didn't want to know.
>
> the Best Buy return policy states that _non-returnable_ items include "Items
> that are damaged or abused"; IMO Christian was dishonest by returning it in
> the first place; that he didn't have to state a lie, and that Best Buy
> accepted the return, doesn't alter that
>
> 
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Fernando]

"One year someone bought a silver dinner service, used it over Christmas"

That might explain that sign that I saw last year in Canadian Tire,
stating that Christmas ornaments can't be returned after Dec. 24...

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob W  wrote:
> [...]
>> Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman
>> hand tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked,
>> regardless of how the item was abused. Do we pay for that
>> policy at the get go when purchasing a Craftsman hand tool?
>> Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the idea that I can use a
>> flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it breaks I
>> simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go
>> get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far
>> as I can tell.
>
> I used to work for Selfridges many years ago when they had a
> no-questions-asked returns policy, even for stuff that was clearly bought in
> a different shop, eg Marks & Spencer. One year someone bought a silver
> dinner service, used it over Christmas, then returned it for a full refund.
> People would also bring in shoes they'd obviously been wearing every day for
> a year, and get a full refund. Incredible really, but it seemed not to
> damage the shop's profits
>
> B
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[Cotty]

We have home contents insurance which covers computers and cameras etc.
When Stef poured tea over the keyboard of a brand new 13" MacBook (bless
him, the only time it's ever happened) the insurance company wrote a
cheque for 799 quid without question for a replacement. When I asked
what they wanted me to do with the dead MacBook, they guy said bin it. I
ebayed it and got 300 quid back (screen untouched). Our premiums remain
unchanged. We've claimed maybe 3  or 4 times in 20 years...



--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Leica M9

[Bob W]

[...]
> Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman 
> hand tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked, 
> regardless of how the item was abused. Do we pay for that 
> policy at the get go when purchasing a Craftsman hand tool? 
> Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the idea that I can use a 
> flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it breaks I 
> simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go 
> get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far 
> as I can tell.

I used to work for Selfridges many years ago when they had a
no-questions-asked returns policy, even for stuff that was clearly bought in
a different shop, eg Marks & Spencer. One year someone bought a silver
dinner service, used it over Christmas, then returned it for a full refund.
People would also bring in shoes they'd obviously been wearing every day for
a year, and get a full refund. Incredible really, but it seemed not to
damage the shop's profits

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"

Subject: Re: Leica M9


I have to differ a bit with you on this Bill.  Mostly agree. There are
customers who set out to rip off retailers. Those who purchase an item
for the time they need to use it and then return it, for example.

It was not Steve it was Christian with the G11, according to the way I read. 
:-)


IMO, there was no dishonesty involved.  He brought the item back
stating it stopped working. That was true. He was not asked anything
further.

Best Buy simply returns the item as defective, Canon refurbishes, and
yes somewhere, somehow, on this individual item profit is diminished,
but then again as you point out... maybe not since the pricing of the
item was in place before the camera was purchased and returned. That
being the case, one could reasonably argue there's no loss suffered at
all, as Canon has a rough statistical idea of how many cameras will be
returned, regardless of reason.

Sears, as you know has made it a practice on their Craftsman hand
tools to replace items, no receipt, no questions asked, regardless of
how the item was abused. Do we pay for that policy at the get go when
purchasing a Craftsman hand tool? Yes we do.  But I, for one, like the
idea that I can use a flat blade screwdriver for a crowbar and when it
breaks I simply walk in and say 'it broke'. Salesman says 'Oh, OK go
get another'. It's proven to be a successful policy, as far as I can
tell.

The system also works because that extra nickel, dime, dollar, that's
tacked on by the mfr. and/or retailer is so often not used up, and
extra profit is generated by it. So who's benefiting?

Tom C.




How about the ones who buy two single device boxes, take the side plates off 
so as to make a two gang box and then bring the side plates back for a full 
refund?
The customer is always right, and so they get their refund, which means they 
have effectively gotten their "purchase" for free.
Or the guy who cuts a board on the wrong side of the line and so returns it 
for a refund, even though there was nothing wrong with the product, it was 
as advertised.
Regarding the pricing, if this sort of thing never happened, prices would be 
somewhat lower since the supply chain would not have to pad prices to pay 
for it.


The one and only time I tried to have a Craftsman tool replaced, I was given 
somewhat of a hard time by the sales clerk. She wanted a bill of sale, etc.
This for a socket that had cracked under normal use (I didn't put the thing 
onto an impact driver).
I know how the system works, it just galls me that so many people use the 
threat of bad mouthing a store to take advantage of the system. They get an 
immediate advantage, but everyone ends up paying for it.


William Robb




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Leica M9

[steve harley]

On 2010-05-20 10:46 , Tom C wrote:

I'd point out again, that if Christian had received a defective camera
from Best Buy, they would not reimburse him for his time, or his
mileage to return it, but why not?


few manufacturers offer a warranty for damages incurred from a defective 
product; this is clearly spelled out in every warranty i've read; the 
sellers responsibility is covered by their policies (see below) plus 
local laws (e.g. lemon laws) which in the U.S. rarely cover damages; 
people who do high-value work with equipment know they are responsible 
for managing the risk of equipment failure, whether by redundancy, 
support plans, additional insurance, or some other plan



I'm not trying to rationalize any form of dishonesty, and again I
personally don't think he was. He was under no obligation to state why
it was not working and they really didn't want to know.


the Best Buy return policy states that _non-returnable_ items include 
"Items that are damaged or abused"; IMO Christian was dishonest by 
returning it in the first place; that he didn't have to state a lie, and 
that Best Buy accepted the return, doesn't alter that





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.