"Bill" wrote in message
...
Michael Black wrote:

"Matt Clara" ) writes:

Yes it did, it also said: "Since they want "an original" qualifying
UPC", my
copy won't suffice."

So first he said he always tapes it in there, and then he said his copy
won't suffice. I won't make one claim or the other as to what he
actually
did, but there is some abiguity about it.


This thread has been going on for so long, it's hard to remember. But
that
bit about "copy" may have been in reference to the state he was in,
since they refused the rebate claiming it included no UPC, but since
he sent the UPC in already, all he has is a copy of it.

In other words, he sent in the UPC originally, they claim they didn't get
it, and all he has is a copy of that UPC.

His mistake is in thinking that if they claimed there was no UPC with
the rebate form, they will automatically deny the copy now. But right
now, he is fighting them for the rebate, and the copy is all he has
to work with.

Michael

That is correct. The "copy won't suffice" was in regards to his
wanting to fix it ("No matter how hard I tried, Canon still
managed to screw me over.") but that a copy won't work (at least
that's the way I read it). While it is possible that the rebate
house would pull that, more likely is that they WILL take the
copy with a resubmission, either by mail or fax.

Obviously Matt missed where the original poster said prior to
that:

You guys can think what you'd like, obviously, but I'm quite sure I missed
nothing. You may be able to interpret what he's saying as you do, but it's
not crystal clear that's what he meant--not even close to crystal clear.
Thus it's ambiguous. Period.