Calumet files Chapter 7

On 4/3/2014 10:14 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 3 Apr 2014 07:08:27 GMT, Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
Checking reviews and ratings *before* you enter a store isn't
really a smooth buyer experience.

Really?

Really.

nospam must be right, then. I do things the hard way. I do, if the
product represents a significant expense, check reviews and ratings
before entering the store. Seems like the best way to do it.

Many people do - that doesn't make it a smooth buyer experience, just like
I said. It's an added step you have to add before you go to the store.

Yes, learning all you can about a product you intend to buy is an
added step. Omitting that step can make the purchase process
smoother, but can also result in buying the wrong product or buying
from the wrong source. Why you think this "bump" in the purchasing
process should be avoided in order to keep the process "smooth" is
rather strange.


It's not strange at all coming from a troll who seems to purchase items
so he can brag about the cost, and not the output.





Tony Cooper:
So a $10 difference, after shipping charges, of one item
establishes that camera stores charge double? And, you had to
wait for delivery. What if you needed it today? What if what is
offered online is a knock-off product from China that isn't as
good a quality?

Sandman:
Tony working hard to make it seem the prices quoted aren't "about
double" by adding unrelated parameters.

Shipping costs are an unrelated parameter in deciding whether or not
an online supplier's price is competitive?

Unknown shipping costs, added by you without knowing if there were any.

Uhhh...get your story straight. If he is talking about B&H as you say
below, B&H charges shipping. I've purchased many items from B&H, and
their shipping charge policy is not unknown to me.

Sandman:
And now B&H sells low-quality knock-offs from China?

I guess I must have missed where nospam said online choices are
limited to B&H.

I guess you missed that nospam was specifically talking about a B&H
example, yes.

The B&H that does charge for shipping?

Just out of curiosity, does nospam send you "Thank you" notes with
little x's and o's for coming to his defense so often?

I am not defending him,

Sure. We shouldn't believe what we see.



--
PeterN

On 31 Mar 2014 05:35:31 GMT, Sandman wrote:

--- snip ---

If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject is not
included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored".

No, this is incorrect. It could be any of these:

1. Forgotten
2. Overlooked
3. Ignored
4. Missed

I would address the point in only a slightly different way.

It could be any one of these:

1. Forgotten
2. Overlooked
3. Deliberately ignored.
4. Missed.

In any case, If a subject is addressed, and an aspect of that subject
is not included, that aspect can be said to be "ignored". As the list
indicates, that does not require that the aspect has been deliberately
ignored.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:56:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:
b&h states that free shipping is up to 7 days, which for those who
failed math, is *one* week, not two.

Read the site. "Up to 7 business days". "Business days" are Monday
through Friday even though the post office delivers on Saturday, but
B&H doesn't ship after noon on Friday and they are closed on Saturday.

the post office is a 24/7 operation. once it has shipped, it moves on
sat/sun. in fact, a priority package mailed on saturday will arrive the
following monday, which is actually 'next day' delivery, not the 2-3
days that it is supposed to be.

if a package goes ups/fedex it might sit for a day over the weekend but
otherwise, it's moving. fedex ground states 5 business days to ship
across the country, one day of which is processing at the local depot
so it's really 4 days to make the journey, which means it *must* be
moving over the weekend (or you got lucky and it went by air).

the up to 7 business days simply means they're going to take their time
processing the order and it might not ship it for a couple of days,
which leaves around 5 days in transit. if you live near new york city,
it will likely be just one day once mailed.

I gave you a clue with "calendar days" above.

7 business days is not two weeks. it's a little more than 1 week.

B&H is owned by
Orthodox Jews and they close on Friday at 2 PM and re-open at 10 AM on
Sunday. They are also closed on certain Jewish holidays.

they are also open on non-jewish holidays, including memorial day, july
4th and thanksgiving (although usps/fedex/ups won't be).

depending on where you live and what you ordered, it will likely be
quicker than that (thus the words 'up to'). those close to new york
will likely get it in a couple of days. for free.

The orders I've placed with B&H come in about 10 (calendar) days to 2
weeks depending on the day of the week I place the order. Part of
what to expect depends on how the post office routes packages to the
place you live.

the orders i've placed from b&h come within 1-5 days, depending on the
shipping option and how far it needs to travel. over the years, i've
lived near and not so near to them. when i lived near to them, it was 1
day no matter what option i chose.

they must have a marker in your file to intentionally delay your order
so that it takes two weeks.

Overall, I've been very pleased with B&H shipping, but that's because
I know what to expect. B&H is not the only online retailer, though,
and two week delivery from some is better than you can expect.

two weeks is much worse than normal. even amazon's free shipping is not
that bad. i've never had any package take two weeks for domestic
shipping. ever.

While you would think that orders to people who live close to NYC come
faster when mailed, that's not always the case.

it almost always is.

It depends on how the
post office routes their mail. It's not beyond the post office to
route a package through Atlanta or Jacksonville and then back north.

usually it takes the most direct path, taking into account where the
major sort facilities are.

But, then, you live in Sweden and know all about US business hours and
the post office practices.

not only do i not live in sweden but i've never been to sweden.

you continue to demonstrate just how incorrect you are.

On 4/3/2014 4:56 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

"Free Shipping (USA)"

It's free if you are willing to wait for two weeks of calendar days.
UPS is not free.

bzzt.

b&h states that free shipping is up to 7 days, which for those who
failed math, is *one* week, not two.

depending on where you live and what you ordered, it will likely be
quicker than that (thus the words 'up to'). those close to new york
will likely get it in a couple of days. for free.


Please tell us how close to New York City "most people" live.
I am still waiting for the answers to my many other questions. The
expected response will be wither: what questions; or I already answered
all of them; or they were irrelevant; or some variation of the above.

--
PeterN

On 4/3/2014 9:50 AM, Mayayana wrote:
snip


I wouldn't entirely disagree with your point. CVS
and Walgreen's exist in large part because of the
tendency you're talking about: People fall for the
low prices, ignoring the slightly less obvious fact that
by supporting chain stores they're driving out competition.
The customer tendency to go only for price is what allows
companies like Walmart to thrive. And now it's become
what allows online mega-retailers like Amazon to thrive.
But it's not as simple as a battle between nice, expert
retail clerks and amoral online mega-retailers.


Fortunately, there are still a few independent drug stores left. I don't
mind paying several hundred dollars more a year for the service they give.



--
PeterN

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:26:55 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 30 Mar 2014 07:49:42 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , PeterN wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations
was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood,
or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described
so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually
has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am
happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to
the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and
why it was inappropriate.

I'm waiting.

Just look at and read any of your postings in which Tony orI
corrected your English.

There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

Here's one for you, then. "There is none..." is a gross error.

If I adopted your juvenile style of writing, I'd add "Hilarious",
"haha", or "Ironic".


And that's as far as I go with you English
lesson.

So, you have nothing. I knew that of course.

I think the problem with arguing with Jonas is that the two of you are
coming from two different directions.

You are genuinely trying to teach him something about the usage of the
English language based on you lifetime's experience of seriously using
it.

Jonas is fighting it like a lawyer, using selective quotes from what
are generally fairly mundane on-line English dictionaries. He must
know that languages are not constructed in this Lego-like fashion and
the question must be why he is doing it this way. The answer may be in
Message-ID: wherein his final line
is :
"In short - you lose. Again."

Jonas has finished other articles in a similar fashion. It seems he
sees this as some kind of competition in which he desparately
struggles to avoid a loss. If it was a game, he would be good at it,
but you are not playing a game. The two of you will never agree and
Jonas will never admit to learning from you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , PeterN
wrote:

b&h states that free shipping is up to 7 days, which for those who
failed math, is *one* week, not two.

depending on where you live and what you ordered, it will likely be
quicker than that (thus the words 'up to'). those close to new york
will likely get it in a couple of days. for free.

Please tell us how close to New York City "most people" live.

i never said most people live close to new york. stop lying.

since you do, you will get stuff within a day once the order is
processed and it ships.

I am still waiting for the answers to my many other questions. The
expected response will be wither: what questions; or I already answered
all of them; or they were irrelevant; or some variation of the above.

reread what i wrote. the answers were given.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

But, then, you live in Sweden and know all about US business hours and
the post office practices.

not only do i not live in sweden but i've never been to sweden.

you continue to demonstrate just how incorrect you are.

Sorry. Except for the lack of capitalization I can't tell you two
apart.

learn to read.

there's a field in every post that says who authored it.

On 1 Apr 2014 08:00:42 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word
"gross", which is why I am baffled by your misuse of it.
Accidentally writing "is" when one should have written "are"
is pretty much one of the tiniest and "non-bloated" ways to
make a grammar mistake.

Tony Cooper:
When you write one sentence of ten words, and make an obvious an
glaring mistake in that sentence, it's an unattractively large
error. Blatant, even.

Sandman:
Then you just made a gross error yourself. Ironic, wouldn't you
say?

Tony Cooper:
And, when presented with that mistake, you *still* "missed" it,
it becomes even more of a glaring and gross error...especially
when you weasel away and claim it is a "tiny" error.

Sandman:
Because you think it's an enormous and unforgiving error? This is
seriously what you have sunk to, Andreas? Posting spelling and
grammar flames blowing them way out of proportion? Especially when
you make similar errors yourself.

As I've said many times, I have no problem admitting to an error
when I make it, but that doesn't mean I'll make fun of your
trolling flames in the process.

A typo, omitting a "d", is not a grammatical error.

Who claimed it was? Srtill a very very gross error, according to Andreas.

And, I do catch my errors the first time.

Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't know the
meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or what a "Photoshop
Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such as:

Tony Cooper
03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

But, no, I don't think your error was "unforgiving"[sic]. Nor is it
unforgivable. (Funny how "Ironic" comes and bites you in the ass.)

How so? I am not posting spelling and grammar flames, and I am fully aware
that I make such mistakes,

You could have fooled me. :-)

so no irony to bite my ass here. Only guys like
you that has some form of pride invested in these matters and post
spelling/grammar flames are subject to the irony when you make errors
yourself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't know the
meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or what a "Photoshop
Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such as:

Tony Cooper
03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

there is approval for adobe to showcase a plug-in on their website but
that's *completely* separate and not at all required.