Calumet files Chapter 7

In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

In this case, either definition is equally ill-fitted
though, which is why you used it of course.

Neil Ellwood:
And that is why you are wrong.

Sandman:
You just can't put into words why.

And you don't understand what you are arguing about. You should read
what people are telling you and not make up your own explanations,

See what I mean?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You
shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English grammar
lessons. He refuses to learn, and discussion is pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all through
very carefully.

Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden, but thanks
anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just adding a
series of empty words means exactly nothing.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 4/1/2014 5:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

competitive doesn't mean below cost.

however, it does mean not charging as much as twice the price as
available elsewhere, for the same item.

offer products and services to make customers want to buy from you,
otherwise they aren't going to. it's really that simple.

either adapt to the changing landscape of online shopping or be gone.
that's harsh but that's just how it is.

You really don't want to be swayed from your agenda, do you?

nospam goes into every discussion thinking that his position is the
only right position.

everyone does that. that's what drives discussions. who goes into a
discussion thinking that they're wrong??

Must resist temptation.
Must resist temptation.
Must resist temptation.

Yeh! I resisted temptation.

He makes much of the fact that in some retail stores the sales help is
either not informative enough or that they push accessories to
increase the sale.

it's true. it's the rare exception that sales staff knows a lot about
products. those that do can make more money outside of retail.

Yet another survey.


What he ignores is that in *all* purchases online, there is no sales
help available. Any help the customer gets at a retail store is more
than what any online seller offers. If nothing else, the buyer at a
retail store gets to handle the camera before purchase.

false. some online sellers have a *lot* of sales help on their site,
including extensive faqs, video demos, wizards that ask questions to
narrow down the choices, phone support and even online chat for
questions, user reviews and links to other information.

some sellers have very generous return policies so you can buy and
handle the product with no risk, other than having to ship it back if
you don't like it, which is nothing more than a quick trip to the post
office.

It's always the buyer's responsibility to do their own homework.
There's no reason the in-store buyer can't check the reviews and
customer ratings of something before they make the purchase.

nobody said they can't do that, but most people don't.

Yet another survey


I may be a bit prejudiced in favor of the retail store because the two
camera stores in Orlando are both staffed by knowledgeable and helpful
staff. But, if I go to a big box store and deal with a sales person
that doesn't know the difference between a interchangeable lens body
and a fixed lens body, that's my fault.

what if the only choices are big box stores? what if the customer
doesn't know enough about the product to know that the salesperson
hasn't any clue?

Caveat emptor

Now, here's a challenge for you: SHOW US a camera (not a lens cap or a
battery) that sells for twice at much in a retail store as through a
mail order house. Exact same, current model and brand, that is, say,
$200 at Cardinal Camera in Lansdale Pa. and $100 at B&H in New York. Or
any other comparable vendors.

He won't be able to. That's typical hyperbole from nospam.

i am *always* able to back up what i say. as i said in another post, i
was looking for a lens case and a local store had one for around $30
and b&h had it for $17 or so (i don't remember exact prices). that's
about double.

i didn't say cameras were twice the price, but way back when i bought
my nikon d50, the difference was $200 from online versus store, which
was about 1/3rd the price of the camera ($400 v. $600).


I see you are as good with your arithmatic, as you are with business.


--
PeterN

On 4/2/2014 7:23 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You
shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English grammar
lessons. He refuses to learn, and discussion is pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all through
very carefully.

Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden, but thanks
anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just adding a
series of empty words means exactly nothing.


Good thing you understand what you the true meaning of what you say.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

nospam:
everyone does that. that's what drives discussions. who goes into
a discussion thinking that they're wrong??

Must resist temptation. Must resist temptation. Must resist
temptation.

Yeh! I resisted temptation.

Good point, I think Peter here usually enters a discussion knowing he's
wrong.

nospam:
i am *always* able to back up what i say. as i said in another
post, i was looking for a lens case and a local store had one for
around $30 and b&h had it for $17 or so (i don't remember exact
prices). that's about double.

i didn't say cameras were twice the price, but way back when i
bought my nikon d50, the difference was $200 from online versus
store, which was about 1/3rd the price of the camera ($400 v.
$600).

I see you are as good with your arithmatic, as you are with
business.

Huh? Does peter not think that $200 is a third of the price of $600? Or was
he just unable to read to save his life again?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You
shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English
grammar lessons. He refuses to learn, and discussion is
pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Neil Ellwood:
Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all
through very carefully.

Sandman:
Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden,
but thanks anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just
adding a series of empty words means exactly nothing.

Good thing you understand what you the true meaning of what you say.

Indeed I do, given the fact that I always elaborate on my views and
positions, provide ample substantiations, quotes and links to back it up. I
don't go around making empty claims, as you know.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
nospam goes into every discussion thinking that
his position is the only right position.

nospam:
everyone does that. that's what drives discussions.
who goes into a discussion thinking that they're wrong??

Tony Cooper:
You could respond to what I said, not what I didn't say. I
don't phrase my comments without thought.

Sandman:
Hehe

He what? Have you acquired a stutter?

Nope, I just thought what you wrote was extremely ironic coming from you.

Sandman:
It wouldn't have changed his meaning at all. No one does that.
Humble and mature people can have their position swayed when proof
and substantiations are brought forward, and then we have people
like you, who will argue your position for days no matter how
insane it is.

I guess you didn't have time to read what you were replying to. It
wasn't at all about thinking one's position is right or not thinking
one's position is right.

I guess you didn't have time to read my reply to realize I had read it just
fine.

Tony Cooper:
If that's true, then all that "online help" above isn't going to
be taken advantage of either.

Sandman:
Why not? It is found in direct relation to the product they're
vieweing online.

Could you translate that sentence into English?

What part has you confused?

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.

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.

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.

Tony Cooper:
It all comes around to my position that there is often more than
one "right" way to do things.

Sandman:
As long as it's not nospam's way to do things, that is. That can
never be right, no matter what.

No, I think he was right about something. Give me some time. I'm
sure I'll think of something he was right about.

See what I mean?

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, I'm questioning your arrogance and agenda in this
group. It has nothing to do with nospam. It's just that it's something
usually found in your replies to him since you dislike him - possibly due
to the many many times he has proven your claims incorrect.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:23:59 +0000, Sandman wrote:

In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English grammar lessons.
He refuses to learn, and discussion is pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all through very
carefully.

Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden, but
thanks anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just adding a
series of empty words means exactly nothing.

You are unutterably stupid. Goodbye.



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

Neil Ellwood:
I thought you claimed expert English. You
shouldn't be baffled.

PeterN:
The pontificating popinjay just wants free English
grammar lessons. He refuses to learn, and discussion is
pointless.

Sandman:
When did you ever discuss anything, Peter?

Neil Ellwood:
Go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read it all
through very carefully.

Sandman:
Hot air might be welcome, but spring is already here in Sweden,
but thanks anyway.

If you have something specific, you're welcome to share, just
adding a series of empty words means exactly nothing.

You are unutterably stupid. Goodbye.

It's like having a hip-hopper tell me my taste in music is bad. Best
endorsement I could get.


--
Sandman[.net]

| there is something inherently dishonest about charging high prices
| without offering anything in return, ripping off the customers. why
| would anyone want to shop in a store where they get ripped off?
|
| Disagree. Stupid, but not dishonest. Problem is perception of value. I,
| personally, perceive a lot of value in simply being able to hold the
| product in my hands before purchase, and have my questions answered by
| a (presumed) expert. Unfortunately, customers have overwhelmingly voted
| they place little-to-no value on that, by purchasing elsewhere.
| Dishonesty comes in on the customers side, where they TAKE that value
| (showroom demonstration) without paying for it (making the purchase at
| the dealer offering it).
|

It seems that you're both focusing on one
part of a complex issue. Nospam wants cheap
and chooses to ignore the cost of actually
having a store. He thinks it's dishonest
for stores to charge high prices. (Especially ironic,
given that nospam shills for Adobe at every
opportunity -- a company famous for gouging a
captive customer base.)

You would prefer to view stores as places where
kindly and knowledgeable clerks are there to help
you, and deserve to charge a bit more for that. You
don't think it's dishonest for stores to overcharge
customers, but you do think it's dishonest for
customers to take advantage of store sales staff
without buying. Both are dishonest. Both are misleading
the other party. Both care only about themselves,
lacking what used to be known as common decency.

But it's also more involved than that.

Yesterday I was looking to buy a cane for my
extremely elderly father. Walmart and Home Depot
both claim to carry it. At Walmart it's only $17.
But those stores don't really carry the product.
It's not in their stores. They just claim to carry
anything at all and then act as a middleman delivery
service through their websites. I wouldn't be surprised
if I could buy a circular saw or TV set at CVS or
Safeway online for less than Home Depot and Walmart,
respectively, charge for those items. But woe to me
if I need to return them.

I don't like to buy online, and I especially avoid
anyplace where I can't call and talk to a human.
I ended up getting the cane at Walgreen's for about
$40. Walgreen's and CVS overcharge, simply because
they can get away with it. They're giant, "godless"
corporations, operating only for proift. Recently I read
about how CVS sells customer medical records to
insurance companies; just making a little extra money
on the side. I'd prefer to give my business to a local
drug store. And I wouldn't mind paying a little extra
for that. But they're all gone. The undercutting strategy
that Walgreen's and CVS started out with drove those
stores out of business. The clerks in Walgreen's know
nothing about the products. Nor should they. They don't
get paid enough for that. They're paid to be robots who
ask politely, "Do you have one of our valuable loyalty
cards?"

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.