Calumet files Chapter 7

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"'

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, 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.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:04:40 +0000, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Sandman:

Sandman:
There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

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

Sandman:
"gross", huh? I'm way past at taking you at face value, so you need
more than just a claim here, Andreas.

What? You need some "substantiation" that it should be "There are
none..."?

I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you were in reference
to, which sort of speaks to how low your credibility with regards to
English is and how any comment you make about it will be doubted until
you give anything substantial.

I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's just you
trolling though.

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

Sandman:
Poor Andreas.


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


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

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 04:39:26 +0000, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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

Sandman:
There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

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

Sandman:
"gross", huh? I'm way past at taking you at face value, so you
need more than just a claim here, Andreas.

Tony Cooper:
What? You need some "substantiation" that it should be "There are
none..."?

Sandman:
I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you were in reference
to, which sort of speaks to how low your credibility with regards to
English is and how any comment you make about it will be doubted
until you give anything substantial.

I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's just you
trolling though.

Use that dictionary you keep copy/pasting from: gross =
unattractively large or bloated.

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.

That being said, a "gross" mistake is not something that is likened to
being large or bloated, you picked the wrong definition. Words mean
several things, and "gross" when used to describe a mistake is more
aptly defined with the "vulgar, unrefined" part of the Oxford definition
of the word, as opposed to something related to size. Or even the
"complete, blatant" one.
You are using an incorrect interpretation. 'Gross' in this context is an
indefinite numerical simile.

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

And that is why you are wrong.



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

In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

Sandman:

There is none to look at that meet that criteria.

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

Sandman:
"gross", huh? I'm way past at taking you at face
value, so you need more than just a claim here, Andreas.

Tony Cooper:
What? You need some "substantiation" that it should be "There
are none..."?

Sandman:
I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you were in
reference to, which sort of speaks to how low your credibility
with regards to English is and how any comment you make about it
will be doubted until you give anything substantial.

I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's just
you trolling though.

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

Sandman:
Poor Andreas.

I thought you claimed expert English.

Then you thought incorrectly.

You shouldn't be baffled.

How so?

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Neil Ellwood wrote:

Sandman:
I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you
were in reference to, which sort of speaks to how low your
credibility with regards to English is and how any comment you
make about it will be doubted until you give anything
substantial.

I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's
just you trolling though.

Tony Cooper:
Use that dictionary you keep copy/pasting from: gross =
unattractively large or bloated.

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.

That being said, a "gross" mistake is not something that is
likened to being large or bloated, you picked the wrong
definition. Words mean several things, and "gross" when used to
describe a mistake is more aptly defined with the "vulgar,
unrefined" part of the Oxford definition of the word, as opposed
to something related to size. Or even the "complete, blatant" one.

You are using an incorrect interpretation. 'Gross' in this context
is an indefinite numerical simile.

Tony has already claimed it was used to mean "unnattractively large or
bloated", which is hardly indefinite. Even so, "gross" isn't used to mean
"minor" or "slight", which "indefinite" would suggest is possible. "Gross"
is used - when used as a numerical simlie, which Tony didn't - to denote
something above or more than ordinary. It can be used to be the opposite of
detailed as well.

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

And that is why you are wrong.

You just can't put into words why.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
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.)

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

Did you miss yet another point?

Nope.

The error is not capable of forgiving. It may be forgiven, or
forgivable, but it can't be an unforgiving error.

I know, I made an error. You thought that mean that "Ironic" came and bit
me in the ass - but it couldn't have, since I haven't been posting
grammar/spelling flames so when I make a grammar or spelling mistake, it's
not ironic at all.

Now, do your usual weasel word waltz and explain how you didn't make
a mistake.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Scott Schuckert
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?

there's no agenda.

You seem to want "competitive pricing." Would you care to define that
for me? Granted, I've been out of the business a long time, but things
don't seem to have changed - only difference is, customers order from a
web page, not over the phone.

online is not only replacing phone orders, but also replacing visiting
stores.

And, to be honest, some of the very worst
mail order scum have been put out of business.

as well they should.

unfortunately, the scum online sellers can easily create a new name and
a nice looking web site within hours. their addresses are mail drops or
someone's house. users can't tell it's just a front for the same scam
site that was shut down days before unless they do some research.

Now, when I left the business, I had three stores, so I wasn't the
tiniest of the tiny. Keeping the doors open, paying and training staff,
incoming shipping, all the little things that put a camera on the
counter for you to look at, cost about 12-15% over the cost of goods.
In other words, if the invoice for a camera read $100, I was selling at
a loss if the price didn't exceed $112. Then, there's that troublesome
little "profit" thing, so add another 5-7%. So, the selling price goes
to at least $117.

Now, the mail order/internet seller, with his lower costs and much,
much larger volume is selling the same item for $99. It probably cost
him $92. Who's in the wrong here? Customers vote with their wallet;
they've voted that all the services I offered like demonstration, free
training, rental darkroom, contests, photo gallery, equipment rentals,
etc. were not worth eighteen dollars to them. I get that, I'm not in
that business anymore. Nor are a lot of other people.

you can't compete and lost.

someone else did a better job than you did of offering what the public
wanted at a price they were willing to pay.

harsh, but that's how it works.

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.

i never said cameras cost twice as much. i said some stuff does, which
is true.

in particular, a couple of years ago i was looking for a lens case for
my 80-200 so i went to the local store to see what they had and what
fit. their prices were about double that of b&h (something like $17
versus $30 but i don't remember exactly). as much as i like that store,
i was not paying double.

when i bought my nikon d50 long ago, it was $400 online and in the $600
range in a store. a store is going to have to offer a *lot* of services
to justify that.

In the meantime, stop making out like small resellers are doing
anything "wrong" - other than trying to best serve their customers, and
the customers want "cheap" over "full service."

the problem is that the stores aren't serving their customers, which is
why their customers are going elsewhere.

if the stores were actually serving their customers, they would still
have customers and they would not go out of business.

this isn't just camera stores either. bookstores are going away because
people are now buying ebooks. many other types of stores are downsizing
or going away. stores need to adapt to the changes or they won't be
around for very long.

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??

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.

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.

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?

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).

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

I'm just not what "position" that's supposed to be, here? I mean, the
points he posted above are just basic facts.

The first; "competitve doesn't mean below cost" is just a very truthful
statement. One can be competitive without undercutting competitors, just
look at Apple.

Apples and oranges, if I may be so bold. Apple doesn't compete with
anyone;

nonsense. apple competes with every other company making similar
products, including computers, phones, tablets, mp3 players and
numerous accessories.

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

also, that 'very small number of authorized resellers' includes best
buy and walmart, which have a *lot* of stores, and there definitely are
discounts to be had there, almost always unadvertised.

Back to the conversation, did you not understand the part of my prior
post - based on many years in the industry - where I explained that
selling below cost might not even match the price of some online
sellers? With that in mind, I'll ask you the same as I asked the other
guy - what's a competitive price? Match it? 5% more? 10%?

all that means is you can't compete anymore and should be selling
something else.

In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

So, the actual price of the product is just one parameter of many when you
decide how "competitive" a retail vendor is.

Well, you certainly SEEMED to make it about price. When I had my
stores, I offered all the amenities I mentioned before, and like to
think I did a good job at them. I still lost customers to mail order,
over price differences of 10% or less.

you weren't offering what people wanted.

So I ask again, in two ways: On price, how close is close enough; on
services, what more do customers need to justify a price difference of,
say, 15% or 20%, my additional operating costs over the mail order
guys?

I already know the answer - customers won't pay for services. But
convince me...

some do, some don't.

in your case, not enough did or they didn't consider what you offered
to be all that useful to them.