>From what you say, you were spot on leaving positive feedback, AFAIK. Put
yourself in the seller's shoes for a moment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew McPhee [mailto:macca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:18 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: OM4 currently on Aussie *bay - BEWARE
Firstly, let me say I'm wondering how many Andrew's we have on this list -
I'm one of them and I'M getting confused about who has replied to whom,
what hope other list members? <grin>
Now to respond to Andrew G about his feedback remark...
I explained in my original post that I'd left her positive feedback, I did
this for two reasons.
One is that I felt that she'd done the right thing by me and refunded my
money after I discovered a fault with the camera. Two is that I gave her
the benefit of the doubt, thinking that she'd overlooked the fault when
writing the description.
Maybe I should have left neutral feedback, maybe I'm guilty of being too
good a sport. But now it's come back at me and I'm feeling guilt that
someone else will be stung like I was.
But as Gord pointed out, I can still adjust my feedback. But in doing so
I'm calling her bluff about whether the camera has since been repaired, I'm
not sure how far to go with this.
Andrew McPhee
>At 06:53 AM 19/10/2004 -0400, Andrew Gullen wrote:
>
>But she has 100% positive feedback!
>
>;-)
>Andrew
>
>>on 2004/10/19 2:51 AM, Andrew McPhee at macca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> > The seller has relisted this and is not being totally honest, the
>> > description is virtually unchanged since when I bought it - all
>> > functions of the camera are NOT working (at least not as they
>> > should).
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|