Log-in for no ads
RE: Returning my Sephora.com haul page 11This is a discussion thread · 114 replies Poetic Badgers (Email Removed) (Maladicta1) wrote on 07 Feb 2004:[nq:2]What am concerned about is this: I don't like seeing any poster being[/nq] [nq:1]How brave and noble of you to come forward to defend these poor embattled souls from marauding gangs of AF posters crusading against frivolous returns.[/nq] Interesting. A snide personal attack on me because you apparently disagree with my opinions about posting personal attacks. /enough for me Poetic Badgers Smeeter #32 "Thank *** I took off my heels, and put on my... HIMALAYAN WALKING SHOES!!!" -Elaine Benes, writing copy for JPeterman's
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Dr. Sooz: [nq:1]I'm absolutely positive I've never told anyone "how to post" or told them "they may not comment" in AF or ... read their posts. I don't do any of that, so killfiling me's easy and it won't bother me one bit.[/nq][nq:2]And if you are "shamed" by a usenet post, then you seriously need to get off the computer and get a life.[/nq] [nq:1]Interesting opinion. I've always thought all people have lives; otherwise, they'd be dead, wouldn't they? Poetic Badgers[/nq] blah blah blah blah blah ~~ Sooz "Those in the cheaper seats clap. The rest of you rattle your jewelry." John Lennon (1940 - 1980) Royal Varieties Performance ~ Dr. Sooz's Bead Links http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Dr. Sooz: FUDGE!!~~ Sooz "Those in the cheaper seats clap. The rest of you rattle your jewelry." John Lennon (1940 - 1980) Royal Varieties Performance ~ Dr. Sooz's Bead Links http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Linda: [nq:1]Once again, stores exists to serve customers, not the other way around. Who else should the consumers be watching out ... Great-Aunt Fanny.' Maybe I'm alone in that. I don't know, since I've never thought it necesary to ask anyone.  [/nq]You don't live in a vacuum, and although you may not take in to consideration how your actions may affect others, many of us do. But if you want to take it purely from a selfish angle, you can see that your actions and everyone else's actions affect you personally. Example: There's a boy scout troop that sells Christmas trees at a neighborhood church. They charge about $5-10 more per tree than the bigger operations a few miles away sell them for. However, this boy scout troop will take the tree to your house and set it up for you if you need them to.There are a lot of elderly that live on the island, and this has allowed them to have a Christmas tree when they otherwise wouldn't be able to handle the transport and setup. Although we don't need the help, we buy our tree from them every year because we know that if only those who need help buy from them, they won't be able to sell enough trees to warrant doing this every year. We do this because we want to help keep the resource available for the elderly, and who knows, someday we may need the troop's help too. Although, as you say, they are there to 'serve' us, if we don't treat them well, they won't be there to 'serve' us much longer. [nq:2]I remember when you could return a formal dress,[/nq] [nq:1]I shouldn't know how you could remember anything about any of my returns, let alone a return I've never made, that of a formal dress.[/nq] Although I'm sure you understand that I didn't mean 'you' literally here, even so, you're misreading the sentence. The operative word is 'could'. If I say you 'could' do something, it doesn't mean that you did it, it just means that you could have done it. If I say "I remember when you could buy a carton of milk for 3 cents", it doesn't mean I remember when you bought a carton of milk for 3 cents, it means you could have bought it for 3 cents because that was the price at the time. Do you understand the difference? Maybe that's the problem - you seem to take things quite literally. When a store says "We accept returns for any reason", they're expecting the customer to put a little insight in to that and behave accordingly. But some people feel that their actions alone don't affect the bigger picture. They're wrong. Linda
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
ahmward: Perhaps you could substitute "one" or "a person" for "you." A
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Bette Noir: [nq:2]Interesting. Other people may not comment on what people say ... but you get to tell other people how to post.[/nq][nq:1]I'm absolutely positive I've never told anyone "how to post" or told them "they may not comment" in AF or ... "how to post," or 'what to post' or anything of that nature, then I suggest you post the message ids.[/nq] You know what? I am looking again at what you have written, and you did not say what I thought you did. I was wrong, and I admit it. I had your post mushed up with those of other's gnashing their teeth about safe places and such rot. I do not agree, however, that every reason for returning is valid, even if it confirms to the letter of a return policy. For example, purchasing without a good faith intention of keeping the product if it works out is not ethical. [nq:1]If my opinions are that upsetting to you (and you are physically and mentally unable to gather the strength to ignore me), you could always killfile me.[/nq] I am not upset. A disagreeing response does not indicate any emotion, in fact. I know for a fact, for the following AF examples are all [nq:1]in my KF, that some posters like to change or morph names or posting addresses in some ways, such as ... read their posts. I don't do any of that, so killfiling me's easy and it won't bother me one bit.[/nq] And sometimes people change names or email addresses because of excessive spam, or because an account closes, or because they wish to avoid ugly, accusing email. Not from you in case you draw the conclusion that I am accusing you of something.. I have been on usenet for more than ten years. I am familiar with killfiles, and I know there are morphers and sock puppets on this newsgroups. I have never, to my recollection, responded to you before, so your strong invitation to killfile is puzzling (although not upsetting). I rarely post at all, although recently I've posted a couple of questions and a few remarks. The mood strikes and the mood passes. [nq:2]And if you are "shamed" by a usenet post, then you seriously need to get off the computer and get a life.[/nq] [nq:1]Interesting opinion. I've always thought all people have lives; otherwise, they'd be dead, wouldn't they?[/nq] I'll rephrase then; anyone who is shamed by a usenet post needs to reconsider the importance of usenet in their lives.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Poetic Badgers Bette Noir (Email Removed) wrote on 11 Feb 2004:[nq:1]You know what? I am looking again at what you have written, and you did not say what I thought you did. I was wrong, and I admit it.[/nq] Thank you. I accept your apology and look forward to reading more from you. I also want to thank you for apologizing directly to me without any hedging (n0t that you've done that before!) and in the same thread. Poetic Badgers Smeeter #32 "Thank *** I took off my heels, and put on my... HIMALAYAN WALKING SHOES!!!" -Elaine Benes, writing copy for JPeterman's
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Poetic Badgers (Email Removed) (Linda) wrote on 11 Feb 2004:[nq:2]Once again, stores exists to serve customers, not the other ... since I've never thought it necesary to ask anyone. [/nq][nq:1]You don't live in a vacuum, and although you may not take in to consideration how your actions may affect others, many of us do.[/nq] Clearly, I never said I did live in a vacuum and I never said I didn't consider that any given thing doesn't affect another. In fact, that's a part of my point about people being personally attacked for following a store's policy. Linda, when taken out of context, your statement relates perfectly to my point about posters being personally attacked here for following a store's policy. Perhaps if you read it in that light, you might be able to see its application to that situation. Seems to me, you're now trying to make something else out of the discussion, along with posting a thinly veiled attack on me, and that's certainly your right, but it's not something I'm interested in doing, even when it's being done to me, so fire away if you like.  [nq:1]But if you want to take it purely from a selfish angle, you can see that your actions and everyone else's actions affect you personally.[/nq] If you want to characterize me as being "selfish" for looking out for myself as a consumer and for my belief that people should be able to follow a store's return policy without being personally attacked, that's up to you. I'm curious about something though, Linda. Earlier you described yourself before as being "furious" about a situation mostly of your own making (didn't check on the store's return policy before making an impulse purchase) and that you essentially wanted (perhaps even expected) the kiosk's SA to break the store's return policy to accomodate you. How would you characterize yourself and your behaviot and expectations when you demanded that the SA accept your return for the phone faceplate against the store's return policy? I'm seeing all sorts of incongruity here. [nq:1]Example: There's a boy scout troop that sells Christmas trees at a neighborhood church. They charge about $5-10 more per ... are there to 'serve' us, if we don't treat them well, they won't be there to 'serve' us much longer.[/nq] Nice story and good for you (although as an aside, as it stands now, the BSA as an organization isn't one I'd personally feel comfortable supporting or touting), but the above has absolutely nothing to do with posters here being personally attacked for following a store's policy, so I'm at a loss about why you included it. It doesn't serve to support your opinion and it also doesn't work as an analogy. For one thing, AFAIK, the Boy Scouts don't have a returned goods policy that's in place 365. They also aren't considered a store; they're a service organization doing fund raising at a particular time of the year by selling the trees. I really do hope you're not trying to paint me or those who follow store policies as people who are mean to elderly people and Boy Scouts, or as people who don't help others, including the less fortunate, because if that was part of the reasoning to include the story (and again, I hope it wasn't), I think that'd be unfortunate. [nq:2]I shouldn't know how you could remember anything about any of my returns, let alone a return I've never made, that of a formal dress.[/nq] [nq:1]Although I'm sure you understand that I didn't mean 'you' literally here,[/nq] If you don't mean what you post, how am I supposed to know? I'm not able to read minds. If you meant something else, then maybe you could choose a different word or phrase that better conveys your meaning. Just a thought. [nq:1]even so, you're misreading the sentence. The operative word is 'could'. If I say you 'could' do something, it doesn't ... could have bought it for 3 cents because that was the price at the time. Do you understand the difference?[/nq] I understand and know from my experience that many people have a problem misusing the second person and that the misuse can cause problems in communication. [nq:1]Maybe that's the problem - you seem to take things quite literally.[/nq] Last time I checked, usenet literally relies on words (and sometimes symbolic writing such as emoticons or 'leetspeak') to communicate. [nq:1]When a store says "We accept returns for any reason", they're expecting the customer to put a little insight in to that and behave accordingly. But some people feel that their actions alone don't affect the bigger picture. They're wrong.[/nq] To recap, your opinion in this post seems to be that people who actually follow a store's return policy are "selfish," lack "insight," don't see "the big picture," are "wrong," and by implication 'misbehave' and lack 'consideration' (along with the inclusion of the elderly and Boy Scouts thing), yet your own actions show that you expected a kiosk's SA to break a store's policy so you could make a return. Again, there's so much incongruity there. You also seem not to have grasped (or perhaps are ignoring?) the concept of the 'Cost of Doing Business' and you still seem to be blaming those who follow store policies they didn't set for rising costs of goods. Given all this, I doubt that any further discussion on this topic between us would be fruitful for AF. I feel as though I've made my points I wanted to make. Of course you're more than welcome to follow up to this post in any way you care to; I'm simply saying I most likely won't reply. Poetic Badgers Smeeter #32 "Thank *** I took off my heels, and put on my... HIMALAYAN WALKING SHOES!!!" -Elaine Benes, writing copy for JPeterman's
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Dr. Sooz: [nq:1]Of course you're more than welcome to follow up to this post in any way you care to; I'm simply saying I most likely won't reply. Poetic Badgers Smeeter #32[/nq]Wow, after all that blabbing you won't play any more? Gosh. ~~ Sooz "Those in the cheaper seats clap. The rest of you rattle your jewelry." John Lennon (1940 - 1980) Royal Varieties Performance ~ Dr. Sooz's Bead Links http://airandearth.netfirms.com/soozlinkslist.html
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Susan in LA: (many many excellent PB points snipped)And just for the record, I want it to be clear that I'm the one who posted about buying cosmetics intending to return them. No one else. For the sake of the many posters here for whom I have long had great respect: this was a one-time thing I did for particular reasons completely openly and I continue to pour hundreds of dollars into the affected store, and AFAIK my business is still welcome there. For anyone else: feel free to email me personally with any further self-righteous vitriol, if you care to spare everyone else. xo Susan in LA
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
| Have a question? People are waiting to help. Interesting stuff |
All RSS Feeds