Steven
03-05-2005, 08:19 AM
Total around 400. I'm going to leave Australia to the Australians. The
people we call "aboriginals" might like that.
Goodbye, you didn't leave a good impression today.
"ARA" <jwf@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:424337d1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Look, you've taken the trouble to "Warn Others" (below),
> and that is good.
>
> Now, printout your story/warning & add some details of
> place, date, customer number (maybe get your friend to
> sign & have notarised a Stat Dec with her story on it)
> & (together) file a complaint with your State/Territory
> Consumer Affairs office.
>
> IT COSTS COMPANIES MONEY TO BE COMPLAINED ABOUT...
> COMPLAINING CAN HELP THEM DECIDE TO STOP DOING THIS
>
> Oh, and why not send a copy to your city's [Letters
> to the] Editor (newspaper), ring your local TalkJocks
> (on the ABC, if you want a chance to be heard without
> being insulted... ;-), put up the story on bulletin
> boards at/near the shopping center where your HN is.
>
> Oh, and - of course - speak to the manager.
>
> Other posters: Why not -encourage- this kind of pro-
> active response happening, ie instead
> of reducing the chance that it will...
>
> (eg, don't suggest a person might not
> have the confidence to speak to the
> manager... why I do it all the time,
> and I get a deep satisfaction from
> -adding- that I'll be telling the
> story - both locally (at various clubs
> & association meetings) -and-
> on the Internet.
>
> (Of course, speak assertively, and
> -not- insultingly to the manager &
> - to avoid a law suit - be careful
> not to commit libel when you publish
> the story of what happened.
>
> "I was told..." is better than
> "S/he said..." (one tells YOUR
> perceptions (hence your best memory),
> the other may be disputed &
> even be deemed libelous,
> in some cases.)
>
> Oh, when I am in a -crowded-
> store, and I've got an obvious
> scam... I usually speak LOUDER
> so other would-be customers
> can hear me (not loud enough to
> be deemed a public nuisance)
> and my points clearly.
>
> A manager often changes tune
> (and even make more than a
> token offer to "settle" the
> matter, so I'll go away quickly ;-)
>
> Of course, it's good to have
> a reasonable counteroffer, at
> such times, ie, so your time
> will be (almost) compensated. :-)
>
> "Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ZT%d.7702$C7.1308@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > A friend was at Harvey Normans the other day, purchasing a plasma screen
> TV.
> > After they'd negotiated the price - about $4,400 for an LG highish-res
> > panel, the sales guy then suggested they purchase a special component
> cable
> > for hooking up their DVD player to the screen to achieve the best
quality
> > from their new screen.
> >
> > For demonstration, he switched the panel to split-screen mode showing
the
> > same DVD title playing on each half, but connected by different cables.
He
> > was attempting to imply that the marked difference between the two
images
> > was due to the use of a "Monster" brand component video cable on one
> input.
> > My friend gave me a call at the time and explained what the sales guy
was
> > trying to say, and commented that the Monster side had better detail in
> the
> > blacks and looked better than the other half. I told her that it sounded
> > like a scam and hold off for the moment - she could always purchase it
at
> a
> > later date, as he wasn't offering any great deal on the cable.
> >
> > Subsequently, I worked out that they had hooked up the component output
of
> > the DVD player to one side, and the composite output to the other, and
was
> > then trying to claim that the improved picture was purely due to the
> Monster
> > brand cable.
> >
> > This strikes me as a blatantly dishonest and misleading demonstration -
> the
> > salesman never stated that the difference in quality was largely (if not
> > entirely) due to the alternative signal format, rather he misrepresented
> the
> > comparison with the goal of selling an obscenely overpriced cable of
> dubious
> > benefit over a base-quality component cable.
> >
> > Why? The 1m Monster cable costs $270.
> >
> > Methinks a call to the ACCC is in order.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
people we call "aboriginals" might like that.
Goodbye, you didn't leave a good impression today.
"ARA" <jwf@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:424337d1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Look, you've taken the trouble to "Warn Others" (below),
> and that is good.
>
> Now, printout your story/warning & add some details of
> place, date, customer number (maybe get your friend to
> sign & have notarised a Stat Dec with her story on it)
> & (together) file a complaint with your State/Territory
> Consumer Affairs office.
>
> IT COSTS COMPANIES MONEY TO BE COMPLAINED ABOUT...
> COMPLAINING CAN HELP THEM DECIDE TO STOP DOING THIS
>
> Oh, and why not send a copy to your city's [Letters
> to the] Editor (newspaper), ring your local TalkJocks
> (on the ABC, if you want a chance to be heard without
> being insulted... ;-), put up the story on bulletin
> boards at/near the shopping center where your HN is.
>
> Oh, and - of course - speak to the manager.
>
> Other posters: Why not -encourage- this kind of pro-
> active response happening, ie instead
> of reducing the chance that it will...
>
> (eg, don't suggest a person might not
> have the confidence to speak to the
> manager... why I do it all the time,
> and I get a deep satisfaction from
> -adding- that I'll be telling the
> story - both locally (at various clubs
> & association meetings) -and-
> on the Internet.
>
> (Of course, speak assertively, and
> -not- insultingly to the manager &
> - to avoid a law suit - be careful
> not to commit libel when you publish
> the story of what happened.
>
> "I was told..." is better than
> "S/he said..." (one tells YOUR
> perceptions (hence your best memory),
> the other may be disputed &
> even be deemed libelous,
> in some cases.)
>
> Oh, when I am in a -crowded-
> store, and I've got an obvious
> scam... I usually speak LOUDER
> so other would-be customers
> can hear me (not loud enough to
> be deemed a public nuisance)
> and my points clearly.
>
> A manager often changes tune
> (and even make more than a
> token offer to "settle" the
> matter, so I'll go away quickly ;-)
>
> Of course, it's good to have
> a reasonable counteroffer, at
> such times, ie, so your time
> will be (almost) compensated. :-)
>
> "Poxy" <pox@poxymail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ZT%d.7702$C7.1308@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > A friend was at Harvey Normans the other day, purchasing a plasma screen
> TV.
> > After they'd negotiated the price - about $4,400 for an LG highish-res
> > panel, the sales guy then suggested they purchase a special component
> cable
> > for hooking up their DVD player to the screen to achieve the best
quality
> > from their new screen.
> >
> > For demonstration, he switched the panel to split-screen mode showing
the
> > same DVD title playing on each half, but connected by different cables.
He
> > was attempting to imply that the marked difference between the two
images
> > was due to the use of a "Monster" brand component video cable on one
> input.
> > My friend gave me a call at the time and explained what the sales guy
was
> > trying to say, and commented that the Monster side had better detail in
> the
> > blacks and looked better than the other half. I told her that it sounded
> > like a scam and hold off for the moment - she could always purchase it
at
> a
> > later date, as he wasn't offering any great deal on the cable.
> >
> > Subsequently, I worked out that they had hooked up the component output
of
> > the DVD player to one side, and the composite output to the other, and
was
> > then trying to claim that the improved picture was purely due to the
> Monster
> > brand cable.
> >
> > This strikes me as a blatantly dishonest and misleading demonstration -
> the
> > salesman never stated that the difference in quality was largely (if not
> > entirely) due to the alternative signal format, rather he misrepresented
> the
> > comparison with the goal of selling an obscenely overpriced cable of
> dubious
> > benefit over a base-quality component cable.
> >
> > Why? The 1m Monster cable costs $270.
> >
> > Methinks a call to the ACCC is in order.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>