Re: Credit Card Refunds/Returns & Statement Date Time Frame

Howard wrote:
>
> Slow weekend. No good movies released (sorry, that Dukes of Hazzard
> abomination does NOT count as a good movie). Watching you squirm and
> change your story makes up for the lack of other entertainment though.
> Almost as entertaining as watching you try to introduce irrelevant elements
> to the discussion to cover your own tracks, and project your defects onto
> others.

Again with the weak insults, Howard. Your sole purpose in this thread
is to demoralize and belittle, not to educate. At every opportunity
it's a chance for you in your ivory tower to Lord it over and make
cutting personal remarks from afar. I know Usenet is a harbour for this
activity. Even if I admitted moral fault, which I don't, as long as
stores like FS allow me and other consumers (and not serial returners,
as the previous poster included an article/link to) to "test drive" a
couple of their cameras or other products, intent to buy or not in the
near future, they are complicit in this contract and I am doing what
they allow. If FS finds this activity morally reprehensible, then they
should not allow full returns. If they cannot be competitive, that is,
make more money without a restocking or store credit, then who are you
to say that people who use the system they have in place are abusers
when they test drive a product, deferring final purchases until they've
researched enough.


> > only way I could- outside the store. That I got bit in the ***
> > (though, not severely) by my credit card company for the return not
> > registering as fast as I assumed it would, is true, and I will take
> > that as a learning experience.
>
> You know...I really doubt it. You will continue along your merry ignorant
> way, and the next time you are called on it...by friend, stranger, or
> credit card company, you will whine about it. I don't think you've learned
> a damn thing, either about how to shop, or how credit cards work.

"Ignorant, whining, criminal, idiot, scumbag..." all adjectives you
throw around with abandon, also without knowing a "damn thing" about
someone. Not my educational background, if I have a criminal record
(and according to you, I surely MUST), what advice friends or family
have given on consumer topics and whether or not it's been taken, what
sort of patterns of consumption I have (and NO, Howard, you CAN'T
assume that by my story of 3 camera purchases over a lifetime so far,
that I am a serial refunder.)

Anything constructive you might have wanted to say is weakened by your
holier than thou stance and for sure I've not learned a "damn thing"
from you except how driven the need is for some people to grind the
knife in from the safe distance of a computer far away. And contrary to
your all knowing predictions, I've now learned not to accept credit
card refunds as guaranteed within a short frame of time and $20
overcharge will always remind me. As for the rest of your dubious
teachings, zip.

I can accept (obviously, here) that some people find the test driving
of products, though encouraged by the store via their return policies,
to be not the right thing for customers to do. No exceptions, B&W, it
seems. Immoral no, I reserve that for serious crimes against life and
property.


> > The general stance from the group to date on this topic, is that what I
> > did was morally wrong (ranging in personal opinion from my being a
> > scumbag to just ignorant of the concepts of morality in general), and
> > that the Visa penality was God's way of letting me know. How facile and
>
> Can't say I've really seen that. But hey, if it makes you feel better, say
> whatever you want.

It was said to be bad Karma. Doesn't make ME feel any better. How about
YOU?


> Your 'ambivalence', 'indecision' and 'circumstances' were made clear when
> you STARTED OUT saying how you purchased the camera KNOWING you were
> returning it. If it makes you feel better to change your story and claim
> it was just a 'test drive', then don't let us stop you. But your continued
> attempts to convince us show how unconvinced you are yourself. We know
> what you did...you know what you did.

Purchasing something to return it later, to try it out, does mean it
WAS a test drive. That's exactly what I did with the $700 camera. Why
else would I buy it. Just to look at it and say "I bought it?" It was
bought to test out, with my thinking it would probably have too many
features I didn't want, but still wanted to test the few it did have.
Do YOU buy or keep everything you try out on the spot, such as a car,
video camera, big ticket speakers? It doesn't mean it, or something
similar will never be purchased again. Just not right away until more
information is gathered and decisions made about other similar
products.

It's one thing to say test driving a product with intent to not
purchase immediately, or just to get a feel for a type of products is
not what you consider fair. It's another to label someone morally
damaged for doing so. However, isn't every purchase a test drive, as
long as you have the option to return it later? If you keep the
product, the test drive was successful. If you didn't, it wasn't
satisfactory at the time.

If I was retailer, I'm sure I would understand better the views of many
others here, who perhaps were or are retailers as well (not saying they
are, but could be.) It's always hard to appreciate the other person's
values or stance on something from the other side. Customers are always
complaining about being shafted. Retailers are as well.

I don't consider myself a bad person, or having committed any criminal
act for what I did. I think this has been blown way out of proportion
from doing something that many here consider not truly fair all the way
up to name calling and belittling. I still contend, espc. after having
a positive experience the first time with FS, and the clerk clearly
knowing I was test driving his cameras, that to repeat that experience
seemed the right thing to do. So I did.

.