|> It seems that SWT is not the only business with which you have disagreements.
You're trying to use the fact that in the seven+ years I've had an account
with BayBank, they have on occasion made errors which caused checks to be
bounced from my account, as proof that my complaints against SWT have no
merit? Oh, *please*.
I've played the game by your rules until now, Bob, but no more. You accused
me of returning the machine to SWT because I changed my mind about wanting it,
and I explained in excruciating detail why I have not yet had time to do the
research necessary to buy a new machine. You ignored my explanations. Now,
you're once again making completely unfounded accusations (i.e., that any
problems I've had with BayBank were my fault). You have no more proof this
time than you had the last time.
You say it's so. I say it's not. I don't see the point in trying to prove
that, because you'll ignore anything I say.
Hey, Bob, I'll tell you a secret. I occasionally have disagreements with my
bank about the way they run my account. I occasionally have disagreements
with the MBTA about the way they run the bus routes around here. I
occasionally have disagreements with my landlord about the way he runs my
apartment building. Heck, I occasionally have disagreements with my barber
about the way she cuts my hair! Well, gee, I must be a horrible person whose
opinion doesn't count for anything; after all, honest, trustworthy people
never have disagreements with anybody, right?
|> Apparently, you are suggesting that Marvin Wu switch to an account or a bank
|> that offers overdraft protection.
No, I think you missed the point. More likely, you ignored it and chose to
put an obnoxious slant on it and hoped people wouldn't notice.
I don't have overdraft protection. Despite that fact, BayBank has paid checks
on my account when they thought I didn't have the money in my checking account
to cover them, and charged me the same fee they would have if they'd bounced
the check. They're legally entitled to do that; in fact, most banks do it
when they think that the client is good for the money.
Therefore, one might conclude from the fact that SWT's bank bounced their
check that the bank was *not* sure that SWT was good for the money.
Incidentally, Bob, you still haven't told us why you feel qualified to make
unfounded accusations against me but you aren't willing to answer a simple
question: Is a company that bounces a refund check on more than one occasion
behaving in a professional, responsible manner?
You also still haven't answered this question: Bob, are you speaking from the
point of view of a satisfied customer of SWT or something more? Are you and
Wu acquaintenaces, perhaps, or even friends? You did tell me in E-mail that
you are `on reasonably good terms with Marvin Wu.' What exactly does that mean?
You seem to be awfully good at ignoring points to which you have to answer,
Bob. I've answered every one of the points and accusations you've made, no
matter how absurd they are. Put up or shut up.
|> >I might still be angry at SWT about wasting my time and making me pay
|> >shipping, but if they had apologized for bouncing the check and offered to pay
|> >the $4 charge my bank charged me, my opinion of them would be many notches
|> >higher than it is now.
|> This disturbs me. It is one thing to use the net to warn people and tell
|> them about a bad experience that you had. It is quite another thing to use
|> the net to extort money from people even if it is just $4.
I didn't say that I would stop posting my review if SWT paid me the $4 or that
I wouldn't have started posting it if they had done so. I won't stop posting
the review if they pay me the $4, and I would have started posting it even if
they had done so immediately when the check bounced.
|> If you think
|> that you have a legitimate claim against SWT, you should take Mr. Wu to
|> small claims court.
I do not believe that I have a strong enough legal claim against SWT for it to
be worth the effort to take them to court. I would have to base my case on
convincing a judge that the machine SWT sold me was never in working order,
something which I find it highly unlikely I would be able to prove to a
computer-ignorant jurist (after all, you're a smart guy and you're
computer-literate, and *you* seem to have a lot of trouble understanding it!).
Regardless of whether or not I have a legal claim, or a legal claim that is
strong enough to bring to court, there are thinks that are more important than
legalities. I believe that SWT should refund my shipping because I believe
that it is the "right thing to do." Even more so, I believe that refunding a
check-bouncing charge which is there fault is the right thing to do.
|> The simple fact
|> is that Marvin never agreed to pay for any of your banking fees
Oh, I see. So before signing the purchase agreement with SWT, I should have
made them put into it, "If we give you a refund check and it bounces, we'll
pay the charge your bank charges you for the bounce." Yeah, right.
Here's a clue: When an honest, responsible person or organization bounces a
check and it's his own fault, he pays the payee whatever was lost because of
the bounce. That's how honest, responsible people operate.
Most stores enforce this honesty by charging a returned-check fee. You've
seen the signs in stores that accept checks, right, Bob?
A company which bounces a $5000 refund check and then refuses to reimburse the
payee for his losses because of that bounce, and refuses to even acknowledge
those losses, is not behaving in an honest, responsible, professional manner.
|> You needn't reply but I'm sure you can't resist having the last word.
Priceless, Bob. Why don't you try sticking to the issues and answering the
very simple questions that I've asked, instead of attacking me over and over
again with innuendo like this?