Re: Can I get a replacement disc from fox

[Ext User(Pap)]

"GDS" <not@home> wrote in message news:4571fdb6$0$28957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> As it clearly states in their returns policy <http://www.kmart.com.au/about/returnspolicy/default.asp>, if the goods are faulty
> you'll get your money back, doofus.

Hmm, that page says different to a sign on the Service Desk at my local store.
Thus, we're both right due to differing store procedures. So I wonder if the
web site would override the store's own policy? Anyone?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Pap wrote:

> "GDS" <not@home> wrote in message news:4571fdb6$0$28957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>>As it clearly states in their returns policy <http://www.kmart.com.au/about/returnspolicy/default.asp>, if the goods are faulty
>>you'll get your money back, doofus.
>
>
> Hmm, that page says different to a sign on the Service Desk at my local store.
> Thus, we're both right due to differing store procedures. So I wonder if the
> web site would override the store's own policy? Anyone?
>
>

It really doesn't matter what either the web site says, or what the
store's policy is. The trade practices act makes it clear that if a
person is sold faulty goods, then provided they return the goods within
a reasonable time (which depends on the context) they are entitled to a
refund.

However, having looked at the rest of the thread (ie, before it was
crossposted to aus.legal) it's apparent that what is in fact being
proposed (buying a replacement from K-Mart, and then 'returning' the
faulty disc the next day for a refund) is a fraud against K-Mart. That
is, it would be a criminal offence.

The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if the
disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that he has
never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc was
faulty when it was manufactured.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Gilgamesh)]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4572257b$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Pap wrote:
>
>> "GDS" <not@home> wrote in message
>> news:4571fdb6$0$28957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>
>>>As it clearly states in their returns policy
>>><http://www.kmart.com.au/about/returnspolicy/default.asp>, if the goods
>>>are faulty you'll get your money back, doofus.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, that page says different to a sign on the Service Desk at my local
>> store.
>> Thus, we're both right due to differing store procedures. So I wonder if
>> the
>> web site would override the store's own policy? Anyone?
>>
>>
>
> It really doesn't matter what either the web site says, or what the
> store's policy is. The trade practices act makes it clear that if a person
> is sold faulty goods, then provided they return the goods within a
> reasonable time (which depends on the context) they are entitled to a
> refund.
>
> However, having looked at the rest of the thread (ie, before it was
> crossposted to aus.legal) it's apparent that what is in fact being
> proposed (buying a replacement from K-Mart, and then 'returning' the
> faulty disc the next day for a refund) is a fraud against K-Mart. That is,
> it would be a criminal offence.
>
> The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if the
> disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that he has
> never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc was faulty
> when it was manufactured.

Thank You.
I wasn't going to go down the K-mart return approach as I considered it
somewhat unethical.
But as yet nobody has suggested a means for me to contact the distributor.

>
> Sylvia.

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Gilgamesh wrote:

> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:4572257b$0$16558$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>Pap wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"GDS" <not@home> wrote in message
>>>news:4571fdb6$0$28957$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As it clearly states in their returns policy
>>>><http://www.kmart.com.au/about/returnspolicy/default.asp>, if the goods
>>>>are faulty you'll get your money back, doofus.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm, that page says different to a sign on the Service Desk at my local
>>>store.
>>>Thus, we're both right due to differing store procedures. So I wonder if
>>>the
>>>web site would override the store's own policy? Anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It really doesn't matter what either the web site says, or what the
>>store's policy is. The trade practices act makes it clear that if a person
>>is sold faulty goods, then provided they return the goods within a
>>reasonable time (which depends on the context) they are entitled to a
>>refund.
>>
>>However, having looked at the rest of the thread (ie, before it was
>>crossposted to aus.legal) it's apparent that what is in fact being
>>proposed (buying a replacement from K-Mart, and then 'returning' the
>>faulty disc the next day for a refund) is a fraud against K-Mart. That is,
>>it would be a criminal offence.
>>
>>The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if the
>>disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that he has
>>never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc was faulty
>>when it was manufactured.
>
>
> Thank You.
> I wasn't going to go down the K-mart return approach as I considered it
> somewhat unethical.
> But as yet nobody has suggested a means for me to contact the distributor.

Appears to be

http://www.foxmovies.com.au/dvd/broken-arrow-36/36/

Try the phone number on this page:

http://www.hotfrog.com.au/Companies/Twentieth-Century-Fox-Home-Entertainment-South-Pacific

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Orator)]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if the
> disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that he has
> never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc was
> faulty when it was manufactured.

You didn't think again I see.

How is it possible if "he has never played it" that he can know "the
disc was faulty when it was manufactured" or if can be "evidence" thereof?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Orator wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if the
>> disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that he has
>> never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc was
>> faulty when it was manufactured.
>
>
> You didn't think again I see.
>
> How is it possible if "he has never played it" that he can know "the
> disc was faulty when it was manufactured" or if can be "evidence" thereof?
>

Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?

If it has just sat in its box in the interim (in normal environmental
conditions, something that is not stated, but reasonably assumed), then
if it were not in some way defective in its manufacture, then it would
be playable now.

Since it is not playable now, either it was not playable when it was
bought, or it has deteriorated in the mean time.

A properly manufactured DVD (ie, one that is not faulty) does not
deteriorate that fast.

Ergo, either way, it was faulty when it was bought.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Otter)]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:4572c529$0$5747$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>
> Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?

Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Otter wrote:

> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:4572c529$0$5747$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>>
>>Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>
>
> Do you want the long answer or the short answer?
>
>

Is there a long answer?

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Otter)]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:45734c78$0$9772$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Otter wrote:
>
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:4572c529$0$5747$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>>>
>>>Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>>
>>
>> Do you want the long answer or the short answer?
>
> Is there a long answer?

Yes -

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No. No

[Ext User(Orator)]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Orator wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> The OP should be able to get a replacement from the distributor if
>>> the disc does not show visible damage, and given his statement that
>>> he has never played it, since that is adequate evidence that the disc
>>> was faulty when it was manufactured.
>>
>>
>>
>> You didn't think again I see.
>>
>> How is it possible if "he has never played it" that he can know "the
>> disc was faulty when it was manufactured" or if can be "evidence"
>> thereof?
>>
>
> Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?

Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get creamed you
refer to that one person demonstrably your better? Don't you know that
most everyone else are your betters!

Perhaps you are another alter ego of that crook in this message or the
alleged female he is living with - you being the same name sake and all:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/msg/eb0600f25f456a30


Do I really need to add that one to the swig file so you don't forget?

[Ext User(Sylvia Else)]

Orator wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>
>
> Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get creamed you
> refer to that one person demonstrably your better? Don't you know that
> most everyone else are your betters!

I was referring to you. You are Seppo. Seppo is you. I don't know that I
can make that any clearer.

Sylvia.

[Ext User(Jeßus)]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:41:43 +1100, Sylvia Else proclaimed:

> Orator wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>>
>>
>> Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get creamed you
>> refer to that one person demonstrably your better? Don't you know that
>> most everyone else are your betters!
>
> I was referring to you. You are Seppo. Seppo is you. I don't know that I
> can make that any clearer.

You could of at least used a transparent font.

--
/J/
Cut the crap to email me...
Webcam: http://lolitaporn.notlong.com/

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Orator wrote:

> >
> > Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>

No, seppo will never learn, he as been creamed so many times, and had
his stupid lard arse kicked from one end of Usenet to the other and he
still goes on with the same pathetic rot.

> Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get creamed
> you refer to that one person demonstrably your better? Don't you know
> that most everyone else are your betters!
>

The only things with a pulse that you are "better" than Seppo are Rats,
Ferrets, wolverines and field mice - althought he last two are proably
smarter than you.


>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/msg/eb0600f25f456a30
>

Sepsis why don't you post the link to the whole thread, instead of just
the message where you told your usual pack of lies and managed to fuck
up a nice simple bit of law into the bargain.

Here it is for the sole purpose of displaying what a fool you are Seppo

http://tinyurl.com/yfhogf

And, while we are here, let's have another one - you know, the one
where senior judge Jennings hitched his judicial robes and took a dump
right in your stupid face, doing so because you were so asininely
stupid as to try the same tactics in a court as you try in Usenet.

http://tinyurl.com/l6oc2

How's the relationship with Catman Cornhole going? Or has even he
realised what a terminal fuckwit you are too?

>
> Do I really need to add that one to the swig file so you don't forget?

It's been obvious for a long time that you "swig" something a lot (too
much) Seppo, you should do something about it.

--

[Ext User(Orator)]

Sylvia Else wrote:
> Orator wrote:
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>
>>> Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get creamed
>> you refer to that one person demonstrably your better? Don't you know
>> that most everyone else are your betters!
>
>
> I was referring to you. You are Seppo. Seppo is you. I don't know that I
> can make that any clearer.

Oh it is as clear as your "admission" paedophilia was not OK that was
forced out of you but only after 6 days of persistent evasion of direct
questioning. That wasn't believable either!

Why don't you respond to the person posting instead of some figment of
your sick paranoid imagination as created by another paranoid nut case:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/msg/eb0600f25f456a30

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Seppo Renfors whilst trolling as Orator wrote:

> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > Orator wrote:
> >
> > > Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Seppo, Seppo, will you never learn?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is it that every times you intellectually challenged get
> > > creamed you refer to that one person demonstrably your better?
> > > Don't you know that most everyone else are your betters!
> >
> >
> > I was referring to you. You are Seppo. Seppo is you. I don't know
> > that I can make that any clearer.
>
> Why don't you respond to the person posting instead of some figment
> of your sick paranoid imagination as created by another paranoid nut
> case:
>
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.tv/msg/eb0600f25f456a30

Whilst I agree that you are one sick paranoid puppy, and a complete
raving looney nutbag to boot Sepsis, it might be best to also look at
the response to your silly post as "wranglernator", where once again
you got your stupid lard arse kicked into a cocked hat.

And of course lest we forget, see also http://snipurl.com/14yq5 where a
senior judge took a dump right in your stupid face for trying to behave
in a court the way you do here.

--