Telstra - Bastards!

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

mattic said...

> In order to "still" be denying it, I must have denied it already. Please
> show where I denied it already and where I have denied it now.
> Like I said, you have failed to show where I said that staff use the
> phone for a second in order to understand its features.

There's this concept of when arguing or debating a point, that if you
fling enough nonsensical babble around that you may eventually win the
debate. It was refered to the lawyer who represented OJ Simpson and I
think that it was parodied in South Park.

I forget what they called it, but it's more or less the same as one of
Dilbert's Princicples which states:

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level then beat
you with experience.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Giles" <call125111@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172017270.669650.117110@t69g2000cwt.googlegr oups.com...
>> Everything else, agreed.
>>
>> > It sounds as though you're making an argument for "what they don't
>> > know won't hurt them", which I'd consider a very murky position.
>>
>> No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm attempting to expose the folly of
>> carrying on like a pork chop about a phone that has been used to educate
>> the
>> staff and is now in its original condition.
>>
>> In other words, I'm saying that even if you are told, there are no
>> practical, logical reasons for wanting a fresh one. I'd LOVE someone to
>> come
>> up with one! Something better than, "Coz it FEELS nicer!"
>
> I think you're asking for something that isn't there :) Comfort,
> perception, feeling - they're all parts of the consumer experience.
> They're fundamental elements of marketing. Features/specs/price
> aside, they're what makes someone choose one brand over another; one
> model over another; one *colour* over another.

I agree. It's just that all the *practical* stuff would have to be equal in
order for me to start delving in to form-factor.

> They're not irrational
> or invalid.

They are if they prompt threads of this title and the wailing and gnashing
of teeth it has produced!

>
> That a person can't quantify, measure or 'practically, logically'
> describe a preference is immaterial.

I agree to an extent. But what it has caused here is not a simple assertion
of that but a cacophony of bullshit arguments that are easily rebutted
(BECAUSE they are bullshit); and a general show of tantrum. It's been a
wonderful insight into the mind of the consumer-warrior!

>
>> Whether to tell or not? Hmm...undecided. Though, if pressed, I'd have to
>> stick with my view that the phone is not measurably different from a
>> "fresh"
>> one and as long as it is cleaned, wiped and warrantied, it may be safely
>> sold as new.
>
> Ah - I submit to you there shouldn't be a question at all. That
> ambivalence suggests to me that there's still an element there of
> "what they don't know won't hurt them".

No, not at all. I just won't pander to that type of irrational tat. :-)
It has practical consequences, too. If the shop has to buy at least one, but
probably 3 or 4 *extra* handsets for training purposes, that's just going to
put the prices up. And the the almost unanimous cry of my protagonists in
this thread has been, "I should get a discount if it's used!". This means,
of course, that being used is not really a big deal. What *is* a big deal is
getting it cheap! So, given the choice of used & cheap, or fresh &
expensive, the previously vocal anti-used brigade crumble like an local ISP
and take the cash. So, if we give in to their "unused" demands, they'll just
be whining about the prices. Wankers! ;-)

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f758wj44t2o3.1u0x4j8de86gj$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:24:26 GMT, mattic wrote:
>
>> "Giles" <call125111@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1171977959.670982.28500@v45g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> Everything else, agreed.
>>
>>> It sounds as though you're making an argument for "what they don't
>>> know won't hurt them", which I'd consider a very murky position.
>>
>> No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm attempting to expose the folly of
>> carrying on like a pork chop about a phone that has been used to educate
>> the
>> staff and is now in its original condition.
>> In other words, I'm saying that even if you are told, there are no
>> practical, logical reasons for wanting a fresh one.
>
> Of course there is. First of all, it's what you're paying for and it's
> what
> you're entitled to *by law*.

Neither practical nor logical.

>
> Secondly, you have absolutely no idea whether the phone used to "educate
> the staff" was charged correctly, was not accidentally dropped on the
> floor
> (possibly causing damage that may not show up for a long time to come)

Dude, it has a full warranty.

> did
> not come into contact with food, spillages, disease, etc etc etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lame as!

>
> If it's a Sony Ericsson phone, the new user would miss out on the
> "tutorial" that runs when the phone is first turned on.

Easily re-accessed.

>
>> I'd LOVE someone to come
>> up with one! Something better than, "Coz it FEELS nicer!"
>
> Simple: "Because that's what I paid for and expected to receive."

Pfft! That's the same thing!

>
>> Put it this way, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it was a phone I was
>> buying.
>
> Well, I and many others would.

You really didn't think about this, did you?

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45dbdb66.00007ff6.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> mattic said...
>
>> In order to "still" be denying it, I must have denied it already. Please
>> show where I denied it already and where I have denied it now.
>> Like I said, you have failed to show where I said that staff use the
>> phone for a second in order to understand its features.
>
> There's this concept of when arguing or debating a point, that if you
> fling enough nonsensical babble around that you may eventually win the
> debate. It was refered to the lawyer who represented OJ Simpson and I
> think that it was parodied in South Park.
>
> I forget what they called it, but it's more or less the same as one of
> Dilbert's Princicples which states:
>
> Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level then beat
> you with experience.

Well, you've certainly demonstrated that you are an idiot who cannot
comprehend simple English, refuses to accept the possibility of being wrong
and then exacerbates the situation by continuing with this vapid folly. All
you have to do is re-read the sentence and all will be clear. The trouble
is, you're such a vaccuous bimbo that you're probably content to continue
moaning like a bitch while your own words are shafting you.

[Ext User(Crikey)]

"mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote in message
news:vqTCh.1713$8U4.1143@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
|
| "Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
| news:45dbdb66.00007ff6.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
| > mattic said...
| >
| >> In order to "still" be denying it, I must have denied it already.
Please
| >> show where I denied it already and where I have denied it now.
| >> Like I said, you have failed to show where I said that staff use the
| >> phone for a second in order to understand its features.
| >
| > There's this concept of when arguing or debating a point, that if you
| > fling enough nonsensical babble around that you may eventually win the
| > debate. It was refered to the lawyer who represented OJ Simpson and I
| > think that it was parodied in South Park.
| >
| > I forget what they called it, but it's more or less the same as one of
| > Dilbert's Princicples which states:
| >
| > Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level then beat
| > you with experience.
|
| Well, you've certainly demonstrated that you are an idiot who cannot
| comprehend simple English, refuses to accept the possibility of being
wrong
| and then exacerbates the situation by continuing with this vapid folly.
All
| you have to do is re-read the sentence and all will be clear. The trouble
| is, you're such a vaccuous bimbo that you're probably content to continue
| moaning like a bitch while your own words are shafting you.
|
|


Knew it wouldn't be long before the abuse and name calling would start,
typical of you when your arse is backed into a corner.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Crikey" <nnnnn> wrote in message
news:45dc1ce0$0$20218$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "mattic" <this@wontwork.com> wrote in message
> news:vqTCh.1713$8U4.1143@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> |
> | "Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
> | news:45dbdb66.00007ff6.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> | > mattic said...
> | >
> | >> In order to "still" be denying it, I must have denied it already.
> Please
> | >> show where I denied it already and where I have denied it now.
> | >> Like I said, you have failed to show where I said that staff use the
> | >> phone for a second in order to understand its features.
> | >
> | > There's this concept of when arguing or debating a point, that if you
> | > fling enough nonsensical babble around that you may eventually win the
> | > debate. It was refered to the lawyer who represented OJ Simpson and I
> | > think that it was parodied in South Park.
> | >
> | > I forget what they called it, but it's more or less the same as one of
> | > Dilbert's Princicples which states:
> | >
> | > Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level then beat
> | > you with experience.
> |
> | Well, you've certainly demonstrated that you are an idiot who cannot
> | comprehend simple English, refuses to accept the possibility of being
> wrong
> | and then exacerbates the situation by continuing with this vapid folly.
> All
> | you have to do is re-read the sentence and all will be clear. The
> trouble
> | is, you're such a vaccuous bimbo that you're probably content to
> continue
> | moaning like a bitch while your own words are shafting you.
>
> Knew it wouldn't be long before the abuse and name calling would start,

I call it like it is. Does it scare you?

> typical of you when your arse is backed into a corner.

Yeah. I'm in a cocoon of correctness, whatever shall I do?
Explain, exactly why you think I'm wrong here, or are you just gonna pop up,
troll and piss off again?

[Ext User(Anthony Horan)]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:04:32 GMT, mattic wrote:

> Subject: Q!Re: Telstra - Bastards!

Your Usenet client is broken.

> "Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1f758wj44t2o3.1u0x4j8de86gj$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>
>> Of course there is. First of all, it's what you're paying for and it's what
>> you're entitled to *by law*.
>
> Neither practical nor logical.

Of course it is. If Telstra wants to sell me a pre-used mobile phone,
that's a USED phone. Plain. Simple.

>> Secondly, you have absolutely no idea whether the phone used to "educate
>> the staff" was charged correctly, was not accidentally dropped on the floor
>> (possibly causing damage that may not show up for a long time to come)
>
> Dude, it has a full warranty.

Yo, "dude", mofo, that's not the point. Anyone who's had to deal with
warranty service on a mobile phone will know what I mean. Chances are the
end-user will be blamed for whatever damage the Telstra droid (who couldn't
give a toss about looking after the product as it's not theirs) might have
done. There is no definite answer to who caused what when the phoen has
already been used.

And as I'm sure you know, a warranty means jack-shit when your phone dies
and you're told you have to have it sent away to get looked at, it'll take
a week and who knows, it might end up costing you.

>> not come into contact with food, spillages, disease, etc etc etc.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lame as!

You think?

Anyone who's had the misfortune of buying a CD or DVD from a chain store
prone to letting their employees borrow discs for "research purposes" will
know just how badly a droid will treat something they don't own and don't
have to pay for.

>> If it's a Sony Ericsson phone, the new user would miss out on the
>> "tutorial" that runs when the phone is first turned on.
>
> Easily re-accessed.

Not the point. And besides, a first-time user might not KNOW how to access
it - not without the tutorial. That's why the things auto-run on first use.

>>> I'd LOVE someone to come
>>> up with one! Something better than, "Coz it FEELS nicer!"
>>
>> Simple: "Because that's what I paid for and expected to receive."
>
> Pfft! That's the same thing!

No, "dude", it's nothing even vaguely the same.

I pay money for a new phone, and get a used one? Invalid contract of sale.

>>> Put it this way, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it was a phone I was
>>> buying.
>>
>> Well, I and many others would.
>
> You really didn't think about this, did you?

Yes, I did. But you obviously left your brain back in primary school. Dude.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3r898ay0fnop.1b7hgtzt21a7b$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:04:32 GMT, mattic wrote:
>
>> Subject: Q!Re: Telstra - Bastards!
>
> Your Usenet client is broken.

No, my typing is broken! How I managed to get a 'Q' up there is anybody's
guess.

>
>> "Anthony Horan" <anthonyhoran@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1f758wj44t2o3.1u0x4j8de86gj$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>>
>>> Of course there is. First of all, it's what you're paying for and it's
>>> what
>>> you're entitled to *by law*.
>>
>> Neither practical nor logical.
>
> Of course it is. If Telstra wants to sell me a pre-used mobile phone,
> that's a USED phone. Plain. Simple.

Firstly, for my acceptance of the term, "used" and my description of why
it's not an issue, please see pretty much the rest of the thread. Keep up.
Secondly, you have changed subjects from attempting to come up with a
practical and logical reason why it makes a difference; to debating a point
that I've both accepted and explained. Sloppy.

>
>>> Secondly, you have absolutely no idea whether the phone used to "educate
>>> the staff" was charged correctly, was not accidentally dropped on the
>>> floor
>>> (possibly causing damage that may not show up for a long time to come)
>>
>> Dude, it has a full warranty.
>
> Yo, "dude", mofo, that's not the point. Anyone who's had to deal with
> warranty service on a mobile phone will know what I mean. Chances are the
> end-user will be blamed for whatever damage

Sorry, we're talking about "used" yet suddenly it's become "damaged". You're
a bit of a drama queen, mush.

> the Telstra droid

This so-called problem only exists with Telstra shops, eh? You find it
perfectly acceptable at other dealers?
You hatred dilutes your argument as anything you say may be safely
dismissed as reactionary bias.

> And as I'm sure you know, a warranty means jack-shit when your phone dies
> and you're told you have to have it sent away to get looked at, it'll take
> a week and who knows, it might end up costing you.

On the extremely rare occasion I have had to invoke the warranty on a mobile
handset,
I've never had a problem with the warranty being honoured.
Maybe because you are such an objectionable person, your store of choice
chose not to help you.

>>> not come into contact with food, spillages, disease, etc etc etc.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lame as!
>
> You think?
>
> Anyone who's had the misfortune of buying a CD or DVD from a chain store
> prone to letting their employees borrow discs for "research purposes" will
> know just how badly a droid will treat something they don't own and don't
> have to pay for.

Then you should inspect it before you buy it. These sorts of things will be
easily noticed. But I suspect that you really don't have a clue what you're
on about. Disease, indeed! What? You think that a disease will shorten the
life of your phone? Or are you saying that you have caught a disease from a
dirty telephone? The former is bollocks, the latter has no effect on your
phone!

>
>>> If it's a Sony Ericsson phone, the new user would miss out on the
>>> "tutorial" that runs when the phone is first turned on.
>>
>> Easily re-accessed.
>
> Not the point.

That's EXACTLY the point. You're whining as if it's lost forever. I rebut
by saying it's a couple of clicks away.

> And besides, a first-time user might not KNOW how to access
> it - not without the tutorial. That's why the things auto-run on first
> use.

I read the manual of things I buy. If you or your fictional first-time user
do not, then I've no sympathy at all. Take some responsibility.

>
>>>> I'd LOVE someone to come
>>>> up with one! Something better than, "Coz it FEELS nicer!"
>>>
>>> Simple: "Because that's what I paid for and expected to receive."
>>
>> Pfft! That's the same thing!
>
> No, "dude", it's nothing even vaguely the same.
>
> I pay money for a new phone, and get a used one? Invalid contract of sale.

What is the tangible problem with the actual phone? There is none. All there
is, is your emotions.

>
>>>> Put it this way, I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it was a phone I
>>>> was
>>>> buying.
>>>
>>> Well, I and many others would.
>>
>> You really didn't think about this, did you?
>
> Yes, I did. But you obviously left your brain back in primary school.
> Dude.

My apologies, then, you DID think about it, it's just that you do not have
the intellectual capacity to answer correctly nor the emotional intelligence
& maturity to look at this logically.

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

mattic said....

> Well, you've certainly demonstrated that you are an idiot who cannot
> comprehend simple English, refuses to accept the possibility of being
> wrong and then exacerbates the situation by continuing with this vapid
> folly. All you have to do is re-read the sentence and all will be clear.
> The trouble is, you're such a vaccuous bimbo that you're probably
> content to continue moaning like a bitch while your own words are
> shafting you.

Been listening to Monty Python again, I see. The "I'm here for an
argument" sketch is so passe, particularly when plaguiarised for an
attempted insulting session on Usenet.

Anyway, "mattic", there are no prizes for coming second. Give up while
you're behind. You've had proof where you made the claim about "a
second's use" shoved down your throat and now you're gagging on it.

Silly person.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45dd19cb.00002cd0.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> mattic said....
>
>> Well, you've certainly demonstrated that you are an idiot who cannot
>> comprehend simple English, refuses to accept the possibility of being
>> wrong and then exacerbates the situation by continuing with this vapid
>> folly. All you have to do is re-read the sentence and all will be clear.
>> The trouble is, you're such a vaccuous bimbo that you're probably
>> content to continue moaning like a bitch while your own words are
>> shafting you.
>
> Been listening to Monty Python again, I see. The "I'm here for an
> argument" sketch is so passe, particularly when plaguiarised for an
> attempted insulting session on Usenet.

Based on two words, you make that leap? Figures. It's all at one wth the way
you've been Forrest-Gumping your way through this thread.
I've used those words in regular conversation for as long as I can remember.
You'll have to do much better than this ad hominem crap. Especially if the
ad hominem is actually bullshit. Idiot.

> Anyway, "mattic", there are no prizes for coming second. Give up while
> you're behind. You've had proof where you made the claim about "a
> second's use" shoved down your throat and now you're gagging on it.

I certainly haven't seen any. Provide the proof and I will give you $1,000.
Seriously, I'll stump it up right now if you can do it.
The only proviso is that, when you post your proof, you have to ask me
nicely to explain where I think you're wrong.

>
> Silly person.

That is *entirely* Monty Python. Hypocrite, much?

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

Anthony said....

>> Dude, it has a full warranty.
>
> Yo, "dude", mofo, that's not the point. Anyone who's had to deal with
> warranty service on a mobile phone will know what I mean. Chances are the
> end-user will be blamed for whatever damage the Telstra droid (who
> couldn't give a toss about looking after the product as it's not theirs)
> might have done. There is no definite answer to who caused what when the
> phoen has already been used.

Particularly if it's exposed to water. While immediate damage may not be
apparent, imagine it if the demo phone did get wet and the sales droid
boxed it back up. You buy the thing, a few days later it fails, off it
goes, say to the Nokia Service Centre. A week later it's returned with
the report "failed due to water ingress - economincally not servicable".
You're out of pocket because you can't prove that you didn't get it wet.

That alone would be enough for me to insist on a NEW, virginal phone.

The water problem happened to my Nokia 6385 a few years back. I'd hate
to have it happen on a "new" phone.

I think that "mattic" is now arguing for argument's sake. Clearly he has
a problem grasping the basic concepts of consumer law. And so to do the
people that run mobile phone shops and computer stores, particularly
those who insist that you "return to base" failed items at your cost.

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

mattic said....

>> Your Usenet client is broken.
>
> No, my typing is broken! How I managed to get a 'Q' up there is anybody's
> guess.

Why did you type anything in there in the first place, unless you
intended to change the subject title, and if so, what for?

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

Giles said....

> Ah - I submit to you there shouldn't be a question at all. That
> ambivalence suggests to me that there's still an element there of
> "what they don't know won't hurt them".

Particularly if the phone has suffered some, as yet to be detected,
damage, and which the manufacturer or importer deems as "misuse" for
which there is no comeback, unless you make a huge hue and cry over it
in your local consumer affairs tribunal.

And who wants to do that?

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

mattic said....

> No, not at all. I just won't pander to that type of irrational tat. :-)
> It has practical consequences, too. If the shop has to buy at least one,
> but probably 3 or 4 *extra* handsets for training purposes, that's just
> going to put the prices up. And the the almost unanimous cry of my

It's the cost of doing business. Any costs are passed onto the
consumers. Anyway, the profit margins on the mobile phone services has
to be huge, going by a mate whose obvious affluence can be attributed to
flogging them to the locals around here. So, they could afford to get in
an extra handset or more, depending on the store size.

[Ext User(Emjaye)]

mattic said....

>> Silly person.
>
> That is *entirely* Monty Python. Hypocrite, much?

whoosh.... [1]

Look up the word "irony".




























[1] just like "mattic's" understanding of the whole concept of new
versus use, second hand, shop soiled or ex-demo and how it relates
to consumer law...

[Ext User(Michael)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e21ed0.0000513d.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> Anthony said....
>
>>> Dude, it has a full warranty.
>>
>> Yo, "dude", mofo, that's not the point. Anyone who's had to deal with
>> warranty service on a mobile phone will know what I mean. Chances are the
>> end-user will be blamed for whatever damage the Telstra droid (who
>> couldn't give a toss about looking after the product as it's not theirs)
>> might have done. There is no definite answer to who caused what when the
>> phoen has already been used.

Agreed

It was a used phone, and you should take it back and get a brand new one

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e21ed0.00004843.bm003@yarwho.com.au...
> mattic said....
>
>> No, not at all. I just won't pander to that type of irrational tat. :-)
>> It has practical consequences, too. If the shop has to buy at least one,
>> but probably 3 or 4 *extra* handsets for training purposes, that's just
>> going to put the prices up. And the the almost unanimous cry of my
>
> It's the cost of doing business. Any costs are passed onto the
> consumers.

You're right. Are you prepared to pay more?

> Anyway, the profit margins on the mobile phone services has
> to be huge, going by a mate whose obvious affluence can be attributed to
> flogging them to the locals around here. So, they could afford to get in
> an extra handset or more, depending on the store size.

They could certainly afford to, but it would erode their profits. If you
owned the business, would you do something that eroded your profits?

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e21ed0.0000513d.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> Anthony said....
>
>>> Dude, it has a full warranty.
>>
>> Yo, "dude", mofo, that's not the point. Anyone who's had to deal with
>> warranty service on a mobile phone will know what I mean. Chances are the
>> end-user will be blamed for whatever damage the Telstra droid (who
>> couldn't give a toss about looking after the product as it's not theirs)
>> might have done. There is no definite answer to who caused what when the
>> phoen has already been used.
>
> Particularly if it's exposed to water. While immediate damage may not be
> apparent, imagine it if the demo phone did get wet and the sales droid
> boxed it back up. You buy the thing, a few days later it fails, off it
> goes, say to the Nokia Service Centre. A week later it's returned with
> the report "failed due to water ingress - economincally not servicable".
> You're out of pocket because you can't prove that you didn't get it wet.
>
> That alone would be enough for me to insist on a NEW, virginal phone.

NOW you starting to make an argument! I agree.

>
> The water problem happened to my Nokia 6385 a few years back. I'd hate
> to have it happen on a "new" phone.
>
> I think that "mattic" is now arguing for argument's sake.

Wrong, I was just waiting for a decent argument. You just made one.

> Clearly he has
> a problem grasping the basic concepts of consumer law.

No problem grasping them, just a problem with your interpretation of their
intent.

> And so to do the
> people that run mobile phone shops and computer stores, particularly
> those who insist that you "return to base" failed items at your cost.

I wouldn't pay.

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e21ed0.0000177e.bm001@yarwho.com.au...
> mattic said....
>
>>> Your Usenet client is broken.
>>
>> No, my typing is broken! How I managed to get a 'Q' up there is anybody's
>> guess.
>
> Why did you type anything in there in the first place, unless you
> intended to change the subject title, and if so, what for?

I intended to do neither.
I'm pretty sure it was a strike of the [shift] and [tab] keys, hence the
capital Q

[Ext User(mattic)]

"Emjaye" <emjaye_t@yarwho.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e2360d.00007b93.bm000@yarwho.com.au...
> mattic said....
>
>>> Silly person.
>>
>> That is *entirely* Monty Python. Hypocrite, much?
>
> whoosh.... [1]
>
> Look up the word "irony".

No, look up the words, backflip-after-being-exposed-as-a-hypocrite.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] just like "mattic's" understanding of the whole concept of new
> versus use, second hand, shop soiled or ex-demo and how it relates
> to consumer law...

Idiot. You play games, I'll sit here being right.