Subject:
|
Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:44:30 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.comSPAMCAKE
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
I got a note from the first seller, he THOUGHT he had the box and told
me he was going to modify the listing to clarify. I think he's jake. The
second seller I did not send mail to so cannot comment on.
While we can have good fun here we do need to be careful before we
actually go off and flame someone. Which is why I sent the first seller
a note, I actually want that set. But you knew that already.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Interesting interpretation of "new in box"
|
| (...) Hm, I wonder if it's worth raising a stink with eBay. Both of these are clearly misrepresentations. New in Box should not have a picture of a set in a plastic baggie and no sign of the box. Mint should clearly not be a set which is missing (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
