Subject:
|
Re: Peeron inventories
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:35:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4984 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Gregory wrote:
> > > In lugnet.inv, John Patterson wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.inv, David Gregory wrote:
> > > > > In lugnet.inv, John Patterson wrote:
> > > > > > OK Dan, I have sent picture of 10144 box picture and correction to
> > > > > > inv@peeron.com. Now here is what I am talking about: There are
> > > > > > two tan bricks 1x6 on page 7 of the instructions.
> > > > >
> > > > > John, I thought I'd take a little looksie into my own 10144 to
> > > > > see what you're talking about. I looked on page 7 of the instructions
> > > > > of 10144 and the are NO TAN BRICKS WHATSOEVER! John, I must therefore
> > > > > assume that your information is 90-95% incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please get some glasses,
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > >
> > > > David, remember 7 comes after 6 and before 8, perhaps that will help.
> > > > John P
> > >
> > > Yes, it sure does. I rechecked it (page 7 that is), and I stand by my
> > > statement; no tan bricks. Perhaps your own inability to count has had a bad
> > > impact on the inventories you've made, and that's why they're not being
> > > accepted.
> > >
> > > David
> > Look at page 11 then, what I post here is quick, I sit for a very long time when
> > I make the corrections and do not quote pages or steps. However you want to cut
> > it, there are two tan bricks that are not in the inventory. That is the
> > important part.And for your other little snide comment, I posted part of an
> > email that I sent to Dan, Try to think out of the box a little. I have had a
> > lot of pictures and corrections and inventories accepted. You come into the
> > middle of something without any idea of what you are talking about. Nice try.
> > John P
>
> And yet one of the corrections you made has already been shown to be wrong and
> maybe a second one too (I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't). Most
> people might take that as a sign that possibly their checking wasn't quite as
> accurate[1] as they thought it was. And yet I see no such admission from you.
>
> I think you must be switched on to the pissed off position, John.
>
> Tim
>
> [1] Note I use accurate here and not thorough. I have no doubts you are thorough
> but given set variations, incorrect instructions and other possibilities neither
> does it make you accurate.
If anyone is spring loaded to the piss off position it is you. Regardless of
what the page number was, the inventory is incorrect. Valium might be in the
future for you, or high blood pressure. You really need to calm down. Let's
remove all emotions here. The facts are that the inventory is incorrect and it
has not been corrected. No nastiness, no emotion, nothing but facts. That
inventory and many more are incorrect and have been for a very long time.
This is not the Bible or Ten Commandments we are talking about, just an
inventory. I started long ago pointing this out, October 2006. The only reason
I posted to Lugnet is that people should know that they are incorrect and if
people do, maybe they will update them. I have nothing to gain by this, Peeron
does if they care. So rant and rave all you want but I think that it is
misdirected. You got a bad case of kill the messenger.
And you do not need to send me any more e-mails with pictures. You are taking
this a bit too far.
John P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peeron inventories
|
| --snip-- (...) Such a vast banquet of irony in so few words. (...) I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to show one of these 'emails with pictures' that you refer to? Since I don't remember ever sending you an email in (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peeron inventories
|
| (...) And yet one of the corrections you made has already been shown to be wrong and maybe a second one too (I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't). Most people might take that as a sign that possibly their checking wasn't quite as (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
58 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
|
|
|
|
