On Wednesday, in article
letoured@nospam.net wrote:

> ...And the history is they always refuse to refund money, nor do American
> based credit cards back charge off-shore vendors, thus you proven the
> point; booby is selling off-shore to isolate himself from legal liability
> under US law.
>
> Now -->tell us of the Netherland law that allow an American to collect a
> refuse of the product fails to meet its advertised performance!
>
> -->I'm betting you boys don't have the balls to admit there is no legal
> was to recover money paid for ecs. ""

Well, if that were truly the case, can you not claim against your credit-
card company? Oh, I forgot: you're in the USA, where consumer protection
legislation[1] is minimal: here in the UK (and, I think, in other parts
of Yurop), a credit-card company is liable "jointly and severally" along
with the retailer. So if the latter is a rogue, or goes bankrupt, or for
any other reason does not refund monies paid in good faith for a product
which subsequently is found to be faulty (including failing to match up
to advertised capabilities) then the credit-card company HAS to refund
the money to their client. This applies to purchases in excess of
GBP100, and *does* include items sold over the Internet.

[1] Nader for president, anyone?

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

Marty wrote:
> Stuart Gray wrote:
>
>> OK, the equivalent exists in European Law also. However, my question
>> still stands: how do you prove software is defective?
>
> Bob St. John's ISP is having USENET troubles, so he asked me to post on
> his behalf. The following are his words:

Same here. Boob asked me via osmosis to respond to all
with a complaint about refunds. Access to the newsgroups
for the poor Boob has been curtailed. There are eCS consumers
who are still waiting for their supposed 'partial' refunds having
complained months, even years ago. They were informed
that additional 'restocking fees' and shipping fees would eat
up most of their $300 investment but as soon as Mensys could
determine the final refund amount, a refund check would be
mailed.

As I say, Boob wants you to know all of those eCS consumers
have a right to a partial refund - they'll just have to wait until
it arrives in the mail box.

--
Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

In <20050609.2103.60154snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/09/2005
at 10:03 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:

>On Wednesday, in article
> letoured@nospam.net wrote:

>> ...And the history is they always refuse to refund money, nor do American
>> based credit cards back charge off-shore vendors, thus you proven the
>> point; booby is selling off-shore to isolate himself from legal liability
>> under US law.
>>
>> Now -->tell us of the Netherland law that allow an American to collect a
>> refuse of the product fails to meet its advertised performance!
>>
>> -->I'm betting you boys don't have the balls to admit there is no legal
>> was to recover money paid for ecs. ""

>Well, if that were truly the case, can you not claim against your credit-
>card company?

You are talking about charge-backs. If the vendor refuses, it doesn't
work. You know this, or should!

Now what are the great laws you have to solve this problem?



Oh, I forgot: you're in the USA, where consumer protection
>legislation[1] is minimal: here in the UK (and, I think, in other parts
>of Yurop), a credit-card company is liable "jointly and severally" along
>with the retailer. So if the latter is a rogue, or goes bankrupt, or for
>any other reason does not refund monies paid in good faith for a product
>which subsequently is found to be faulty (including failing to match up
>to advertised capabilities) then the credit-card company HAS to refund
>the money to their client. This applies to purchases in excess of
>GBP100, and *does* include items sold over the Internet.

>[1] Nader for president, anyone?

In <20050609.2101.60153snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/09/2005
at 10:01 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:

>On Wednesday, in article
>
> dink@yadda.com "dinkmeister" wrote:

>> he's on a much higher level of idiotness than that.

>It's always the case, is it not? Make something idiot-proof, and someone
>invents a bigger idiot.

Solve the problem the easy way -->get the ecs shills out of the IBM OS2
news groups.

In <1118354474.7283.0@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net>, on 06/10/2005
at 12:05 AM, Stuart Gray said:

>letoured@nospam.net wrote:
>> Hey, booby, How do we know your ISP hasn't cut cut off your service for
>> non-payment? After all you keep having a problem with paying Texas, minor
>> annual fees.
>>
>> That being said, you are avoiding the question; if the Mensys says no,
>> what is the recourse under law for an Americna buyer?
>>

>Ed, you are avoiding the question: if BMTMicro says no, what is the
>recourse under law for an Americna (sic) buyer?

I didn't avoid anything. I just didn't answer yet. They would never say
no to me. You see there is this place called small claims court. Its
cost $25 to make obstinate people see the light. And they have to pay me
the $25 back in the end too.

I also make sure companies and owners really pay attention too. I look up
their names, send a letter or two and then if they play dumb -- I cite
them in the suit. That way the company president either pays up, or his
name goes into the records with a judgement against him. Does problem
things to credit records, and such.



>> The prattle and drivel is all yours' and that of your shills booby.
>>
>>
>The prattle and drivel is all yours' (sic) and that of your sock puppets
>ed.

>Learn to write your own language.

>Stuart

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} turpitued:
>On Wednesday, in article
>
> dink@yadda.com "dinkmeister" wrote:
>
>> he's on a much higher level of idiotness than that.
>
>It's always the case, is it not? Make something idiot-proof, and someone
>invents a bigger idiot.

Somebody ought to write to Microsoft. Instead of paying him to wreck
the OS/2 newsgroups, they'd get better value paying him as a tester:
a check on whether "Windows for Dummies" really is suitable for dummies.

--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

In <20050609.2103.60154snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/09/2005
at 10:03 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:

>[1] Nader for president, anyone?

Thanks but no thanks. Surely you can find a consumer advocate that
doesn't carry the baggage that he does.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

On Friday, in article
letoured@nospam.net wrote:

> In <20050609.2103.60154snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/09/2005
> at 10:03 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:
>
> >Well, if that were truly the case, can you not claim against your credit-
> >card company?
>
> You are talking about charge-backs. If the vendor refuses, it doesn't
> work. You know this, or should!
>
> Now what are the great laws you have to solve this problem?

The Consumer Credit Act (passed under Maggie Thatcher's premiership)
requires by law that credit-card companies provide a refund to their
customer when the latter is in dispute (or otherwise dissatisfied) with a
vendor's performance. So even when, say, a holiday travel company has
gone "tits up" and has no monies to refund to their customers, the
credit-card company HAS to pay up INSTEAD. (Hence the "jointly and
severally" in the wording of the Act.)

It applies ONLY to credit-cards; not to debit cards, and not to charge
cards (so use Visa/MasterCard in preference to Diners'/AmEx).

Of course, if the vendor is still in business, then the CC company will
pursue them for the debt, and be decidedly "iffy" about supporting them
in the future; nevertheless, the legal requirement is enshrined in
British law; pity you don't have something similar in the good ole US of
A, eh?

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657

On 06/10/05 06:37 pm Brian {Hamilton Kelly} tossed the following
ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

> The Consumer Credit Act (passed under Maggie Thatcher's premiership)
> requires by law that credit-card companies provide a refund to their
> customer when the latter is in dispute (or otherwise dissatisfied) with a
> vendor's performance. So even when, say, a holiday travel company has
> gone "tits up" and has no monies to refund to their customers, the
> credit-card company HAS to pay up INSTEAD. (Hence the "jointly and
> severally" in the wording of the Act.)
>
> It applies ONLY to credit-cards; not to debit cards, and not to charge
> cards (so use Visa/MasterCard in preference to Diners'/AmEx).
>
> Of course, if the vendor is still in business, then the CC company will
> pursue them for the debt, and be decidedly "iffy" about supporting them
> in the future; nevertheless, the legal requirement is enshrined in
> British law; pity you don't have something similar in the good ole US of
> A, eh?

But we here in the good ole USA, the Land of the Free, don't need no
steenking laws passed by no steenking commie centralist gubbernmint. We
have the right to own as many firearms as we like, and this enables us
to deal with every problem that ever may face us.

Perce

In <20050610.2237.60172snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/10/2005
at 11:37 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:

>Of course, if the vendor is still in business, then the CC company
>will pursue them for the debt, and be decidedly "iffy" about
>supporting them in the future; nevertheless, the legal requirement is
>enshrined in British law; pity you don't have something similar in
>the good ole US of A, eh?

WTF? The USA has had something similar for decades; it only applies to
credit cards and not to debit cards. It's a pity that you took
letard's word for what is in the US laws.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

In <42ac2e0d$79$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>, on 06/12/2005
at 08:43 AM, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
said:

>In <20050610.2237.60172snz@dsl.co.uk>, on 06/10/2005
> at 11:37 PM, bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) said:

>>Of course, if the vendor is still in business, then the CC company
>>will pursue them for the debt, and be decidedly "iffy" about
>>supporting them in the future; nevertheless, the legal requirement is
>>enshrined in British law; pity you don't have something similar in
>>the good ole US of A, eh?

>WTF? The USA has had something similar for decades; it only applies to
>credit cards and not to debit cards. It's a pity that you took letard's
>word for what is in the US laws.


There is no *law (Do you understand that word?) in the US that requires
a refund with credit card purchases in the US. -->but feel free to tell
us what you think the law is.

-->There US relies on the UCC (uniform commercial code). It has no
provision that requires refunds on credit card purchases.

Your the WTF is your brain pissing over once again, as you show us your a
complete idiot. and of course, I win again.

The OS/2 Guy wrote:
> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
>>
>> You might perceive of Mensys as being out of the reach of your "law"; but
>> they most certainly have to comply with the laws of both the Netherlands
>> and of the twenty-five countries of the European Union.
>
>
> This was true when it came to Mensys illegally advertising eComStation
> as "Warp 5". Diane Gartner of the infamous Gartner Group took issue
> with both Mensys and St. John over the false advertising. She was
> personally attacked by eCS investors for bringing the issue to public
> light. It took a complaint to the EU Consumer's Union to force Mensys
> to remove the entire web page.
>
>> They do so in an
>> exemplary manner: moreover, *our* laws on misleading advertising,
>> misrepresentation, etc., are considerably more effective than those of
>> the puny (in the area of consumer protection legislation) USA, so if they
>> had transgressed, they would have been severely punished and out of
>> business. The fact that they continue to retail top-quality products
>> (including eComStation) is testament to both their probity and their
>> acumen.
>
>
> As noted above, the moment the EU told them to cease and desist
> Mensys removed the false advertising. It was that first bit of false
> advertising and St. John's public claim that he 'had no problem with..."
> [Mensys falsely claiming eCS was "Warp 5"]. IBM was not amused.
>
>> Moreover, our libel laws are considerably more effective than yours: I
>> *do* wich you'd post from somewhere within the EU some time: you'd be in
>> jail for CRIMINAL libel so fast your feet wouldn't touch the ground.
>
>
> eComStation is sold outside the U.S. specifically to avoid U.S. consumer
> laws which would have placed St. John in prison today and eCS in the
> trash heap. St. John can take no legal action against anyone here in
> the U.S. who speaks out against the faulty product and misnomer
> marketing claims because he'd have to back them up and he knows
> he can't. Which is precisely why he uses an 'out of the U.S.' distributor
> to sell his product.
>
> Europeans are stymied when it comes to free speech. Speak out
> in some countries and you are jailed without trial for many years.
> People from outside the U.S. are teeming to get into the U.S. yet
> far less are teeming to get into Europe.
>


--
Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>
> Bob is not the irresponsible ****wit who started this thread, cross-
> posted to three groups[1].

Doesn't really matter who started this thread - what matters is
the truth be allowed to be told without personal attack, something
St. John can't seem to restrain himself from doing.

> IMNSHO, Bob is correct to counteract the
> deliberately misleading anti-propaganda where it impacts upon the readers
> of comp.os.os2.ecomstation.

You're right, your opinion is 'not so humble'. More so it is
disingenuous to keep the truth about eCS away from
an eCS consumer. eCS should be a product that stands
on its own despite any negativity reported or declared.

Unfortunately it can't and that's why eCS investors and
the biggest investor (St. John) resort to stifling any
negative publicity or any person(s) who speak out
against the product. Personal attacks, public falsehoods
aimed at any individual (libel) and denying access to help
or assistance to an eCS consumer who speaks out
publicly against the product's failures has pretty much
destroyed the future for eCS. All are archived and will
be pointed to repeatedly to new and potential eCS
consumers so they know the truth about those who
promote, sell or market eComStation.

> I've trimmed follow-ups to that group alone.
>
> [1] comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.ecom station in Timmy's
>

I've brought them all back. OS/2 users should not be
denied the truth about eCS no matter how hard the
eCS investor works to keep it away from them.

--
Dr. Timothy Martin, The Official and Only OS/2 Guy
Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com
email: OS2Guy@Gmail.com OR eCSGuy@Gmail.com

aaaaaaaaa