SO ANNOYED! Declined pre-order item!

mute_posting

mdbarber wrote: »

You at least have the decency to include in your post "this is just my input/opinion etc. but in reality you two could be the same guy under different user names and then again does any one u meet in a chat room/forum admit to being a looney

I understand where you are coming from regards not getting a direct answer but as far as I am concerned dmg has answered the points (either directly or by confirming what others have said)

As to us being one and the same, :rotfl: - if you get really really bored, look back at other threads we have both posted on - we often have completely different opinions.

You have also assumed that dmg is a "he" whereas I (from their signature) assume otherwise.

However, in this case, as (s)he has said, they are interesting in giving accurate information to people reading the thread.

My first reply to you on this thread (incidentally written at the same time dmg was replying) was to stress there was a difference (in my eyes) that cash had been handed over (as I though that detail to be relevant - but could equally be irrelevant which is why I posed it as a question in the first line)

dmg on the other hand, pointed out something completely different and has gone on to elaborate that thread.

you mentioned precedent and statute, dmg said they were different things, you suggested that precedent leads to statute, I suggested that precedent could be overturned by a higher court, dmg confirmed this was correct.

And so on, and so forth...

dmg24

mute_posting wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from regards not getting a direct answer but as far as I am concerned dmg has answered the points (either directly or by confirming what others have said)

As to us being one and the same, :rotfl: - if you get really really bored, look back at other threads we have both posted on - we often have completely different opinions.

You have also assumed that dmg is a "he" whereas I (from their signature) assume otherwise.

However, in this case, as (s)he has said, they are interesting in giving accurate information to people reading the thread.

My first reply to you on this thread (incidentally written at the same time dmg was replying) was to stress there was a difference (in my eyes) that cash had been handed over (as I though that detail to be relevant - but could equally be irrelevant which is why I posed it as a question in the first line)

dmg on the other hand, pointed out something completely different and has gone on to elaborate that thread.

you mentioned precedent and statute, dmg said they were different things, you suggested that precedent leads to statute, I suggested that precedent could be overturned by a higher court, dmg confirmed this was correct.

And so on, and so forth...

Correct again!

dmg24

bubbles0169 wrote: »

flaming eck im confused
what happened with the OP

They (hopefully) realised that they didn't have a leg to stand on and just accepted the refund!

(I was stood in the same spot as you about ten days ago )

dmg24

mdbarber wrote: »

Yeah read it again but no different,sorry but maybe it's because i am very stupid and need things explained to me very carefully and in greater detail.

You said it ...

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

You said it ...

i put that in just for you to do that, i am very kind, sometimes

Despite your bravado you clearly stated the op did not have a leg to stand on legally i say this is wrong so do other "qualified" legal teachings, so i actually now truly believe that
a you have no real legal experience or qualification
b you really don't care who you misinform
c you don;t have the ability to carry on a reasonable debate without resorting to chanting
"you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong,

dmg24

mdbarber wrote: »

i put that in just for you to do that, i am very kind, sometimes

Despite your bravado you clearly stated the op did not have a leg to stand on legally i say this is wrong so do other "qualified" legal teachings, so i actually now truly believe that
a you have no real legal experience or qualification
b you really don't care who you misinform
c you don;t have the ability to carry on a reasonable debate without resorting to chanting
"you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong,

Bless you.

I have no reason to prove myself to you. After all, you (and your opinions) don't count for anything to me.

Those that know me on MSE know that I am more than qualified to give accurate advice in this area, and if I do not know something, I will be honest and say so.

I have no inclination whatsoever to show, or even tell you of my qualifications. My previous posts where I have helped people with consumer matters are more than adequate for people to have faith in the information that I give.

Now scuttle off down to Trading Standards, I am sure they will have a good old laugh with your fantastic knowledge ... :T :T :T

mdbarber

dmg24 wrote: »

Bless you.

I have no reason to prove myself to you. After all, you (and your opinions) don't count for anything to me.

Those that know me on MSE know that I am more than qualified to give accurate advice in this area, and if I do not know something, I will be honest and say so.

I have no inclination whatsoever to show, or even tell you of my qualifications. My previous posts where I have helped people with consumer matters are more than adequate for people to have faith in the information that I give.

Now scuttle off down to Trading Standards, I am sure they will have a good old laugh with your fantastic knowledge ... :T :T :T

lol easy way out eh, and still not answering the legal questions lmfaoroflpuked

uktim29

My turn..........

uktim29

mdbarber wrote: »

there were two answers given in that quote,
the one question i did ask was only answerable by the man himself
The answer given was to a non-existent question,

Right ok, you wrote this:

mdbarber wrote: »

again i didn't actually state/question if they were the same so not sure where giving an answer to a non existent question falls

In reply to this:

mute_posting wrote: »

I get the impression (sorry if it is wrong!) tht dmg does have some legal training (either that or is very interested in consumer law)

But your originally asked:

mdbarber wrote: »

no i am not legally qualified and never claimed to be, neither do i have a vested interest, i am just an inquisitive consumer, how about you?

Which is you asking "how about you?" to 3 separate questions you have separated by a comma.

So where do you get this from?

mdbarber wrote: »

there were two answers given in that quote,
the one question i did ask was only answerable by the man himself
The answer given was to a non-existent question,

As I can see 3 questions you asked?

Now don't give me some daft answer saying I haven't read what you've written properly etc etc. Three questions, one answer, two answers it's changing like the wind.

The amount of questions you ask seems to change to suit you. The answers you give seem to change to suit you.

It seems your a bit like a politician to me trying to worm your way out of what you've originally stated or what your original story was.

mdbarber

sorry tim but not following your post, it is not clear whether your comments apply to the quotes before or after , i have gone back and reread can now see how i made an error in stating
"the one question i did ask" and meant "one question i did ask", as there were actually about 5 questions all told in post 35

at #60 quotes 2 and 3 are confused, quote 2 was not in response to the line in quote 3 but the line above ie "I think a precedent can be overturned by a more senior court, wheras statute can't..."

I did consider the "how about you" to be a question only answerable by dmg which i still think is a fair question but would have accepted a polite "thats a personal subject" in response