Time for Truth

[Martin Weidmann]

Proven to whom, YOU, the King of Kooks??? Hahahahahahahaha!

JohnM

Insults, ridicule, misrepresentations and delusions of grandeur is all you've got.

What you haven't got is a conclusive narrative or credible evidence to support your pathetically wild claims....

You behave like a 5 year old.

[John Mytton]

Insults, ridicule, misrepresentations and delusions of grandeur is all you've got.

What you haven't got is a conclusive narrative or credible evidence to support your pathetically wild claims....

You behave like a 5 year old.

Geez another meltdown!

What's amusing is that we have proven that you don't even know the basics of this case yet you've appointed yourself as some sort of ultimate arbiter but the painful reality is that, you just keep embarrassing yourself.

And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Geez another meltdown!

What's amusing is that we have proven that you don't even know the basics of this case yet you've appointed yourself as some sort of ultimate arbiter but the painful reality is that, you just keep embarrassing yourself.

And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?

JohnM

Here you go again with that pathetic I/we "have proven" stuff when in reality you clearly don't even know what proof is.

And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?

Because the answer is proof that your "Waldman confirmed that C2766 was sent" is utter BS.

[John Mytton]

And please explain how your "Amazon" analogy is even slightly relevant?

Because the answer is proof that your "Waldman confirmed that C2766 was sent" is utter BS.

You're very confused and are still making zero sense?
Let me get this straight, Amazon processes and records completed paperwork which says that they sent out to an exact address a package which contains a checkable specific serial numbered item by post/courier etc and on a certain date but in reality they don't send out the package?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

You're very confused and are still making zero sense?
Let me get this straight, Amazon processes and records completed paperwork which says that they sent out a package which contains a checkable specific serial numbered item by post/courier etc and on a certain date but in reality they don't send out the package?

JohnM

Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.

[John Mytton]

Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63

A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.

Try again!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63

A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.

Try again!

JohnM

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Yes, let's....

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.


All these "conclusions" start with the assumption that the package was indeed sent and are thus meaningless, because there is no evidence, other than the supplier's paperwork, that the article had indeed been sent. But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package! Talk about dishonesty.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter.

This is such a pathetic level of selfserving "reasoning"!

If a customer does not receive the package that he orders, it's up to the supplier to prove that it was sent in the first place and there isn't a sane person in the world that would accept the supplier's claim that it was sent because their internal paperwork says so.

Only a fool would accept a supplier's word for it. It seems I'm talking to one of those, right now.

[John Mytton]

But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package!

WOW!
That's absolutely Bonkers.
Please explain why a hugely financially successful company like Amazon or indeed Kleins would take an order, produce paperwork indicating a specific serial numbered item, method of transit and date of despatch and then wouldn't send out the requested item?

I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!

JohnM