I just quoted you. You wouldn't even acknowledge your own statement. Debate finished.
And you ignored my explanation of what a returning customer is. Obviously if a customer ordered an item and never received it then it was never a purchase strictly speaking but a mere order never completed. You're hiding behind definitions.
Well, not exactly. @Brynm wrote this: "A priority should be given to customers who have already purchased" - And as long as I can breathe, I'll say that's deeply wrong.
Yes, but he meant purchased but not received.
You are right sound67. Previous buying history should not give anyone service preference over a new buyer.
sound67 is saying that the seller should deal with the orders that have been placed in the order they came in.
And I disagree with that. If I order a pizza and notice while walking out of the store that half the pizza is missing, the owner won't say wait til I finish delivering up these other orders before I address your half pizza concern. No, he'll stop what he's doing and get the other half of the pizza right away even if it slows down the other orders. Why? Because that's simple courtesy to a customer who has already paid his money trusting the owner to deliver a whole pizza. And btw other customers should respect this because it shows the owner will have respect/consideration for THEM should the need arise.
No, you're hiding behind your own statements. Why can't you just admit that you're wrong?
I'll admit that I should have used the term ordered and not purchase but it changes nothing. Now address my arguments.
Well, not exactly. @Brynm wrote this: "A priority should be given to customers who have already purchased" - And as long as I can breathe, I'll say that's deeply wrong.
Yes, but he meant purchased but not received.
You are right sound67. Previous buying history should not give anyone service preference over a new buyer.
I have never mentioned previous buying history. I'm addressing a customer who has not received his order and Sound knows this.
again, deeply wrong. We're talking orders here, and any order should be treated in 'order'. If you think otherwise, please order somewhere else, because NO COMPANY in the world that's worth its salt would treat you better than others just because you'd ordered from the company before. Anything else would be outrageous.
Now you're making things up and putting words in my mouth. I'm not talking about customers who have ordered previously. I'm talking about a customer who hasn't received his order. An ACTIVE customer - I gave you money but have not received my order. Get it?
Well, you did. And I called you on it, but you refused to acknowledge it. That's that. What else could the phrase "A priority should be given to customers who have already purchased" possibly mean? I'll leave you to it, I lost interest. If you can't se how wrong this is, I can't help you. moving on.
Nope. Your hiding behind semantics now which is another indication of one who has lost the debate. You have ignored my argument. You're refusing to respond to them. Maybe because you can't.
Useless.
LOL I rest my case.
Funny, coming from someone too chicken to even stand by his own statements. But I acknowledge that. Blocked.
Post #57 or are you chicken.
Thank jebus. What a tendentious, tedious series of posts over a semantically ambiguous (though not quite that ambiguous in context) phrase. I've had great service from Chess House and prompt communication when inquiring before order/purchase/delivery, so some of the issues in this thread seem atypical.
Thank jebus. What a tendentious, tedious series of posts over a semantically ambiguous (though not quite that ambiguous in context) phrase. I've had great service from Chess House and prompt communication when inquiring before order/purchase/delivery, so some of the issues in this thread seem atypical.
Let me edit here for simplicity. Sound's mistake was arguing with his misquote of what I said. My mistake was not catching his misquote.
The holiday seasons always backlog every small online retailer. Only Amazon.com is unaffected., couriers are subsequently delayed. The sudden increase in chess set demand due to Queens Gambit just made things worse. I’ve learned to just wait in queue whether for their people to reply to my inquiry or for my package to be delivered. Nothing I can do about it anyway.
As for chesshouse.com, I’ve always had great experience with them.
@OfficialStaunton Carl, I hate the bickering. However, people are just tired of waiting for their products. I can understand. Also everyone is stuck at home without an outlet. People are going to lash out to decompress.
@Brynmr If it helps, I understood exactly what you meant... If a customer ordered it but did not receive his order. I can see how your statement could be misconstrued though.
Yeah, and if the order is not complete to satisfaction, it needs to be addressed and finished right away.
You guys misunderstood each other.
@Brynmr If it helps, I understood exactly what you meant... If a customer ordered it but did not receive his order. I can see how your statement could be misconstrued though.
Had he not misquoted me he would not have misconstrued. I said: "A priority should be given to customers who have already purchased and have issues such as the item never arrived." He omitted what's in bold type.
I offer a quote from the movie, Cool Hand Luke. “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
You two are saying the same thing. Brynmar is saying that they should take care of customers that have paid for the product but have not received it yet. And this is true whether this purchase of this customer with that seller is the first or he has purchased before.
sound67 is saying that the seller should deal with the orders that have been placed in the order they came in.