NO JOHNPONZ, YOU DON’T GET IT!

I have asked you to answer simple questions for me in my previous posts, and you have not. It seems almost that you are NOT reading my posts.

FIRST off, just because Hitler had a different branch of his government exterminate the jews, doesn’t mean that he wasn’t accountable. Of course, Future Shop isn’t evil and this is an extreme example, but, as Agizzle said earlier, Future Shop is accountable for the actions of the warranty department.

I know you are trying to defend Future Shop, BUT, all I have asked for is that the warranty service give me EMPIRICAL evidence that my iPod was damaged. They essentially gave me no proof.

“I explained already how Future Shop more often than not makes money on warranty exchanges.”

Yes you did explain this, but you gave me no proof! You could be making this all up for all I know!

“Your whole rant and rave about how Future Shop is trying to deny warranty claims is absurd.”

AND AGAIN, as I have restated MANY TIMES, I DON’T KNOW IF THEY ARE TRYING TO DENY MY CLAIM OR NOT!
I said I am not sure if my iPod is water damaged or not, but, the warranty centre didn’t give me any actual reasons or proof as to why they are denying my warranty claim!

JOHNPONZ! PLEASE READ MY POSTS! You are not reading them! You are not getting the points! Your replies do not even address my posts, answer the questions I am asking you, or make sense as to the arguments being put forward!
I don’t care if the warranty centre is part of Future Shop or not, or as to whether Future Shop wants to do my claim or not! I just care that my claim gets denied on empirical information, and not SPECULATION!

AND YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!

“My buddy did this at Canadian Tire and he was happy”. Therefore Canadian Tire is great and has the most loyal customers. Sorry to break it to you “bro” but for every one of your buddies who had it great, theres another guy like you making the same complaints about Canadian Tire. On the flip side, theres someone who had the best customer experience of their life in a Future Shop, just like your buddy did at Canadian Tire.

Thats called life.

I explained already how Future Shop more often than not makes money on warranty exchanges. (1) They make their customer happy. (2) the happy customer, pleased with the service and seeing the value of their warranty more often than not re-purchases a warranty on their exchanged item. (3) Future Shop does not eat the cost of a defective product because they are reimbursed by the manufacturer.

Future Shop buys products just the same as any other consumer. Just as you return a defective product for a refund or exchange to Future Shop. They do the exact same to the original manufacturer.

Your whole rant and rave about how Future Shop is trying to deny warranty claims is absurd. They want your claim to be accepted more than you do because it makes them money. Future Shop will do everything in their power to make more money since as you explained numerous times, they are a FOR PROFIT corporation. If your Ipod was denied under warranty, it certainly wasnt because of a lack of effort from Future Shop or because Future Shop didnt want to give you a new Ipod. Its because when it was inspected, the damage that was found wasnt covered under the warranty and therefore Future Shop wouldnt be reimbursed for a defective Ipod.

You are certainly correct, I do have too much time on my hands. And unfortunately, I do not always spend it doing something productive.

“As an aspiring law student, you should be familiar with the term “motive” right?”

Actually, being an aspiring law student doesn’t mean I will know anything about a court of law. People will take a Bachelor degree usually before getting into law, which consists of courses that they choose to take, and that usually have nothing to do with actual law school. However, being that I’ve been to court a few times, I have picked up a bit.
Secondly, to my knowledge, the term ‘motive’ wouldn’t even be thrown around in a small claims court case with FutureShop. I believe motive is only considered of importance in homicide cases and what not, but my knowledge is limited here. And I am assuming yours is too because you assumed that an undergrad student would have knowledge on the workings of a court of law.

” So where is Future Shops motive to deny your warranty claim?”
Are you kidding me?
I’ll make a diagram:

Industrialization –> Capitalism (country’s industry and trade are controlled by private owners for PROFIT)–> companies (produce goods to be sold for PROFIT) –> high volume of customers –> creation of bureaucracy –> principles of bureaucracy: hierarchy of authority, impersonality in personal matters, rules and regulations, qualification based employment, and a division of labour –> this creates efficiency and capability to cope with ever expanding population so as to make more PROFIT –> in large companies emphasis is put on quantity of goods sold instead of quality, this makes more PROFIT–> Capitalism works off of a market system where the producer prices a product at what the consumer will pay, this allows the producer to make the most PROFIT he can…..

Do you notice a recurring theme?
I’m not sure if you think I have no answer to your question or something. What would be a companies motive in gyping me off? Well since this company does not know me on a personal basis, and the ultimate underlying reason they are selling something to me is to make PROFIT, I would say that the ONLY motive I could guess in this situation is PROFIT. But hey, that’s what I think, I have no evidence, and I’m not gonna make any assumptions as to why this has happened. But the diagram above is why I would think that.

“How can a successful multi-million dollar corporation have a business plan of trying to piss off their customers?”

Going through my posts, I do not see any evidence as to me suggesting this once throughout any of my posts.
I have mentioned that they may of pissed many people off, but not that this is their business plan.
As to answer your question, simply go on google, and research into how many companies have damaged customers since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It happens, it has happened, it will happen again, and it has happened A LOT.
Do you think people have stopped buying Mattel products (the world’s largest toy company based on revenue) after it was found out that some of their toys that were made in China contained lead?
However, I agree with you that typically this kind of behaviour can damage a companies image and reduce sales in some cases. To me though, it seems that Future Shop and Best Buy have a monopoly in the Canadian Electronic Retail store market, so I’m not so sure how much this would affect them.
Now I don’t think any company has a business plan of trying to piss off customers, and I didn’t suggest that. But if your question didn’t have ‘pissing-off customers’ and was simply ‘pisses off some customers,’ then it is answerable.
So, when you say: “How can a successful…” I say, that is how, in my opinion.

“They dont. They have no reason to deny your claim.”
I believe this is making assumptions. Do you know this for certain? Can you give my physical proof and send it to my email address which has been posted above? However, you do have a point about them wanting to provide customer satisfaction (in my opinion). However, due to the warranty company giving me vague reasons as to my warranty denial, I do not know that this is the case.
“If your Ipod was defective they send it back to apple who re-imburses Future Shop for buying a defective unit”
If this is true, then show me.
“makes money on warranty exchanges because customers typically buy another warranty on their new item”
Again, show me the statistic so I know you’re not just blowing smoke in the defence of beloved Future Shop.

“They just want to be mean to you?”
Yes, that’s exactly it, you got me you sly bastard….

“Fact of the matter is this. Your Ipod wasnt working properly for reasons not covered by the warranty you purchased. ”

Here is the definition of the word ‘fact’: a thing that is indisputably the case (Oxford Dictionary).
To me, you are abusing this word.
Again, you are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS!
All I have been asking for is EMPIRICISM, from my very first post.
All I wanted in my warranty denial was EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Have you seen my iPod, do you know about electronics, and have you looked my iPod over?
So then my question is, and PLEASE answer this one question in your next post to me: How were you able to deduce that my iPod “wasn’t working properly for reasons not covered by the warranty?”
Being that you have not physically seen my iPod or observed it, and you do not know the person that examined my iPod because you do not know my identity (hopefully), I am VERY curious as to how you will answer this question using FACTUAL information.
I have stated OVER AND OVER again that I do NOT actually know if my iPod is actually broken. I have stated that I was not given FACTUAL evidence.
How about I quote myself, because it seems to me (and sorry if I’m wrong) that you are not reading my posts:
From my first post:
“Supposedly, there was an area on the ‘board’ that looked a little discoloured that could of been a place where there was water. I ask myself was this deduction really based off of empiricism? ”
From my second post, to you:
“I was told that my iPod ‘could’ of been damaged by water and that it showed a visual possible ’sign’ of water damage. There was no proof, just vague assertions, or suggestions if you will.”
From my third post, to you:
” So, if Future Shop has dismissed a number of warranties due to frivolous reasons, would that not fit the bill? Now, I have no idea, nor evidence as to whether this is the case or not.”
Now, it seems to me (and forgive me if I’m wrong) that you are assuming that I am assuming that my iPod is not actually watered damaged (and I am sorry for assuming what you are assuming because I could be wrong, because I am making an assumption).
But, clearly from the above posts I have had to reshow you, I am not assuming this, I am simply asking for evidence. I am open to the possibility that it may be water damaged. Are you open to the possibilities? In your above post, you are trying to convince me that Future Shop could not possibly have falsely rejected my iPod without actually giving me any concrete evidence as to why. Being that I have been asking for empirical evidence in the first place, I will not tolerate this, as I am sick of it. I don’t want to speak hypothetically, I don’t want to see explanations based on experience, and most of all, I don’t want to hear your god damn OPINION!
All I WANT is someone to say that my iPod was damaged from this, and this is the evidence why!
NOT that my iPod COULD of been damaged by this.

“How about “if you have concrete proof” that your Ipod warranty was rejected for “frivolous” reasons, email it to me at johnponz@gmail.com… give me a break man.”

My second question is, and please answer it: Why would you ask me for concrete proof that my “iPod warranty was rejected for frivolous reasons,” if I have stated repeatedly that I do not know that this is the case and I do not know the answer? Do you like asking questions that you already know the answer to? I personally don’t, but perhaps you enjoy performing redundant actions, and I will not judge you for that. To each his own.

As an aspiring law student, you should be familiar with the term “motive” right? So where is Future Shops motive to deny your warranty claim? Why would they want to do that? How can a successful multi-million dollar corporation have a business plan of trying to piss off their customers?

They dont. They have no reason to deny your claim. In fact, they want to give you a new Ipod under your warranty. They want to do it quickly and efficiently and really impress you. They want to do that because then you will probably not only buy another warranty on your new Ipod, but you will also continue to shop at the store. If your Ipod was defective they send it back to apple who re-imburses Future Shop for buying a defective unit. So they dont lose out on the cost of an Ipod when they give you a new one to replace it. Future Shop more often than not makes money on warranty exchanges because customers typically buy another warranty on their new item.

What could Future Shops motive possibly be? They just want to be mean to you? They dont like making money? They are trying to take themselves out of the market? What?

Fact of the matter is this. Your Ipod wasnt working properly for reasons not covered by the warranty you purchased. Therefore Future Shop wont be reimbursed by Apple for a defective unit, because its not actually defective. Thats the only possible and logical explanation as to why Future Shop would not replace your Ipod under warranty.

Vive la revolution!

And I just thought of something really funny here, since this single sentence is being used to tell me my grammar is bad.
Shouldn’t he of put “plan on (attending) law school…”
Because, well, I am not going to physically get a ladder and make plans on top, beside or whereever on a law school or it’s faculty and members. ‘Plan on law school’ is kinda like using slang. The word ‘on’ is a preposition: ‘ physically in contact with and supported by’ (Oxford Dictionary). It stipulates physical contact. In common English now we say ‘plan’ on something, and this is improper grammar. But plan on what?! A desk, a chair, a law school? That is why the word ‘attending’ is necessary here. Am I not right? Or perhaps I am wrong. I’m actually very curious if anyone would like to chip in.
Now, I know my grammar hasn’t been great here either, but if yer gonna make a grammar jab….. :p

But that’s just my opinion (in regards to requirements of a successful grammar jab)

And now that I’m being a little more open-minded in my views today. I will acknowledge that, you know what? Perhaps you’re right! And again, I would appreciate you’re input. I take back my very first sentence: “Actually, I don’t.”
Apologies. I don’t know what you know, or who you are, and maybe, you are right/

” hire a lawyer like you do. ”
And again, here you are actually making yourself look silly, but, of course, that is just my opinion. Why you ask? Well thankyou for asking! Because, my friend, I do not intend to hire a lawyer like you assumed. It would be a complete waste of my money to hire a lawyer in a case such as this. The question is however, were you making an assumption about me hiring a lawyer, or are you ignorant of the fact that a person can represent them self in court?

“Future Shop is one of the largest retailers in Canada, not your next door neighbor.”

You think Future Shop is one of the largest retailers in Canada?
I’d beg to differ. Perhaps it is, in YOUR head, but I prefer to go by concrete numbers, and unless your list of largest retail companies in Canada includes a SHITLOAD of companies , I do not think Future Shop really makes it to the top of that list. But hey, I’ll go with my empiricism, and you can have your opinion, who is there to say that one of us is ‘truly’ right? I think what you meant is that Future Shop is one of Canada’s largest ‘electronic’ retail companies, yahvola? But if not, I apologizing for assuming what you meant.

“Future Shop is one of the largest retailers in Canada, not your next door neighbor.”

Thanks tips, now that I know that, I’ll stop going over to Future Shop and mowing their lawn, because no matter how many times I do it, they just won’t return a favour and get their god damn fucking dogs to shut up! And on top of that, every time I invite them over for dinner, they don’t even call me back!

“being so childish”
Well, I’m glad you’ve put on the table what you think of me, don’t want to play any superficial polite games now, do we?
However, that is your opinion, and as everyone has opinions, and to my belief, all opinions are based on someone’s subjective perception of reality, I will not take offense – no worries. It’s just an opinion, as meaningless as mine is. But hey, maybe I’m wrong, and I am childish! We never know the ultimate answers, do we?

“and talking about a class action makes you look silly….”

Well, maybe a number of warranties have been dismissed due to frivolous reasons. When companies do things that are wrong that damage a number of people in some kind of way, a class action law suit is one method of dealing with it. So, if Future Shop has dismissed a number of warranties due to frivolous reasons, would that not fit the bill? Now, I have no idea, nor evidence as to whether this is the case or not. It seems as that you do, because you are calling me silly to even suggest this. If you do have any factual information as to whether a class action lawsuit would be silly or not, it would be useful to me, so could you please email it to me at fuhrerreichskanzler@gmail.com, because, maybe you do actually know that Future Shop hasn’t actually dismissed a large number of warranties for frivolous reasons. Or, were you just mudslinging and name calling, and expressing your opinion?

The word silly is an adjective, a word that modifies a noun or pronoun by indentifying, describing, or quantifying words (and in this case, the noun you used to modify with it was me!) – put more simply – to describe something- , people describe things in different ways because people see things differently – people see things differently because well, essentially they are different, therefore it can be said that an individual’s perception is subjective since they are different. So, your opinion of me is not uniform across the whole Homo Sapien species. Therefore I should not treat your opinion as if it is a concrete judgment that would be passed by everyone.

That is a ridiculously long way of me telling you that you thinking I am silly is merely your opinion, and it doesn’t mean that I am actually quote on quote – silly. But, of course, that is just my opinion

Again (as I love saying this) if you have concrete proof the I am actually silly please send it to me at fuhrerreichskanzler@gmail.com/
However, I will be very surprised, as to my knowledge, I have not heard of, read, or seen of any examples where someone has been able to take a metaphysical concept, such as the description of silly, and prove concretely that something is 100% undeniably just this. More simply stated, some people find things silly that others don’t and visa-versa. But, if you can take the abstract and apply it to something real and say with a 100% that ‘THIS IS THIS!” without dispute from different perceptions, peoples, opinions, other metaphysical concepts, yada yada yada, then, indeed, you are good.
But who knows, maybe I am wrong!

And to think, all of this over an iPod! And a nano at that!
Does it really matter?

Does anyone know what really matters?

PS: if anyone does, send it to me in an email at fuhrerreichskanzler@gmail.com, because me, along with most of the human race, would really like to know! :p