[goodvibes]

Wow! I can see why you're having problems communicating with them. How does " proof of them possibly being delivered near by" (exact quote) designate a definitive? There is no proof of anything in this context. 'evidence' could be substituted for 'proof' for the context challenged and represent the exact same meaning. So much going on here and this what you want to get caught up about. Misrepresenting a quote? Did you really not get the meaning or are you just that willing to misrepresent things?
 
Factual and respectful doesn't seem to work for you so I'll stop posting. You can afford a couple pair of $1k earphones but you can afford to insure them? It's one or the other and partial ins. is just plain odd. How do you bother to ins. something but not for nearly enough to be serve it's pupose? Split it or use somebody else. Grow up, take some responsibility for your own actions and statements and send me some of that perfect juice. Have a nice life and hopefully with your babies back. 

 

[MaxwellDemon]

Actually... this is where you are completely misunderstanding the insurance policy in the UK. As I have been there... that's the maximum allowed to insure a package through the postage option he has chosen.
 
It isn't that he didn't want to insure it more. It is more that he can't with his chosen postage.
 
And please don't tell him he should have went to FedEx or UPS. They are ridiculously expensive, no matter to what comparison. Even if he somehow managed to pay $2000 worth of audio gear... and maybe it is exactly because he has just afford $2000 worth of audio gear that he couldn't afford to post it through something expensive. As a 20 years old kid, I understand the difference of being able to pay a certain limit.
 
Honestly, I feel like if both side of the arguments are being ridiculously redundant at this point. KruZin, you are better off just focus on getting your earphones back instead of replying. Good luck.

 

[KruZin]

Wow! I can see why you're having problems communicating with them. How does " proof of them possibly being delivered near by" (exact quote) designate a definitive? There is no proof of anything in this context. 'evidence' could be substituted for 'proof' for the context challenged and represent the exact same meaning. So much going on here and this what you want to get caught up about. Misrepresenting a quote? Did you really not get the meaning or are just willing to misrepresent things? You can afford a couple pair of $1k earphones but you can afford to insure them? It's one or the other and partial ins. is just plain odd. How do you bother to ins. something but not enough to be serve it's pupose? Factual and respectful doesn't seem to work for you so I'll stop posting. Grow up, take some responsibility for your own actions and statements and send me some of that perfect juice. Have a nice life and hopefully with your babies back. 

 

Maybe you did not see me post that yes I did in fact insure it but it was not insured for the full value because the amount I had insured it for was the maximum amount allowed with the service used at the post office. Yes I could have used fedex or ups but I'm not comfortable with some stranger picking up my package from my home as they don't give a receipt or anything to say they picked it up so someone can say it was never picked up, all you get it an online booking confirmation so I'd rather use the post office which I have always done and it might have a low maximum insurance but at least I get a receipt and know the people at the post office.

Also, why don't you look back at what you said to me, YOU SAID I used Brittany's search as proof of them possibly being delivered near by. So why don't you show me WHERE I used her search as proof of them being delivered near by. That is what you said and are now making out like you said something else.
Anyway, no point talking about this as it's just going round in circles so take care and have a nice life.

 

[KruZin]

Actually... this is where you are completely misunderstanding the insurance policy in the UK. As I have been there... that's the maximum allowed to insure a package through the postage option he has chosen.


 


It isn't that he didn't want to insure it more. It is more that he can't with his chosen postage.


 


And please don't tell him he should have went to FedEx or UPS. They are ridiculously expensive, no matter to what comparison. Even if he somehow managed to pay $2000 worth of audio gear... and maybe it is exactly because he has just afford $2000 worth of audio gear that he couldn't afford to post it through something expensive. As a 20 years old kid, I understand the difference of being able to pay a certain limit.


 


Honestly, I feel like if both side of the arguments are being ridiculously redundant at this point. KruZin, you are better off just focus on getting your earphones back instead of replying. Good luck.

 

Hi, I was actually replying to the last post when you posted the above so did not see your post and I have again just said everything you had said, sorry.
Yeah your right, it's best I think I just stop replying to all the messages as they seem to be coming back on me and making me look like the bad guy here not that JHA are either.
Thanks.

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

Actually... this is where you are completely misunderstanding the insurance policy in the UK. As I have been there... that's the maximum allowed to insure a package through the postage option he has chosen.
 
It isn't that he didn't want to insure it more. It is more that he can't with his chosen postage.
 
And please don't tell him he should have went to FedEx or UPS. They are ridiculously expensive, no matter to what comparison. Even if he somehow managed to pay $2000 worth of audio gear... and maybe it is exactly because he has just afford $2000 worth of audio gear that he couldn't afford to post it through something expensive. As a 20 years old kid, I understand the difference of being able to pay a certain limit.
 
Honestly, I feel like if both side of the arguments are being ridiculously redundant at this point. KruZin, you are better off just focus on getting your earphones back instead of replying. Good luck.

One more. We both have his best interests in mind but things go in circles when points are not acknowledged. Being a 20 year old with limited funds means he's also less able to afford losing them. I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their hard earned money but it's only prudent to protect an investment according to your ability to replace it. Perhaps being 20 with the world as your oyster, you don't yet comprehend this but you wouldn't consider insuring a new car or home for less than 1/2 of it's value either. Some things are self evident and rationalizing a poor decision wont change that nor will ignoring a pivotal bolded word in the last exchange make it go away. He should have used another service or split ship via post. There is no way he couldn't have found a few more quid to get this shipped properly. Oops and I hope it works out is a fine answer and we'd all feel for the guy. Tracking was a good call and some ins. will at least get the post to do a thorough search but if they're not located, it will be bad for all. I still wish him the best possible outcome, that JH has misplaced them and makes it right but that doesn't make me willing to ignore the circumstances or statements involved. If he wasn't looking for opinion, he shouldn't have posted.

 

[maxjam]

Goodvibes, what the OP is i believe said to you now on a couple of occasions is that you said that he, let me repeat that (He) the OP used britany's search as proof that his earphones were posibly delivered nearby.
I have read your post and that is clearly what you said.
I have also just gone throught the whole 12 pages and cant see any post where the OP is using britany's search as proof or even saying that they posibly got delivered nearby so you did accuse the kid of saying something he never did.
Hope this clears up this pointless argument and i hope the the OP gets back his earphones one way or the other.
Best of luck.

 

[goodvibes]

LOL. Proof of possibly being delivered, not proof of being delivered as is being implied was said by the OP. My god, is everybody context impaired? I was showing that at one point he said that that there shouldn't be any question that they had them due to tracking and emails proving such and at another, that the post office will check to see it's not been delivered to someone else's mail box by mistake. Basically taking an aggressive line and then changing to a more appropriate one that is not copacetic. I never stated in any way that the package was anywhere at any time or that there was any proof of anything other than conflict in some statements. I did mistakenly say I didn't use the word proof ( that's right, I'm not claiming to be perfect) because I didn't go back and read the post but I knew the intent and meaning and there was no proof of anything regarding the shipment involved in any way. I've obviously done so now and there is no suggestion that he proved that tyhe package was delivered elsewhere. Only proof that he accepted the possibity of such after denying it earlier. He eased his stance about where the package might be after being very accusational about it definitely being at JH. That's all I was referring to.
 
Maxwell, I guess it's argumentative when doing the right thing is argued as not being so. How does that help the next guy do it right? So you now agree with me about the rationalization of errors but it took a long post that you didn't care for for that to happen. I think the first post didn't even need to be here so we're in agreement.
 
You can all have at me about a relatively meaningless semantics regarding the affair as I'm out for good this time. Again, Good luck on retrieving your phones.

 

[MaxwellDemon]

Quote:

Quote:

Actually... this is where you are completely misunderstanding the insurance policy in the UK. As I have been there... that's the maximum allowed to insure a package through the postage option he has chosen.
 
It isn't that he didn't want to insure it more. It is more that he can't with his chosen postage.
 
And please don't tell him he should have went to FedEx or UPS. They are ridiculously expensive, no matter to what comparison. Even if he somehow managed to pay $2000 worth of audio gear... and maybe it is exactly because he has just afford $2000 worth of audio gear that he couldn't afford to post it through something expensive. As a 20 years old kid, I understand the difference of being able to pay a certain limit.
 
Honestly, I feel like if both side of the arguments are being ridiculously redundant at this point. KruZin, you are better off just focus on getting your earphones back instead of replying. Good luck.

One more. We both have his best interests in mind but things go in circles when points are not acknowledged. Being a 20 year old with limited funds means he's also less able to afford losing them. I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their hard earned money but it's only prudent to protect an investment according to your ability to replace it. Perhaps being 20 with the world as your oyster, you don't yet comprehend this but you wouldn't consider insuring a new car or home for less than 1/2 of it's value either. Some things are self evident and rationalizing a poor decision wont change that nor will ignoring a pivotal bolded word in the last exchange make it go away. He should have used another service or split ship via post. There is no way he couldn't have found a few more quid to get this shipped properly. Oops and I hope it works out is a fine answer and we'd all feel for the guy. Tracking was a good call and some ins. will at least get the post to do a thorough search but if they're not located, it will be bad for all. I still wish him the best possible outcome, that JH has misplaced them and makes it right but that doesn't make me willing to ignore the circumstances or statements involved. If he wasn't looking for opinion, he shouldn't have posted.

You are honestly coming off very reprimanding and argumentative despite of all the "good luck" notes you leave in the back. Any more pearls of wisdom you want to share?
 
Sure, rationalizing a poor decision won't change anything... nor will posting tons of repetitive "you should have..."
 
If you want to talk about changing things, maybe all of us should stop posting until JH Audio sort things out.

 

[maxjam]

But the fact remains that you did say that the OP was using britany's search as proof of the earphones posibly being delivered nearby when he did not say that.
I have now again went through the whole 12 pages to refresh my memory and like i thought, i cant see anywhere where the OP implies you said proof of being delivered instead of proof of posibly being delivered.
All i can see is the OP just repeating what you said to him which i have also seen and is available for anyone else to see on page 10, nowhere can i find what you have claimed the OP has implied.
I think maybe you should stop arguing with the OP and go read the posts firsts before you make any further false accusations against the kid.
The post office will check to see it's not been delivered to someone else's mail box was said to the OP by britany so again here you are accusing the OP of saying something when he was just stating what he was told by britany.
As you admit yourself, you did mistakenly say you didn't use the word proof because you didn't go back and read your own post and you have made even more mistakes in this post that i am replying to, i suggest you go and read the previous posts before you make any further false accusations.

 
Quote:

LOL. Proof of possibly being delivered, not proof of being delivered as is being implied was said by the OP. My god, is everybody context impaired? I was showing that at one point he said that that there shouldn't be any question that they had them due to tracking and emails proving such and at another, that the post office will check to see it's not been delivered to someone else's mail box by mistake. Basically taking an aggressive line and then changing to a more appropriate one that is not copacetic. I never stated in any way that the package was anywhere at any time or that there was any proof of anything other than conflict in some statements. I did mistakenly say I didn't use the word proof because I didn't go back and read the post but I knew the intent and meaning and there was no proof of anything regarding the shipment involved in any way. He eased his stance about where the package might be after being very acquisitional about it definitely being at JH. That's all I was referring to.

 

[goodvibes]

Sorry to continue this but I don't want to appear like I'm blowing you off or ducking the issue even though I feel this conversation is boardering on silly. You can not care for and admonish my posts but don't misrepresent them and continue to change the facts. This is his original question. I was out of this thread pages ago had he not asked it and I will be once you stop misrepresenting this sentence from post #141 "can you tell me where exactly I'm trying to say that Brittany's search is proof they was delivered near by? " No possibly in there. Pretty important bit you seemed to missed and this is what he responded to. My quote to what he asked about " You say that they know they have them and then use Britany's search as proof of them posibly being delivered near by. You can't have both ways. " and that was the only point. That he's insisting on one thing and then allows for a different possibility. I never said he or I had any proof of them being actually delivered anywhere and that's exactly what he's saying that I posted with that question. It's always been my position during the entire thread that we have no clue where they are. You've managed to conveniently miss one of the 2 original quotes in the discussion after saying how thorough you were.
 
If it's a translation or language thing for some, that's understandable. Possibly is analogous to might be and can't be used in a proof of anything. He had allowed that the package might be delivered elsewhere so yes he used it as proof that it possibly was delivered elsewhere. Possibly not is not excluded. You guys are getting hung up on a word that was misrepresented in his original question. Had I known, I would have chosen another (like evidence) with the exact same meaning in this context. What an odd thing to grasp for and hang on to.

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

If you want to talk about changing things, maybe all of us should stop posting until JH Audio sort things out.

that'd be the most productive thing that could happen for now!!! 

 

[maxjam]

Quote:

Sorry to continue this but I don't want to appear like I'm blowing you off or ducking the issue even though I feel this conversation is boardering on silly. You can not care for and admonish my posts but don't misrepresent them and continue to change the facts. This is his original question. I was out of this thread pages ago had he not asked it and I will be once you stop misrepresenting this sentence from post #141 "can you tell me where exactly I'm trying to say that Brittany's search is proof they was delivered near by? " No possibly in there. Pretty important bit you seemed to missed and this is what he responded to. My quote to what he asked about " You say that they know they have them and then use Britany's search as proof of them posibly being delivered near by. You can't have both ways. " and that was the only point. That he's insisting on one thing and then allows for a different possibility. I never said he or I had any proof of them being actually delivered anywhere and that's exactly what he's saying that I posted with that question. It's always been my position during the entire thread that we have no clue where they are. You've managed to conveniently miss one of the 2 original quotes in the discussion after saying how thorough you were.
 
If it's a translation or language thing for some, that's understandable. Possibly is analogous to might be and can't be used in a proof of anything. He had allowed that the package might be delivered elsewhere so yes he used it as proof that it possibly was delivered elsewhere. Possibly not is not excluded. You guys are getting hung up on a word that was misrepresented in his original question. Had I known, I would have chosen another (like evidence) with the exact same meaning in this context. What an odd thing to grasp for and hang on to.

Well it looks like maybe the OP forgot to say that you said posibly delivered nearby, but that is not the point here and the fact here still remains that You did say that the OP was using britany's search as proof of them posibly being delivered nearby, but i have looked through every single post and cant find any post by the OP where he is using what britany told him as proof of them being delivered nearby or even posible being delivered nearby so try to get that fact  in to your head.
The important matter at hand is that you accused the OP of saying something or implying something he did not.
Also from what i have read, the OP had not allowed allowed for the fact that the package might have been delivered elsewhere, so here you go making accusations again when theOP never said nor suggested that posibility.
You are also now trying to insult myself and other people with the suggestion that we do not know the meaning of proof by saying you should have chosen another word like evedence, when im sure everyone knows that proof and evidence have the same meaning.
Like i said before, i suggest to you that you go back and read all the posts by the OP and yourself before you go around accusing the kid of saying or meaning things he did not.
 
 

 

[The Monkey]

Or maybe we should just forget about it.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

I agree with this! Everyone including me and especially KruZin should just stop posting on this subject until JHA has a chance to sort things out.
 
Quote:

Quote:

If you want to talk about changing things, maybe all of us should stop posting until JH Audio sort things out.

that'd be the most productive thing that could happen for now!!! 

 

 

[MR.X]

 
Just curious how much would it have costed if you used FEDEX, UPS or similar service?