warehouse club warning

[Douglas]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:8MudnZM47r0BSdnfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...

>
> Never mind embarrassing himself and all his country-mates, he's asssuring
> himself of constant discomfort and early incapacitation and demise. He
> should take my earlier advice: leave these groups and relax.
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
Thank you for that Frank... Our prime Minister has done the embarrassing. I
often feel ashamed to be an Australian when I see what he has done in
concert with the US.

Unfortunately if you speak up against it you get branded an embarrassing
troublemaker and if you do nothing you just become one of despicable
mongrels. Which are you Frank?

Douglas

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Douglas wrote:
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
> news:8MudnZM47r0BSdnfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
>
>
>>Never mind embarrassing himself and all his country-mates, he's asssuring
>>himself of constant discomfort and early incapacitation and demise. He
>>should take my earlier advice: leave these groups and relax.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Frank ess
>>
>
> Thank you for that Frank... Our prime Minister has done the embarrassing. I
> often feel ashamed to be an Australian when I see what he has done in
> concert with the US.
>
> Unfortunately if you speak up against it you get branded an embarrassing
> troublemaker and if you do nothing you just become one of despicable
> mongrels. Which are you Frank?
>
> Douglas
>
>
Speaking for myself. I am a Texan, and we believe in shooting first,
and being around to ask questions later.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:46:34 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <_ba1e.14021$9m4.4833@fe07.lga> wrote:

>Douglas wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
>> news:8MudnZM47r0BSdnfRVn-rQ@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>Never mind embarrassing himself and all his country-mates, he's asssuring
>>>himself of constant discomfort and early incapacitation and demise. He
>>>should take my earlier advice: leave these groups and relax.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Frank ess
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for that Frank... Our prime Minister has done the embarrassing. I
>> often feel ashamed to be an Australian when I see what he has done in
>> concert with the US.
>>
>> Unfortunately if you speak up against it you get branded an embarrassing
>> troublemaker and if you do nothing you just become one of despicable
>> mongrels. Which are you Frank?
>>
>> Douglas
>>
>>
>Speaking for myself. I am a Texan, and we believe in shooting first,
>and being around to ask questions later.

Funny, I thought that was the kind of idea we were crusading against.
My mistake.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sga1e.44331$rB3.7826367@twister.nyc.rr.com...

> Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product number you
can
> compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an inferior
product
> to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical side
figures
> they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line will
still
> benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of it, the
rest of me
> thinks that way nowadays, too.
>
> I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and Walmart
brands on
> the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing that was
supposed
> to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a slightly
different
> size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else might have
been
> different, and I don't think the price was much different than any other place
I
> might have gone.
>
> To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had
managed a
> couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the camera
> department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to sell
them, but
> after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to step on
them
> and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be. Since the
counter
> was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction I don't
think
> they had much choice about issuing a refund.
>
> --
> Steve
>
> The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
> belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
>
> If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
>

Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers and other
code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code numbers on
Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and retail due to
different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers' reasonable
expectation is that identical names means identical contents.

Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will represent a
bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack was from a
retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any more]. But
that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to the good
readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail photo shop
is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are getting when
you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club -- at
least for this particular brand.

Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very group was
based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value of what
we learned there is also in question.

And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the several
other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the various
warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so sure. Anyone
from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SamSez wrote:
> "Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:sga1e.44331$rB3.7826367@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
>>Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product number you
>
> can
>
>>compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an inferior
>
> product
>
>>to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical side
>
> figures
>
>>they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line will
>
> still
>
>>benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of it, the
>
> rest of me
>
>>thinks that way nowadays, too.
>>
>>I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and Walmart
>
> brands on
>
>>the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing that was
>
> supposed
>
>>to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a slightly
>
> different
>
>>size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else might have
>
> been
>
>>different, and I don't think the price was much different than any other place
>
> I
>
>>might have gone.
>>
>>To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had
>
> managed a
>
>>couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the camera
>>department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to sell
>
> them, but
>
>>after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to step on
>
> them
>
>>and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be. Since the
>
> counter
>
>>was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction I don't
>
> think
>
>>they had much choice about issuing a refund.
>>
>>--
>>Steve
>>
>>The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
>>belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
>>
>>If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
>>
>
>
> Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
> impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers and other
> code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code numbers on
> Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and retail due to
> different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers' reasonable
> expectation is that identical names means identical contents.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will represent a
> bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack was from a
> retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any more]. But
> that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to the good
> readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail photo shop
> is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are getting when
> you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club -- at
> least for this particular brand.
>
> Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very group was
> based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value of what
> we learned there is also in question.
>
> And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the several
> other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the various
> warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so sure. Anyone
> from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?
>
>
I have bought several different types of Kodak paper at Sam's, and at
other places. Haven't noticed any difference in quality (and not much
in price, either), but I have noticed that my previous favorite for
making greeeting cards, the Kodak soft gloss glossy on both sides paper
is no longer available at Sam's. I guess Kodak refused to meet Sam's
price point.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:46:34 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Speaking for myself. I am a Texan, and we believe in shooting first,
>and being around to ask questions later.

Don't Mess With Texas!!!! A few years back when doing some work in
S.E. Asia. I bumped into a guy that sounded like he was from North
America. I asked him if he was an American and he looked at me
straight in the eye and said, "Nope, I'm a Texan". I liked that
because I have Tennessee lineage traced back to that little scuffle at
the Alamo.

I'm not from Texas but my front tag says it all:
"American by Birth, Southern by the grace of God!"

Regards from a `Sons of the Confederacy',
DW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:XEg1e.761$i37.512@fe02.lga...
> Rick Brandt wrote:
>> There was a documentary on CNN (I believe) recently that explored how
>> Wal-Mart conducts business with its suppliers. After watching that I can
>> tell you that it is almost a certainty that Ilford solicited Wal-Mart to sell
>> their product and offered a wholesale price for doing so after which Wal-Mart
>> "counter-offered" with "We will be glad to sell your product. Here is the
>> wholesale price that you _will_ sell it to us for."
>>
>> This non-negotiable price that Wal-Mart specifies in a very high percentage
>> of cases forces the supplier to cut costs somewhere to make any profit at all
>> and I suspect that this is what Ilford did. I agree that a change in the
>> name/packaging would have been a better service to the final consumer.
>
> I sense that you think this Wal-Mart policy is wrong, but if it is, then all
> large companies are doing the same wrong thing. Don't you think that
> Sears/KMart doesn't do the same thing? Haven't you read how GM, Chrysler, and
> Ford 'manage' their parts suppliers? It's called controlling costs to make a
> profit.

I wasn't making a moral judgment one way or the other. Simply offering a
explanation why a product purchased at Wal-Mart/Sams might be of lower quality
than the same brand sold through other outlets, that being that the price
structures imposed on the suppliers can force them to "cheapen" the product if
they want to do business with Wal-Mart.

 

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <GOg1e.766$i37.554@fe02.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> I am sure they know what they ordered. Now knowing what they GOT is
> another matter entirely. NO company has the personnel to inspect every
> shipment of a product for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.
> Example. I buy 'jumbo' eggs, because they are a better value, but in
> almost EVERY PACK, I find at least one egg that is noticeably smaller
> than all the others. So who is doing this? The store, other customers,
> the packager?
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>

Im pretty sure its the chickens Ron..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> SamSez wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:42447358.388A@cox.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I buy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I buy from from
>>>>>> Walmart, I
>>>>>> expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
>>>>>> sticker, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
>>>>>> IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
>>>>>> what they use for their dealer stuff. That's just plain WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you label them identically, the consumer has every
>>>>>> expectation that
>>>>>> the same stuff is inside.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> did the wrappers look similar,
>>>>> or were the product numbers the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> many products come in multiple flavors for different buyers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
>>>> similar but
>>>> not identical, but as we all know, packaging is updated all the time.
>>>>
>>>> I contend that if you are going to call it the same thing -- to
>>>> that level of
>>>> sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
>>>> prescription
>>>> drugs, I dare you...]
>>>>
>>>> Go to the Sams Club website -- look up Ilford. Then open a second
>>>> window on
>>>> Ilford's website.
>>>>
>>>> As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
>>>> Range Smooth
>>>> Pearl Paper" and Sams Club only lists one "Ilford Galerie
>>>> Professional Inkjet
>>>> Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I supposed to expect?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sounds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end user.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't see that. These stores provide the manufacturers with
>> specifications that lead into a contract. Big stores have
>> departments that inspect the goods and see that the products they buy
>> do meet the specifications they pay for. If Ilford was doing that
>> kind of stuff then I am sure they would intermittently short their
>> own dealers and sooner or later they would get caught.
>>
>>>
>>>
> And didn't they?
> Sam's stocks thousands of items, many of which change frequently. I
> doubt they examine every shipment of every product to assure that
> quality hasn't been compromised. They rely on customer complaints to
> catch such things.

General Motors also has thousands of parts going into their automobiles
that are outsourced. And they inspect representative samples of each
shipment to insure they meet the specifications they require and they
have the same safety ratings they require. Many customers would not
know if they are short changed on paper requirements.

>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Hvnter wrote:

> Jer wrote:
>
>> Ron Hvnter wrote:
>>
>>> SamSez wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:42447358.388A@cox.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I bvy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I bvy from from
>>>>>> Walmart, I
>>>>>> expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
>>>>>> sticker, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
>>>>>> IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
>>>>>> what they vse for their dealer stvff. That's jvst plain WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When yov label them identically, the consvmer has every
>>>>>> expectation that
>>>>>> the same stvff is inside.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> did the wrappers look similar,
>>>>> or were the prodvct nvmbers the same?
>>>>>
>>>>> many prodvcts come in mvltiple flavors for different bvyers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
>>>> similar bvt
>>>> not identical, bvt as we all know, packaging is vpdated all the time.
>>>>
>>>> I contend that if yov are going to call it the same thing -- to
>>>> that level of
>>>> sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
>>>> prescription
>>>> drvgs, I dare yov...]
>>>>
>>>> Go to the Sams Clvb website -- look vp Ilford. Then open a second
>>>> window on
>>>> Ilford's website.
>>>>
>>>> As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
>>>> Range Smooth
>>>> Pearl Paper" and Sams Clvb only lists one "Ilford Galerie
>>>> Professional Inkjet
>>>> Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I svpposed to expect?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sovnds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end vser.
>>>
>>
>> Considering that Walwart (Sam's) is notoriovs for flexing their
>> discovnt mvscles with their svppliers, it seems that both covld be
>> complicit in this deception. Walwart demands lesser qvality (to
>> force a lower price) and Ilford complies becavse they're being
>> covrted by a retail discovnter with hvndreds of stores fvll of
>> bargain hvnters and staffed by vnderpaid wanks.
>>
>>
> I dovbt that Wal-mart was complicit in this case, and the average
> Wal-mart employee gets $9.96/hovr, plvs one of the best profit sharing
> plans in the bvsiness.

Thats poverty level. Their Gas cost them 50% of their wages. Their
rent cost 60% of their wages (California). What are they going to eat?
Besides, they make them work overtime and do not pay them. There are
many lawsvits against this organization. Their own managers have stated
they are reqvired (vnofficially) to do these things to meet profit goals
or they will not have a job.All of this was exposed on mvltiple news
programs inclvding 60 minvtes.

> Don't feel too sorry for them. The charges of vnderpayment are made
> by labor vnions becavse Wal-Mart won't pvt vp with their extortion.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:17:01 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thats poverty level. Their Gas cost them 50% of their wages. Their
>rent cost 60% of their wages (California). What are they going to eat?
>Besides, they make them work overtime and do not pay them. There are
>many lawsuits against this organization. Their own managers have stated
>they are required (unofficially) to do these things to meet profit goals
>or they will not have a job.All of this was exposed on multiple news
>programs including 60 minutes.

Ah, yes... 60 Minutes.
The *Paragon* of objective reporting!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dave wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:46:34 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking for myself. I am a Texan, and we believe in shooting first,
>>and being around to ask questions later.
>
>
> Don't Mess With Texas!!!! A few years back when doing some work in
> S.E. Asia. I bumped into a guy that sounded like he was from North
> America. I asked him if he was an American and he looked at me
> straight in the eye and said, "Nope, I'm a Texan". I liked that
> because I have Tennessee lineage traced back to that little scuffle at
> the Alamo.
>
> I'm not from Texas but my front tag says it all:
> "American by Birth, Southern by the grace of God!"
>
> Regards from a `Sons of the Confederacy',
> DW
>
I am 7th generation 'Texian'. It might take some research to find out
exactly what that means. Unfortunately, I was BORN in New Orleans, but
it WASN'T MY FAULT!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Ron Hvnter wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hvnter wrote:
>>>
>>>> SamSez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:42447358.388A@cox.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I bvy a Toyota from a Toyota dealer, then I bvy from from
>>>>>>> Walmart, I
>>>>>>> expect to get a Toyota. It's labeled a Toyota, has the same window
>>>>>>> sticker, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not expect to get a Ford engine and cheaper seats for the
>>>>>>> IDENTICALLY LABELED Toyota.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ilford wrapped materially different paper inside the same wrapper as
>>>>>>> what they vse for their dealer stvff. That's jvst plain WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When yov label them identically, the consvmer has every
>>>>>>> expectation that
>>>>>>> the same stvff is inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> did the wrappers look similar,
>>>>>> or were the prodvct nvmbers the same?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> many prodvcts come in mvltiple flavors for different bvyers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The FULL ENTIRE NINE WORD name is the same. The packaging is very
>>>>> similar bvt
>>>>> not identical, bvt as we all know, packaging is vpdated all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I contend that if yov are going to call it the same thing -- to
>>>>> that level of
>>>>> sameness -- it had better BE the same thing [try this trick with
>>>>> prescription
>>>>> drvgs, I dare yov...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Go to the Sams Clvb website -- look vp Ilford. Then open a second
>>>>> window on
>>>>> Ilford's website.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Ilford only lists one "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo
>>>>> Range Smooth
>>>>> Pearl Paper" and Sams Clvb only lists one "Ilford Galerie
>>>>> Professional Inkjet
>>>>> Photo Range Smooth Pearl Paper", what am I svpposed to expect?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sovnds like Ilford was scamming Sam's as well as the end vser.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that Walwart (Sam's) is notoriovs for flexing their
>>> discovnt mvscles with their svppliers, it seems that both covld be
>>> complicit in this deception. Walwart demands lesser qvality (to
>>> force a lower price) and Ilford complies becavse they're being
>>> covrted by a retail discovnter with hvndreds of stores fvll of
>>> bargain hvnters and staffed by vnderpaid wanks.
>>>
>>>
>> I dovbt that Wal-mart was complicit in this case, and the average
>> Wal-mart employee gets $9.96/hovr, plvs one of the best profit sharing
>> plans in the bvsiness.
>
>
> Thats poverty level. Their Gas cost them 50% of their wages. Their
> rent cost 60% of their wages (California). What are they going to eat?
> Besides, they make them work overtime and do not pay them. There are
> many lawsvits against this organization. Their own managers have stated
> they are reqvired (vnofficially) to do these things to meet profit goals
> or they will not have a job.All of this was exposed on mvltiple news
> programs inclvding 60 minvtes.
>
>> Don't feel too sorry for them. The charges of vnderpayment are made
>> by labor vnions becavse Wal-Mart won't pvt vp with their extortion.
>>
>>


If the rate, $9.96/hr is trve, it beats many, many retail stores. Many
of them pay only $7 and change. McDonald's in NYC pays $6 something,
whatever the minimvm set by the NY state and do yov svggest living in
NYC is cheaper?

Back to the original issve. Many retailers don't have the resovrces to
check every item. They depend on the trvst of the svppliers. For
instant, many department stores carry jewelry. How can they tell it's
14K, vs. 18K gold? Ilford is obligated to not vsing the same name for
prodvcts with different grades. There is no reason for the retailers to
do svch a trick.

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> in <ip31e.9187$9o4.9074@fe03.lga> wrote:
>
>
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cuW0e.1557$FN4.1490@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The nice thing about Costco is that
>>>>they have a return policy unmatched by other.
>>>
>>>
>>>They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sams club is Walmart. I
>>>>do not like the way they take advantage of their employees and see no
>>>>advantage of doing business with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.
>>>
>>
>>Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement in
>>US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.
>
>
> Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
> ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
> so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.


Only Walmart??? I would think many retailers hire as few full time
workers as possible. They have little trouble finding people to fill in
at any time. Their actual excuse is they pay less but offer FLEX time
schedule for many moms and students and managers need to work harder to
find people for the shifts. LOL.

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Rick Brandt wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:XEg1e.761$i37.512@fe02.lga...
>
>>Rick Brandt wrote:
>>
>>>There was a documentary on CNN (I believe) recently that explored how
>>>Wal-Mart conducts business with its suppliers. After watching that I can
>>>tell you that it is almost a certainty that Ilford solicited Wal-Mart to sell
>>>their product and offered a wholesale price for doing so after which Wal-Mart
>>>"counter-offered" with "We will be glad to sell your product. Here is the
>>>wholesale price that you _will_ sell it to us for."
>>>
>>>This non-negotiable price that Wal-Mart specifies in a very high percentage
>>>of cases forces the supplier to cut costs somewhere to make any profit at all
>>>and I suspect that this is what Ilford did. I agree that a change in the
>>>name/packaging would have been a better service to the final consumer.
>>
>>I sense that you think this Wal-Mart policy is wrong, but if it is, then all
>>large companies are doing the same wrong thing. Don't you think that
>>Sears/KMart doesn't do the same thing? Haven't you read how GM, Chrysler, and
>>Ford 'manage' their parts suppliers? It's called controlling costs to make a
>>profit.
>
>
> I wasn't making a moral judgment one way or the other. Simply offering a
> explanation why a product purchased at Wal-Mart/Sams might be of lower quality
> than the same brand sold through other outlets, that being that the price
> structures imposed on the suppliers can force them to "cheapen" the product if
> they want to do business with Wal-Mart.


The concept that many clothing companies make lower quality clothing for
warehouse. You won't notice that because they don't sell the same items
or use the same name. Clothing made for Gap Oulet is lower grade than
Gap. Same idea for Ilford, the UPC code got to be difference. Why don't
they use a different name?

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> SamSez wrote:
>
>> "Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:sga1e.44331$rB3.7826367@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>> Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product
>>> number you
>>
>>
>> can
>>
>>> compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an
>>> inferior
>>
>>
>> product
>>
>>> to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical
>>> side
>>
>>
>> figures
>>
>>> they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line
>>> will
>>
>>
>> still
>>
>>> benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of
>>> it, the
>>
>>
>> rest of me
>>
>>> thinks that way nowadays, too.
>>>
>>> I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and
>>> Walmart
>>
>>
>> brands on
>>
>>> the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing
>>> that was
>>
>>
>> supposed
>>
>>> to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a
>>> slightly
>>
>>
>> different
>>
>>> size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else
>>> might have
>>
>>
>> been
>>
>>> different, and I don't think the price was much different than any
>>> other place
>>
>>
>> I
>>
>>> might have gone.
>>>
>>> To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had
>>
>>
>> managed a
>>
>>> couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the
>>> camera
>>> department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to
>>> sell
>>
>>
>> them, but
>>
>>> after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to
>>> step on
>>
>>
>> them
>>
>>> and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be.
>>> Since the
>>
>>
>> counter
>>
>>> was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction
>>> I don't
>>
>>
>> think
>>
>>> they had much choice about issuing a refund.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a
>>> reasonable
>>> belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
>> impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers
>> and other
>> code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code
>> numbers on
>> Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and
>> retail due to
>> different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers'
>> reasonable
>> expectation is that identical names means identical contents.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will
>> represent a
>> bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack
>> was from a
>> retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any
>> more]. But
>> that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to
>> the good
>> readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail
>> photo shop
>> is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are
>> getting when
>> you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club
>> -- at
>> least for this particular brand.
>>
>> Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very
>> group was
>> based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value
>> of what
>> we learned there is also in question.
>>
>> And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the
>> several
>> other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the
>> various
>> warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so
>> sure. Anyone
>> from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?
>>
>>
> I have bought several different types of Kodak paper at Sam's, and at
> other places. Haven't noticed any difference in quality (and not much
> in price, either), but I have noticed that my previous favorite for
> making greeeting cards, the Kodak soft gloss glossy on both sides paper
> is no longer available at Sam's. I guess Kodak refused to meet Sam's
> price point.


And soon we'll only find Kirland brands at Costco...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> in <ip31e.9187$9o4.9074@fe03.lga> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <cuW0e.1557$FN4.1490@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The nice thing about Costco is that they have a return policy
>>>>> unmatched by other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sams club is Walmart. I do not like the way they take advantage of
>>>>> their employees and see no advantage of doing business with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement
>>> in US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
>> ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
>> so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.
>>
>>
> Probably not. But then if you take a job, you have to know that
> part-time and full-time don't get the same benefits. ALL companies try
> to manage their benefits packages to assure that their business makes a
> profit and is still around to pay their employees NEXT year.
>
>

This is about wooden head so maybe it isn't off
topic. You missed a point or two. Many of
Walmart employees are retired and already have a
variety of benefits from their previous
employment. They don't need health care and
don't need retirement plans and since they work
part time they don't need paid vacations. Since
benefits plans can easily add 1/3 to the pay and
probably are nearly all worth at least $3-5 per
hour, Walmart can eliminate the benefits and pay
higher wages and still make a profit. So which
would a retired worker prefer-- higher pay, or
duplicate what he already has.

Other employees may need a benefit package and
need to consider that when trying to get a job.
Complaining about lack of benefits or lack of full
time employment after one accepts something less
is just sour grapes. If you don't like a company
or don't like the wages and benefits, don't work
for them. Like I said, wooden head or maybe just
knot heads.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

SamSez wrote:
> "Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:sga1e.44331$rB3.7826367@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
>>Out of curiosity have you looked carefully at the box for a product number you
>
> can
>
>>compare? Why a company with a known name like Ilford would allow an inferior
>
> product
>
>>to be sold with exactly the same name puzzles me somewhat. My cynical side
>
> figures
>
>>they know some people will get burned, but believe their bottom line will
>
> still
>
>>benefit from the extra sales to the budget crowd. Come to think of it, the
>
> rest of me
>
>>thinks that way nowadays, too.
>>
>>I once bought 3 disposable cameras that had both the Fujifilm and Walmart
>
> brands on
>
>>the package intending to use them in an underwater camera housing that was
>
> supposed
>
>>to take Fujifilm disposables. Apparently the Walmart version was a slightly
>
> different
>
>>size, so the controls didn't quite work. I have no idea what else might have
>
> been
>
>>different, and I don't think the price was much different than any other place
>
> I
>
>>might have gone.
>>
>>To their credit, Walmart refunded the price for all 3, even though I had
>
> managed a
>
>>couple of shots on one and opened all 3. Initially the manager of the camera
>>department said he couldn't accept them since he wouldn't be able to sell
>
> them, but
>
>>after a bit of bitching another manager told the returns desk help to step on
>
> them
>
>>and say they were broken when the customer opened them if need be. Since the
>
> counter
>
>>was under a sign that said something about 100% customer satisfaction I don't
>
> think
>
>>they had much choice about issuing a refund.
>>
>>--
>>Steve
>>
>>The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
>>belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.
>>
>>If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
>>
>
>
> Yes, if you have the two packages both in hand [unlikely in a store, and
> impossible for the pack that I ordered over the web], the UPC numbers and other
> code numbers are different on the packages -- but the UPC and code numbers on
> Corn Flakes boxes are also often different between warehouse and retail due to
> different sizing, combined packing, etc., and yet, this consumers' reasonable
> expectation is that identical names means identical contents.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that Sams will take the product back, though it will represent a
> bit of a hassle, as the pearl pack was web order and the glossy pack was from a
> retail location [and I'm not sure I even have the retail receipt any more]. But
> that was not the point of my original post -- the point was to note to the good
> readers of this group that the paper you buy from your local retail photo shop
> is potentially a higher quality that what you might think you are getting when
> you buy the identically labeled brand name product at a warehouse club -- at
> least for this particular brand.
>
> Recall too, one recent 'inkjet print longevity' thread in this very group was
> based on prints made on paper bought at a warehouse club, so the value of what
> we learned there is also in question.
>
> And the bigger question remains -- does this experience apply to the several
> other major name brands of named photo inkjet papers sold at all the various
> warehouse clubs? I never thought so before, but now I'm not so sure. Anyone
> from Kodak, HP, or Epson care to comment?
>
>
Sounds like a straw horse to me. People use to
(maybe still do) say that brand names sold by
chain stores were lower in quality than those sold
by an appliance store. It wasn't true then and it
isn't true now. No brand name manufacture is
likely to degrade his standing by producing a
quality product and an economical product with the
same model number.

There may be instances of this, the Ilford paper
seems to be such a case, but it is rare and
probably the result of some marketing idiot at
Ilford. Just think how much negativity this
Ilford paper case has generated. How many people
will now never buy Ilford because of it? Don't
get this confused with different models, but names
in paper are the same as model numbers in a
refrigerator. Manufacture are smart enough not to
sell a product with different qualities under the
same model number.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>It's mostly Iiford's mistake (I prefer to call it
>a mistake, rather than trick)

How about if it's neither a trick nor a mistake...

One of the ploys that companies like Sam's, (+ Walmart of course,) and Costco do is
buy millions of dollars worth of product and when the manufacturer ramps up their
product to the increased demand, the big store demands price decreases or threatens
to bail out. The manufacturer has no choice but to lower quality to get to the lower
price.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>NO company has the personnel to inspect every
>shipment of a product for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.

Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving quality control
to chance.

Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of paper from Ilford.
The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on with a printer, 8"
x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more detailed. They
know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality control people who
will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant. They check HOW a
product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is made to those
specifications.

Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies will sometimes
compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but companies like
Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:
> Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>
>>NO company has the personnel to inspect every
>>shipment of a product for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.
>
>
> Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving quality control
> to chance.

Not to chance. I am sure they examine samples, and set specifications,
or approve a product based on production samples of a current product.
But surely you understand that they can't inspect every shipment to
verify that quality remains the same.

>
> Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of paper from Ilford.
> The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on with a printer, 8"
> x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more detailed. They
> know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality control people who
> will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant. They check HOW a
> product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is made to those
> specifications.

Sam's sells thousands of products. How many people do you think they
can have inspecting merchandise that way and still make a profit.

>
> Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies will sometimes
> compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but companies like
> Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:09:28 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <cHg1e.763$i37.384@fe02.lga> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:56:38 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> in <rla1e.14026$9m4.7961@fe07.lga> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>>>><rphunter@charter.net> in <ip31e.9187$9o4.9074@fe03.lga> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <cuW0e.1557$FN4.1490@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The nice thing about Costco is that
>>>>>>>they have a return policy unmatched by other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sams club is Walmart. I
>>>>>>>do not like the way they take advantage of their employees and see no
>>>>>>>advantage of doing business with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement in
>>>>>US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
>>>>ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
>>>>so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Probably not. But then if you take a job, you have to know that
>>>part-time and full-time don't get the same benefits. ALL companies try
>>>to manage their benefits packages to assure that their business makes a
>>>profit and is still around to pay their employees NEXT year.
>>
>>
>> Actually that is a bit deceptive. Quite a few companies do (or did at
>> least) try to ensure that their employees were around next year and
>> healthy and doing pretty well. Walmart certainly sells us the idea
>> that they treat their employees really well. But having policies that
>> ensure that they don't get health care is not treating them well. The
>> stockholders of a company are not the only stakeholders in that
>> company
>>
>>
>I am sorry, but I can't see any reason to expect ANY company to provide
>healthcare for its employees. In point of fact, MOST small companies
>CAN'T if they hope to remain in business. It is pretty generous for any
>company to provide healthcare for ANY of their employees. I am glad
>they DO, but I can't see how this is any basic right.

I am not sure how we got to "basic rights" here. We were talking about
ways to judge a company. I agree that companies should not be
responsible for health care: if we want to live in a healthy society
we need to deal with it as a societal level.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:09:28 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> in <cHg1e.763$i37.384@fe02.lga> wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:56:38 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>>><rphunter@charter.net> in <rla1e.14026$9m4.7961@fe07.lga> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:02:55 -0600, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
>>>>><rphunter@charter.net> in <ip31e.9187$9o4.9074@fe03.lga> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <cuW0e.1557$FN4.1490@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The nice thing about Costco is that
>>>>>>>>they have a return policy unmatched by other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They do have a nice return policy. So does Sam's and WalMart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sams club is Walmart. I
>>>>>>>>do not like the way they take advantage of their employees and see no
>>>>>>>>advantage of doing business with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You'd be surprised at how Costco deals with HR issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting. Wal-Mart has about the best profit sharing arrangement in
>>>>>>US industry. I wouldn't feel too sorry for their employees.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you get it if you work part-time? Because they try very hard to
>>>>>ensure that their employees don't get enough hours to get health care,
>>>>>so I wonder if they make it easier to get profit sharing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Probably not. But then if you take a job, you have to know that
>>>>part-time and full-time don't get the same benefits. ALL companies try
>>>>to manage their benefits packages to assure that their business makes a
>>>>profit and is still around to pay their employees NEXT year.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually that is a bit deceptive. Quite a few companies do (or did at
>>>least) try to ensure that their employees were around next year and
>>>healthy and doing pretty well. Walmart certainly sells us the idea
>>>that they treat their employees really well. But having policies that
>>>ensure that they don't get health care is not treating them well. The
>>>stockholders of a company are not the only stakeholders in that
>>>company
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I am sorry, but I can't see any reason to expect ANY company to provide
>>healthcare for its employees. In point of fact, MOST small companies
>>CAN'T if they hope to remain in business. It is pretty generous for any
>>company to provide healthcare for ANY of their employees. I am glad
>>they DO, but I can't see how this is any basic right.
>
>
> I am not sure how we got to "basic rights" here. We were talking about
> ways to judge a company. I agree that companies should not be
> responsible for health care: if we want to live in a healthy society
> we need to deal with it as a societal level.
>
>
Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
and end up spending 40% or so of their GDP on it, and people wait for
months, if not years, for needed surgery while doctors flee to other
countries.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:
> Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>
>>NO company has the personnel to inspect every
>>shipment of a product for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.
>
>
> Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving quality control
> to chance.
>
> Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of paper from Ilford.
> The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on with a printer, 8"
> x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more detailed. They
> know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality control people who
> will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant. They check HOW a
> product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is made to those
> specifications.
>
> Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies will sometimes
> compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but companies like
> Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.


All retailers would do such thing -- to a limit, but I would think that
to many discounters, glossy photo paper, is just, glossy photo paper,
unless there is radically change in the appearance, as if changing to
matte finish. You think the purchasing department would hire a
photography guy to test the paper, and other _experts_ to test ten and
thousands of the merchandises? I do hope it's just some goof up at
Ilford, but not intentionally to make such a confusion. BTW, I don't
shop at Sams and rarely visit Walmart (or Target etc.) but I think we
shouldn't simply assume it's Walmart's evil act without further checking.

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:34:28 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>I am 7th generation 'Texian'. It might take some research to find out
>exactly what that means. Unfortunately, I was BORN in New Orleans, but
>it WASN'T MY FAULT!

Now hold on there about New Orleans and don't count yourself short by
being from there. Just to show you how funny this is getting and how
tied together it is getting..... The person in my lineage that was at
the Alamo was Robert Moore (Great/Great/Great Uncle on my Mother's
side). He was a Virginian who moved to New Orleans. Actually, it is
said that he ran off to New Orleans because of some misunderstandings
over a horse or two found in his possession. I come from a long line
of honorable horse thieves and admirers of other men's wives....
Anyway, while in New Orleans, Robert Moore joined what was called the
New Orleans Grays of which around 20 volunteered their services to the
cause at the Alamo. The rest is history.

So, just like the Grays, you came from New Orleans to Texas except,
you lived to talk about it.

Now, as far as those Aussies go.... I served along side Aussies in
Vietnam way back in the 60's. On one of my R&R's, I was asked by one
of those Aussies (who was also taking a 2-week R&R) to catch a hop
with him to Sidney as his guest in his home for our two week R&R. I
did and have never forgotten his kindness and the camaraderie we
shared as all men share in the field. I'm sure if he were alive today
that he would be sickened by what he hears some of his fellow
countrymen saying just as I am about a lot of my present day
countrymen.

Regards,
DW