|
|
Posted by Kris Baker on 06/02/06 20:23
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:Z7CdnWIY6ZkIFh3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2006-06-02, Kris Baker <kris.baker@prodigyy.net> wrote:
>>
>> "notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
>
>>> case of damaged goods, the addressee has to file because...
>
> OK, I should have said "should file" instead of "has to file".
>
>>> don't have the physical evidence. So, the addressee must file using
>
> Here, again, I should have said "should file" instead of "must file".
> I'll be more careful next time. But, in my own defense, I did
> correctly state "Either the mailer or the addresee can file". OK, I
> worded it badly, but how was I "completely wrong"?
>
> Are you saying the USPS has a foolproof communication system that if
> the addressee brings in damaged goods at the destination PO and the
> mailer brings in the insurance receipts at originating PO, the issue
> will be quickly and easily resolved? That two completely different
> PO's with two completely different staffs, which are typically dumber
> than two separate bags of hammers, will, in fact, actually function as
> a competent unified organization? If this fantastic scenario should
> actually occur within the USPC, I shall be dumbstruck into silent awe.
> But, based on my past experience with USPS, I'm feeling pretty safe.
>
> nb
As long as you consider other people dumber than sacks of
hammers, you'll have difficulty. Maybe you want to reconsider
selling on eBay?
Kris
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|