On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 19:55:48 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really do
>>>>>>>>>> anything more, and that buying a new one would be the best
>>>>>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying for
>>>>>>>>> a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150 call
>>>>>>>> out fee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any possible
>>>>>>> dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue that it
>>>>>>> should have been so obvious that the machine was beyond repair
>>>>>>> that they should not have tried.
>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>>
>>>>>> In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>>
>>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>> But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers? I have never
>>> claimed to be an expert on that.
>> Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.

> I don't have to know anything at all about dishwashers if I don't want to

Or even the most elementary logic either.

> There is no point knowing about things that is not your profession.

Even sillier than you usually manage, as you have discovered.

>>>>> but apparently they don't think they can fix it,and the dishwasher
>>>>> in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts available for
>>>>> it.
>>
>>>> So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>>
>>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>>
>>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than any
>>>>> retailer, so I win in the end.
>>
>>>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> I win because I save money.
>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> How could I be wrong about that?
>> There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>> No car with a fire inside it either.
>>
>>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.

On 29/09/2022 2:33 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max = Wog Liar wrote:
> ==============
>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking dishwasher.
>
> ** Blatant LIE !!
>

What I meant was that they told me it was fixed and charged me $180.

Since the leaking had always been intermittent, I thought maybe the
dishwasher was fixed.

But then the leaking happened again. It was exactly the same as before.

It's definitely not the case that the leak was fixed and then a new leak
occurred. That would be ridiculous.

>>>>>
>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>
> > > ** The repair was effective, then a new leak developed.
>>
>>> The leak was never fixed.
>>
>
> ** Max's posts are riddled with deceitful language.
>
>
> ...... Phil

On 29/09/2022 1:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:09:53 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2022 11:40 am, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> ==============
>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>
>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really do
>>>>> anything
>>>>> more, and that buying a new one would be the best thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying for a
>>>> repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>  **  The repair was effective, then a new leak developed.
>>
>> Absolute nonsense. The leak was never fixed.
>
> Even if it wasn't, there are no guarantees that it would fix an
> unfixable problem.
>

In my opinion, the repairer made out that the problem had been fixed and
then charged me on that basis.

I think there should be a refund of some amount to acknowledge that they
got it wrong.

>> The dishwasher is behaving exactly how it was before the repairer
>> visited the property.
>
> There is no dishwasher and no leak, Pinocchio.
>
>>>     Max's posts are riddled with deceitful language.
>>>      Repair warranties cover only the work done, not the whole
>>> device/machine.
>>>     The owner takes that risk.
>>>   ....    Phil
>>>

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:22:20 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 29/09/2022 1:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 12:09:53 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2022 11:40 am, Phil Allison wrote:
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> ==============
>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really do
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> more, and that buying a new one would be the best thing to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying for a
>>>>> repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>> ** The repair was effective, then a new leak developed.
>>>
>>> Absolute nonsense. The leak was never fixed.

>> Even if it wasn't, there are no guarantees that it would fix an
>> unfixable problem.

> In my opinion, the repairer made out that the problem had been fixed and
> then charged me on that basis.

Wouldn't be the first time that with an intermittent problem,
that doing something appeared to fix the problem but it didnt.

> I think there should be a refund of some amountto acknowledge that they
> got it wrong.

Nope, they did the work and never said that it was
going to be financially viable to fix it, particularly
with a device that no longer has parts available for it.

>>> The dishwasher is behaving exactly how it was before the repairer
>>> visited the property.
>> There is no dishwasher and no leak, Pinocchio.
>>
>>>> Max's posts are riddled with deceitful language.
>>>> Repair warranties cover only the work done, not the whole
>>>> device/machine.
>>>> The owner takes that risk.
>>>> .... Phil
>>>>

On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really do
>>>>>>>>> anything more, and that buying a new one would be the best
>>>>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying for
>>>>>>>> a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150 call
>>>>>>> out fee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any possible
>>>>>> dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue that it
>>>>>> should have been so obvious that the machine was beyond repair
>>>>>> that they should not have tried.
>>>
>>>>>  Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>
>>>>>  In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>
>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>
>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>  But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>
>>
>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers?  I have never
>> claimed to be an expert on that.
>
> Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.
>
>>>> but apparently  they don't think they can fix it,and the dishwasher
>>>> in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts available for it.
>
>>>  So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>
>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>
>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than any
>>>> retailer, so I win in the end.
>
>>>  SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>
>> I win because I save money.
>
> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>
>> How could I be wrong about that?
>
> There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>
> No car with a fire inside it either.
>

I never said there was a fire in the car, but the car audio said it was
as though there was.

He would know more about those things than you.

>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.

On 29/09/2022 10:16 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new dishwasher.
>>>
>>>>>  More fool you.
>>>
>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, dope/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>>>
>>>> You think it is OK to be charged $180 for a dishwasher to be not fixed?
>
>>>  Nope, that you couldn't manage a viable troll of your
>>> pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, Pinocchio.
>
>> You have to resort to ad hominem attacks
>
> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>

It is an ad hominem attack to say I have a 'pathetic excuse for a life',
fuckwit.

>> because you can't manage normal  logic and argument.
>
> Says the pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:50:50 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really do
>>>>>>>>>> anything more, and that buying a new one would be the best
>>>>>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying for
>>>>>>>>> a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150 call
>>>>>>>> out fee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any possible
>>>>>>> dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue that it
>>>>>>> should have been so obvious that the machine was beyond repair
>>>>>>> that they should not have tried.
>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>>
>>>>>> In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>>
>>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>> But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers? I have never
>>> claimed to be an expert on that.
>> Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> but apparently they don't think they can fix it,and the dishwasher
>>>>> in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts available for
>>>>> it.
>>
>>>> So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>>
>>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>>
>>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than any
>>>>> retailer, so I win in the end.
>>
>>>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> I win because I save money.
>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> How could I be wrong about that?
>> There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>> No car with a fire inside it either.

> I never said there was a fire in the car,

We can all see that you did, Pinocchio.

> but the car audio said it was as though there was.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, Pinocchio.

> He would know more about those things than you.

Wrong, as always. Any fool knows that replacing
the rear shocks on a car isnt going to kill the
speakers, let alone produce a fire in the car, fuckwit.

There never was any car, just another of your
pathetic excuses for a troll, Pinocchio.

>>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>
>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, dope/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>>>>
>>>>> You think it is OK to be charged $180 for a dishwasher to be not
>>>>> fixed?
>>
>>>> Nope, that you couldn't manage a viable troll of your
>>>> pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> You have to resort to ad hominem attacks

>> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.

> It is an ad hominem attack to say I have a 'pathetic excuse for a life'

That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.

>>> because you can't manage normal logic and argument.

>> Says the pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

On 4/10/2022 1:58 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  More fool you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Nope, dope/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You think it is OK to be charged $180 for a dishwasher to be not
>>>>>> fixed?
>>>
>>>>>  Nope, that you couldn't manage a viable troll of your
>>>>> pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> You have to resort to ad hominem attacks
>
>>>  That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>
>> It is an ad hominem attack to say I have a 'pathetic excuse for a life'
>
> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>

'ad hominem' is when you attack the person instead of the argument.

It's a sign that the debater can't beat the person using normal logic
and argument.

>>>> because you can't manage normal  logic and argument.
>
>>>  Says the pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More fool you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, dope/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You think it is OK to be charged $180 for a dishwasher to be not
>>>>>>> fixed?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that you couldn't manage a viable troll of your
>>>>>> pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> You have to resort to ad hominem attacks
>>
>>>> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> It is an ad hominem attack to say I have a 'pathetic excuse for a life'

>> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.

> 'ad hominem' is when you attack the person instead of the argument.

That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.

> It's a sign that the debater can't beat the person using normal logic
> and argument.

That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.

>>>>> because you can't manage normal logic and argument.

>>>> Says the pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

On 4/10/2022 1:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:50:50 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really
>>>>>>>>>>> do anything more, and that buying a new one would be the best
>>>>>>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying
>>>>>>>>>> for a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150
>>>>>>>>> call out fee.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any
>>>>>>>> possible dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue
>>>>>>>> that it should have been so obvious that the machine was beyond
>>>>>>>> repair that they should not have tried.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>>>  But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers?  I have
>>>> never claimed to be an expert on that.
>>>  Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>>> but apparently  they don't think they can fix it,and the
>>>>>> dishwasher in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts
>>>>>> available for it.
>>>
>>>>>  So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>>>
>>>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>>>
>>>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than
>>>>>> any retailer, so I win in the end.
>>>
>>>>>  SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> I win because I save money.
>>>  SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> How could I be wrong about that?
>>>  There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>>>  No car with a fire inside it either.
>
>> I never said there was a fire in the car,
>
> We can all see that you did, Pinocchio.
>
>> but the car audio said it was as though there was.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, Pinocchio.
>
>> He would know more about those things than you.
>
> Wrong, as always. Any fool knows that replacing
> the rear shocks on a car isnt going to kill the
> speakers, let alone  produce a fire in the car, fuckwit.
>

Why did the car audio guy say that then?

> There never was any car, just another of your
> pathetic excuses for a troll, Pinocchio.
>
>>>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.

On 4/10/2022 5:36 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  More fool you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Nope, dope/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You think it is OK to be charged $180 for a dishwasher to be not
>>>>>>>> fixed?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Nope, that you couldn't manage a viable troll of your
>>>>>>> pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to resort to ad hominem attacks
>>>
>>>>>  That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> It is an ad hominem attack to say I have a 'pathetic excuse for a life'
>
>>>  That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>
>> 'ad hominem' is when you attack the person instead of the argument.
>
> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>

Irrelevant to the fact that it is an ad hominen attack.

It's like in a debate, calling someone fat and ugly. You would be
laughed out of the debating hall, as you always are.

>> It's a sign that the debater can't beat the person using normal logic
>> and argument.
>
> That is a statement of fact, Pinocchio.
>
>>>>>> because you can't manage normal  logic and argument.
>
>>>>>  Says the pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 18:29:18 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/10/2022 1:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:50:50 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a leaking
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't really
>>>>>>>>>>>> do anything more, and that buying a new one would be the best
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying
>>>>>>>>>>> for a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150
>>>>>>>>>> call out fee.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any
>>>>>>>>> possible dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue
>>>>>>>>> that it should have been so obvious that the machine was beyond
>>>>>>>>> repair that they should not have tried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>>>> But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers? I have
>>>>> never claimed to be an expert on that.
>>>> Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>>>> but apparently they don't think they can fix it,and the
>>>>>>> dishwasher in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts
>>>>>>> available for it.
>>>>
>>>>>> So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>>>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>>>>
>>>>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than
>>>>>>> any retailer, so I win in the end.
>>>>
>>>>>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> I win because I save money.
>>>> SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>>
>>>>> How could I be wrong about that?
>>>> There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>>>> No car with a fire inside it either.
>>
>>> I never said there was a fire in the car,
>> We can all see that you did, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> but the car audio said it was as though there was.
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, Pinocchio.
>>
>>> He would know more about those things than you.

>> Wrong, as always. Any fool knows that replacing
>> the rear shocks on a car isnt going to kill the
>> speakers, let alone produce a fire in the car, fuckwit.

> Why did the car audio guy say that then?

There never was any car, never were any replaced
shocks, no car audio guy, just another pathetic
excuse for a troll, Pinocchio.

>> There never was any car, just another of your
>> pathetic excuses for a troll, Pinocchio.
>>
>>>>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.

On 4/10/2022 7:12 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 18:29:18 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2022 1:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:50:50 +1100, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2022 7:14 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:57:01 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 6:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:47:26 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 3:50 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:28:25 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>>>> <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Sept-22 1:11 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 11:30 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 8:28 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 8:01 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28-Sept-22 5:52 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just paid $180 for someone to tell me that I need a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any way to claw back this money?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but since you've provided no information, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was billed $180 on the basis that they had fixed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaking dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The dishwasher then started leaking as it had before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then looked at it and told me that they couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really do anything more, and that buying a new one would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the best thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to look at the terms you agreed to. Were you paying
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a repair, or an attempted repair?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  I was paying for repair, but they did say there was a $150
>>>>>>>>>>> call out fee.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like the only amount for which there could be any
>>>>>>>>>> possible dispute would be the $30 difference. You could argue
>>>>>>>>>> that it should have been so obvious that the machine was
>>>>>>>>>> beyond repair that they should not have tried.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
>>>>>>>>> don't have a fucking clue what fault diagnosis is about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  In the real world, it isnt uncommon for there to be more
>>>>>>>>> than one possibility for why a dishwasher is leaking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It could be because the water level sensor is intermittent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would have thought the water level sensor is the issue,
>>>>>>>  But then you have never had a fucking clue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I care about whether I know about dishwashers?  I have
>>>>>> never claimed to be an expert on that.
>>>>>  Nothing to do with being an expert, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but apparently  they don't think they can fix it,and the
>>>>>>>> dishwasher in question isn't madeanymore, so there are no parts
>>>>>>>> available for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  So what do you claim is the repair they did that didn't fix the
>>>>>>> problem, Pinocchio ?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe they cleared a blockage they perceived to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have made the decision to buy a new dishwasher including
>>>>>>>> installation using the same people, since they are cheaper than
>>>>>>>> any retailer, so I win in the end.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I win because I save money.
>>>>>  SURE you do, Pinocchio.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How could I be wrong about that?
>>>>>  There is no dishwasher, Pinocchio.
>>>>>  No car with a fire inside it either.
>>>
>>>> I never said there was a fire in the car,
>>>  We can all see that you did, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> but the car audio said it was as though there was.
>>>  You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>> He would know more about those things than you.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always. Any fool knows that replacing
>>> the rear shocks on a car isnt going to kill the
>>> speakers, let alone  produce a fire in the car, fuckwit.
>
>> Why did the car audio guy say that then?
>
> There never was any car, never were any replaced
> shocks, no car audio guy, just another pathetic
> excuse for a troll, Pinocchio.
>

What about my recent post on aus.tv about being in the studio audience?
Is that all made up?

>>> There never was any car, just another of your
>>> pathetic excuses for a troll, Pinocchio.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> or because there is a significant not visible crack in the
>>>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher. It would be quite
>>>>>>>>> normal to replace the water level sensor to see if that
>>>>>>>>> fixes the problem and decide when that doesnt fix the
>>>>>>>>> problem, that it must be a non visible crack in the
>>>>>>>>> internal structure of the dishwasher and that it isnt
>>>>>>>>> economic to fix that and that the only sensible way
>>>>>>>>> to proceed is to get a new dishwasher.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But then, you'd need evidence of that. The mere fact that the
>>>>>>>>>> repair was not successful would not be sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For $30? Forget it.