Jason O'Rourke <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Matthew Endo is a square shooter.
> >> But not as straight a shooter as I had thought.
> >
> >Yeah, I might be square, I'm sure a shooter, but sometimes can't shoot
> >straight!
>
> You need to shoot more during your trips back to California.

Agreed! But have you seen the latest hunting license fees in Kali? All
the rates for everything have increased incredibly. Thanks, Guv!

--
Matt
matt@gol.com

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.

matt@gol.com (Matthew Endo) wrote in message news:<1gd8zdt.ymys8z4ssfk0N@yahoobb219000172012.bb tec.net>...
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Matt,

I am very glad that you CLARIFIED the issue centered around your
remark regarding the PRESENT case:

> > Matt> > However, in this case for
> > Matt> > whatever reason, his case was not presented to Japan
>
> Yes, I mean that two years ago, your case should have been presented to
> Japan by the US service tech.

The English language is often imprecise and ambiguous, as we both
well know, being non-English speaking natives. In this case,
had you said

However, in this case for whatever reason, his case
was not presented to Japan two years ago

it would have eliminated ALL ambiguities wouldn't it, especially in
the light of what transpired in "this case" THIS year?


> > DB> Hi, I recieved an e-mail from Japan and I have been asked to
> > DB> help you out with your MX-10 concern,

> The e-mail was from Mr. Yamaguchi. See below for further comment.

> To clarify, Mr. Yamaguchi personally directed the resolution of your
> case.

Glad to see this clarified. Thanks. I restore my original thanks
to Yamaguchi-san.


> > It was actually NOT resolved "promptly", though I used that word myself
> > as a compliment of "two months" as prompt. In previous emails to Matt
> > I had included very explicit descriptions including photo copies and
> > transcripts of my letter to Sea & Sea, the purchase date, price,
> > registered letter of warranty registration, etc., etc., and every
> > possible relevant detail, to have Matt come back and ask for more.
>
> To give the readers of this thread more information, the reason for the
> two months was my editing of Bob's original e-mail to myself as well as
> a request for the text of the letter.

True. Matt was correct and proper to edit out my reference to "POS"
(Piece Of Sh*t) in reference to MX-10, and other expressions of
mine that may offend Mr. Yamaguchi, if Matt had quoted my post or
letter verbatim to Mr. Yamaguchi.

It is also true that while I had sent Matt a .jpg of the original
letter to Sea&Sea, registration, and other items, the text of the
letter was not completely legible, so I typed the text of the letter
for Matt in my email, not knowing Matt's fax address.


> Of course, Bob was on yet another dive trip causing a few weeks
> delay, but after getting the original text,

A tad inaccurate.

Yes, I was on several trips (Cozumel, Caribbean cruise, Tahitian
cruise, Singapore/Bali) AFTER I provided Matt the full details
on Feb 18, and none of those trips caused any delay on my part.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:18:05 -0500
To: Matthew Endo <matt@gol.com>

I am home now. Here's the follow-up on our rec.scuba posts about my MX-10.

The attachment (resolution not good) contains

1. Record of registered letter of 6/13/2002 sent to Sea&Sea, together with
the camera, and receipt of purchase in February.
Registered letter RB221225353 US (JUN 13 2002)

2. The letter (which should be in Sea&Sea's file on the camera) contain these
essential facts:

a. The camera (with receipt) was purchased on 2/12/2002.
b. Serial no. of camera: SN 940557325

< snip >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In spite of my two weeks in Singapore/Bali, there was no delay
(same day, not "a few weeks") in providing the text of the letter,
which Matt requested on April 10:

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:59:50 -0400
RF > At 12:23 PM 4/10/2004 +0900, you wrote:
Matt> OK, please send the text of the letter
RF > Here's the transcript of the letter (in the photo):


> I needed to find Mr. Yamaguchi's personal e-mail address which
> caused an additional delay on my part.

That's 100% accurate! But that was AFTER April 10.


> I must say that Mr. Yamaguchi responded the very next day after
> I had collected all the information and sent it to him.

That speaks well of Mr. Yamaguchi. Glad you clarified it.


> > I was very pleased to have been promised a "re-conditioned" unit by
> > Dan, but at the same time somewhat surprised that Yamaguchi would
> > have suggested anything other than a NEW replacement.
>
> I surmise that probably your camera and the records were no longer
> available from the previous Sea and Sea USA organization, being
> dissolved some time ago.

That I did not realize, since I had not been in touch with Sea & Sea
USA since I told the technician to smash my camera in 2002. :)
What you surmised is probably accurate, though it would seem the
previous Sea & Sea's records should be kept for at least the most
recent couple of years, if for nothing else but repairs and
warranty records.

> So, probably they felt the best way was to
> give you a reconditioned unit which Dan already had in stock.
> Just my guess/opinion.

Good guess and well-founded opinion. But Mr. Yamaguchi surely
COULD have offered me a NEW replacement since I used the old one
only once, on one one-week trip, and I had to purchase a much
more expensive new POS (tha's not a Sea & Sea product).


> > Some years ago, I had two flooded SataLite UW lights from Ikelite,
> > flooded after the warranty period had expired. I thought it was
> > my fault that I had taken the lights to 200 fsw, perhaps deeper
> > than warranted. Ike himself immediately gave me two BRAND NEW
> > replacement, without me asking for any, but only inquired about
> > the cost of repairing them.
>
> I didn't want to bring Ike up because I sell Ikelite products. I can
> only repeat my biased opinion that his service is the best, bar none.

I have no relation whatsoever with Ikelite other than having been a
satisfied customer of several of its products. I know many people
who share OUR opinion that Ike's service is the best, BEYOND what's
to be expected of the best, but that doesn't mean any of us is
"biased" in any negative sense of the word "biased".


> > I am a "noisy customer"?
>
> Nope, Feesh, didn't mean it to be derogatory in any way. The noisy
> customer speaks for the other 5 or 10 silent ones. The problem is that
> the silent ones go away and are no longer customers, while the "noisy"
> one gets things resolved and continues to be a customer. You're playing
> the "consumer's advocate" of sorts.

Yes. I am a "consumer's advocate" of sorts. I get flamed for being
so, as all advocates do, one time or another, but I get flamed EVERY
time.

I get flamed for months for exposing Cochran's defective computer.
I get flamed by Jason O'Rourke, the perennial "noise maker" in
rec.scuba who never had anything but NOISE to contribute, when I
provided timely and SERIOUS information about the Uwatec Aladin
Air-X computer about the company's concealment of defect for SEVEN
long years, and the ongoing lawsuits from injury!

Now you perhaps understand better why I didn't like your
"noisy customer" characterization, even though you meant well.


> > In ALL cases of anything I post, I am a "deadly accurate" customer
> > in FACTUAL details. I give credit where credit is due, and I am
> > not hesitant to respond/clarify/elaborate to what I consider to be
> > either inaccurate or inapproprite follow-up on factual matters.
> >
> > That's the reason for this detailed follow-up.
>
> Thanks for the followup!

Thanks for your followup to my followup!

-- Bob.