[bryans]

Their policy[1] clearly states that it can take up to 10 business days to process a return, and then an additional 3-5 business days to process the refund. If you mailed it on the 24th of last month, it arrived on Friday the 28th, and you received the refund today, that would be 12 total business days, which means they actually outperformed their policy maximum. And if they received it after the 28th, then they actually went above and beyond for you.

But instead of acknowledging the policy, you decided to harass some poor CSR every other day, who didn't have any power to make anything go faster than it already does. I really think you ought to take a moment to reflect on why you had such a visceral reaction to a completely innocuous situation.

[1] https://www.newegg.com/promotions/nepro/20-2902/index.html

[IntelMiner]

As fascinating as it is to drag someone over coals in such an incredibly acidic way as you did. Perhaps Newegg's (clearly deserved, if this article thread is any indication) reputation means that the person you replied to simply has zero faith in the company to actually follow the procedures and promises that you've brandished as gospel?

[bryans]

"Brandished as gospel" is ludicrous hyperbole. I referenced a document on a website which explains why the GP shouldn't have repeatedly harassed other humans when they weren't doing anything wrong. Your trolling isn't welcome, and isn't even very good.

[IntelMiner]

You made a very good job of avoiding actually countering my argument and instead reaching for the "oh you're just a troll"

[bryans]

You claimed that a company's publicly posted return policy is somehow irrelevant to a story about returns. You also claimed it's perfectly reasonable for somebody to order from a company "they had zero faith in," and then use that as justification to harass the company when they don't meet some arbitrary expectations, despite the company actually exceeding the standards set in the policy that the user agreed to when ordering.

What argument are you trying to make, exactly? Let me know, and I'll be happy to counter it. But as it stands, nobody got dragged over coals, nobody claimed anything as gospel, and yet you've made two outlandish claims that are completely illogical and definitely do not reflect any semblance of reality.

[FullyFunctional]

Where did the "had no faith in" come from? I had order from them for 20 years. I had faith in them. I had only ever had to return something once before (years ago) and it was fine. This experience wasn't.

I'm reporting my experience and you are attacking the victim. Classy.

[bryans]

I highly recommend you go read this thread again. You are asking that question to the exact opposite person you should be -- I didn't say it, I quoted it. But this seems to be another case where you refuse to read the words on the page, and instead decided to lash out at someone who didn't deserve it, just like you did to the CSRs.

I directly linked to the policy that you agreed to when ordering, and instead of reading it, you've now doubled down on calling yourself a victim, despite the company exceeding all reasonable expectations. You are not a victim. You are trying to invent a scenario to get pity, but you are inarguably wrong on all accounts.

[jacquesm]

The word 'victim' is inappropriate here.

[FullyFunctional]

You literally have no idea of what happened, but happily makes assumptions on my part.

[bryans]

You explained exactly what happened, and now you're claiming that I can't possibly have any idea of what happened. Do you not see the disconnect there?

You said the time frame was January 24th to February 15th. By using simple math (only addition), I explained how they exceeded every reasonable expectation. They quite literally didn't do anything wrong, and you are publicly vilifying them for it anyway.