[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.