🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2ll5ps$35v@cnj.digex.com> stevel@cnj.digex.com (steve leinwand) writes:
>
>	Dear fellow netters,
>
>		I need your help in resolving a net dispute. It centers 
>around the diagonal measurement of monitors. I advertised and sold a 
>Sony monitor, which Sony calls a 17". The actual diagonal measurement 
>of the visible portion of the tube is slightly more than 16". The buyer 
>now accuses me of fraud. I would appreciate any comments, especially 
>from anyone who has purchased a 17" monitor. Please measure the visible 
>portion of the glass (with the bezel on), and reply to this post.
>
>These Sony's were sold on a large variety of workstations and X terminals 
>from SUN, HP, DEC, IBM, Tektronix, SGI, etc. I would especially like to 
>hear from anyone with an identical Sony monitor. Was the monitor you bought 
>advertised as a 16" or a 17" ?
>
>	Thanks for any help 
>
>	steve
>
>	stevel@cnj.digex.com


I would like to make a clear statement as the person involved on the other side
of the deal:

I did own a Sun monitor of type GDM-1604B15 purchased with an IPC, now used on
a PC, when I offerend to buy the monitor that the above poster advertized as a
"17" inch monitor.  The GDM-1604B15 and the monitor that was advertized are
exactly identical, except for minor modifications in the electrical specs. In
particular, they contain exactly the same tube.

The GDM-1604B15 monitor that I owned before this "upgrade" is clearly labeled
as a 16-inch monitor by Sun Microsystems, Sun Microsystems sold this monitor in
conjunction with their IPC systems at about the same time-frame than the poster
claims his monitor to be manufactured. The relevant documents are in my hands,
from which I draw the conclusion that it is proper procedure for monitors
manufactured in this time frame to be labelled in terms of visible diagonal
tube size.

The guts for me, is, that I now sold one monitor at a loss to purchase another
monitor with essentially the same specs, besides investing an enourmous amount
of time on the whole issue.  I informed the original poster prior to having
knowledge of his net request, that I do not uphold charges of fraud against him
as I don't consider myself in position to sue a whole industry, however that I
consider his advertisement improper.  What I argue, is *not* if others label
their monitors correctly or incorrectly, but if it is appropriate for posters
on the net to just go ahead and copy such behavior, obviously taking into
account that someone falls atrap to it.

I can just make a strong statement for myself, that I would make *every* effort
to provide the extra information when dealing with people myself and to make
sure that every side knows *exactly* what they're getting. This is incompatible
with the misleading statements of the original posters advertisement.  It has
been a great experience for me on the net so far, and different people that I
dealt with and that have dealt with me have given me an enourmous amount of
feedback and trust in the honesty of the majority of the people involved on the
net.

What I've learned now the the hard way, is that some people have their own
standards on how they approach people here on the net, it is sad to see things
happen this way.  With respect to this experience now I will certainly not be
the last one that falls atrap onto such procedure.

With honest regards,

Armin Liebchen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Armin Liebchen                  Dept. of Computer Science MEB-2450
				University of Utah
				Salt Lake City, UT 84112
				(h) 801-363-5659
				(w) 801-581-8377
				(e) liebchen@cs.utah.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------