🚀 go-pugleaf

Who are you trying to impress???

You are simply slandering Lori and a Elgin Computers by insinuating that
Lori owns the company and is in some way personally involved in its
policies.  She is an EMPLOYEE who owned Ottawa Computers (Elgin Computers
has been around for a couple years).  Elgin Computers has agreed when they
hired her to assume all warranties.

Elgin Computers REPLACES defective components.  Why are you bringing up her
personal records?  What is your point?

Terry

J Alexander Norland <dt804@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<6a09nd$r34@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
> 
> In article  #87875, ott.forsale.computing, "T.Dillon" writes: 
> 
> ......
> >Elgin Computers is NOT Ottawa Computers.  Lori is an employee, but was
the
> >owner of Ottawa Computers.  She did NOT go bankrupt, but made a business

> >decision to work with EC.
> ......
> 
> Thank you for your posting, and especially for disclosing that you are
> presenting things from a vendor's viewpoint.  I must assume that you know

> about the facts reported in your article and that you are responsible for
what
> you say.
> 
> I have began checking out your statements and I have already come accross

> quite a few problems even in your first paragraph.  Because most readers
have
> a limited attention span, I'll point out just one inconsistency between
what
> you say and what the court records say.
> 
> You say above, "She [Lori] did NOT go bankrupt".
> 
> The court records say that Lori McConkey, born 15 Apr 1963 [are we
talking
> about the same Lori McConkey?], filed for bancrupcy 3/9/93 and the file
was
> discharge on 3/6/94; the file number is 33-068488 and the trustee is
Salewsk
> Paul Evan.  Unless a transcription error has occurred, then this info is
> accurate.  I am as falliable as anyone, of course, so please correct me
if I'm
> wrong.  The foregoing records are in the public domain and available to
> anyone, as far as I know.
> 
> If the foregoing info is correct, then you have to explain your statement
that
> "She [Lori] did NOT go bankrupt".
> 
> A second question: do you want me to continue to check your other
statements
> and refute them if they are wrong, or would you prefer that I stop here? 
The
> choice is yours, but if you don't post a response I'll continue to
verify.
> For the time being, you will understand why your credibility in my eyes
has
> been eroded.
> 
> JAN
>