Beware of Lone Peak Packs Non-Warranty

Tom Sherman wrote:
The André Jute wrote:
[...]
Oh, nobody cheats me twice. The last mailorder merchant who tried to
rip me died of AIDS he contracted in jail.[...]

Next Jute will get canonized for his great works, so he can join Ed
Dolan among the Great Saints.

He's already joined Ed Dolan among the great kill-filed.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:01:22 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 6, 1:28 am, Gary Young wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:18:11 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

snip



Are you familiar with the work of John Rawls? At the most basic,
Rawls posits two parties and a cake behind a curtain. One party goes
behind the curtain and may cut the cake any way he pleases. The other
party then goes behind the curtain and chooses his cut of the cake,
so that the cutter must take what is left. Clearly The Veil of
Ignorance (the title of Rawls's groundbreaking book, IIRC)

The title is A Theory of Justice.

Just checking if anyone is awake. Congratulations, you're one-eye in the
land of the blind.

Judging by your mis-characterization of the veil of ignorance, I take
it you've never read it.

Well then, constant student, you're entirely at liberty to offer us your
own redaction (1) of the essence of the veil of ignorance. We'll allow
you some latitude to fit Rawls to the subject of this thread.

I doubt that Rawls has anything to add to this discussion that couldn't
be supplied by common sense. I can't imagine why you brought him up,
unless, I suppose, you're a preening ass.


However,
merely saying someone mischaracterized a concept without explaining your
"more correct" version always results in a negative assessment aka a
minus mark.


First of all, as someone else has pointed out, the "curtain" or veil
serves no purpose in your scenario -- the outcome would be exactly the
same whether or not the two parties are hidden from each other. Thus, the
veil of ignorance, as you've mis-described it, is not "an incentive to a
fair division of the cake."

You seem to be using the phrase "veil of ignorance" to describe what
economists sometimes refer to as "asymmetric information"; that is,
information that one party to a transaction has that the other lacks.
That's not what Rawls meant by it. Even by your definition, the "veil"
doesn't add anything to the discussion since the OP didn't have to rip
aside any veils to get at secret information; all he had to do was
publicize what the company said quite openly to him.

In Rawls' view, one gets a fair view of Justice not by ripping aside the
veil of ignorance, but by putting it on. He thought that people could
come to agreement on a just system of distribution if they could reason
as if they were unaware of whether they were rich or poor, talented or
not (in other words, as if they were unaware of how their bottom line
would be effected).

If Rawls has to be dragged into this conversation, then he might say that
Lone Peak's behavior wouldn't measure up to the rules that Lone Peak
itself would have drawn up if it were unaware of whether it would be
buyer or seller in any particular transaction.


Andre Jute
LOL

(1) Not a spelling error. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the word redaction. It's a poor choice of word in this
context. Look it up.


is an incentive to a fair
division of the cake. In this case Scarfie has pulled aside the veil
of ignorance behind which Lone Peak would have preferred to work; and
Lone Peak screwed themselves by not considering whether the guy on
the other side of the curtain could or would retaliate.

Andre Jute
A bowl of water, quickly now, so I can do my Pilate act

In article ,
Gary Young wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:01:22 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 6, 1:28 am, Gary Young wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:18:11 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

Are you familiar with the work of John Rawls? At the most basic,
Rawls posits two parties and a cake behind a curtain. One party
goes behind the curtain and may cut the cake any way he pleases.
The other party then goes behind the curtain and chooses his cut
of the cake, so that the cutter must take what is left. Clearly
The Veil of Ignorance (the title of Rawls's groundbreaking book,
IIRC)

The title is A Theory of Justice.

Just checking if anyone is awake. Congratulations, you're one-eye
in the land of the blind.

ROTLFMAO! A classic cover-up!

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article
,
Andre Jute writes:


I agree with Mike J & you that the company was stupid to refuse
warranty here unless obvious and gross mis use was obvious. I take
Steven's word that there wasn't

Are you familiar with the work of John Rawls? At the most basic,
Rawls

As for myself, I'm roughly familiar with the work of Lou Rawls.

posits two parties and a cake behind a curtain. One party goes
behind the curtain and may cut the cake any way he pleases. The
other party then goes behind the curtain and chooses his cut of the
cake, so that the cutter must take what is left. Clearly The Veil
of Ignorance (the title of Rawls's groundbreaking book, IIRC) is an
incentive to a fair division of the cake. In this case Scarfie has
pulled aside the veil

This sounds suspiciously more like a mathematical/logic problem, than
a sociological one. If the party who gets to cut the cake contains
rule-flouting cyclists, someone will take a slice with them, or at
least dip their finger into the icing.

It's just the Mom solution to two kids, one cookie. One kid does the
cutting, the other kid gets first pick.

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article
,
Andre Jute writes:
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Ooh, I'd like to be that dangerous. Charm has its downsides, I
sometimes think.

I have an uncanny knack for figuring out encryptions & encodements.
It's not dangerous, unless I use it for wrong or unethical purposes.

My ethics consist of: Don't harm anyone. Unless they need a little
instant edification, and the edification might do more good than
harm.

I also don't eat any animals unless they've first been killed.
Except maybe oysters.

I guess I'm hell-bound, and the oysters shall eventually be
vindicated.

... mmmmm ... oysters and potable Mexican beer ...

In hell it's "ice cold women and red hot beer."

On Dec 7, 8:01*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Andre Jute considered Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:13:58
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Dec 4, 5:27*pm, SMS wrote:
I have a two year old Lone Peak RP700 rack trunk where one of the four
attachment straps came off. It wasn't abused or anything, my wife was
pulling the strap tight though the buckle, and the sewn on strap just
came off the rack trunk where it's sewn on. The rack trunk has probably
only been used about 20 days in the last two years.

No problem I thought, It has a lifetime warranty, so I packed it up and
sent it off to Lone Peak for repair, complete with a copy of the receipt
* (even though no receipt is really necessary since it's a lifetime
warranty). Today I get a call from Lone Peak that the repair is not
covered by the warranty, and that the strap must have been caught in a
spoke or something to come off like that (it wasn't). Since it's an
expensive pack, I reluctantly agreed to pay for the repair and return
shipping.

So just be aware that Lone Peak Packs doesn't honor their wonderful
warranty. If you're feeling good about spending more to buy a made in
the U.S.A. product, partly because you think that there's a company that
will stand behind the product, think again. I really liked the RP700
because it was the only rack trunk I found that didn't use Velcro straps
to hold it on, they use buckles, and I own two of them.

So stupid. For $12.50 they've alienated a customer that has bought
several of their rather expensive products Next time I'll go to
Performance and buy the Performance house brand. At least with Velcro I
can repair it myself when the Velcro wears out.

What a stupid, stupid thing for Lone Peak to do. They've just
motivated you to put on the permanent record that their word is no
good. They were actually at the top of my list for replacement
luggage, as my old Trek bag is no longer made, but now they're right
off it, and their claim (or agent's claim -- I saw it on ebay) that no
case of failed stitching is known is exposed as untrue. -- Andre Jute

Indeed, and hte reverse applies - stand by your product and customer,
and the cost is often repayed many times in recomendations and
increased sales.
I had an old XJ40 Jaguar, on which the cyclinder head gasket blew -
the car was 11 years old (I was 3rd owner) and had bee serviced,
although it was years out of warranty.
I transpired that the gasket should have been replaced under a dealer
information notification wihen the car was 3 years old, but it was not
done (the one that failed on me was the original type).
Jaguar payed the full cost of replacement, including labour, and I've
been singing their praises ever since, with the result of several
known sales to them.
I wasn't even trying for a warranty replacement - my shop just
contacted their dealer tech line to enquire why the replacement gasket
was different to to original that had come off, and the sorry story
came out.

They did take dealer stamps from the service book to find out who was
meant to have been servicing the car at the time the gasket should
have been done, so I guess they recovered at least some of the cost
from that dealer (but they didn't trouble me with such details - they
just fixed it, and told my shop to send them the bill.

THAT'S customer service (they even got me a rather nice loaner while
the car was in the shop, and if I'd had the cash at the time, I'd have
likely upgraded (the x308 was really nice compared to my XJ40 3.6)

Shush, Phil. I might one day go back to advertising and then my
partners will curse me for the free advice I handed out here.
Manufacturers with a really good warranty programme can and do get
away with spending much less on advertising. Word of mouth is the
curse of the high-living advertising executive, for sooner or later it
cuts into his bonuses. -- AJ

Oh dear. It really doesn't pay to forget that for any but the broadest
humour, the net is a very poor medium as there are always a million
pompously frowning clowns willing to make a meal of the most innocent
statement. I apologize to everyone for being naive enough to make
jokes about philosophy, and for sending a pun (redaction) that no one
caught, not even the clown below who wants me to look it up (see right
at the bottom of his diatribe). Ugh! -- Andre Jute


On Dec 6, 11:08*pm, Gary Young wrote:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:01:22 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 6, 1:28 am, Gary Young wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:18:11 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

Are you familiar with the work of John Rawls? At the most basic,
Rawls posits two parties and a cake behind a curtain. One party goes
behind the curtain and may cut the cake any way he pleases. The other
party then goes behind the curtain and chooses his cut of the cake,
so that the cutter must take what is left. Clearly The Veil of
Ignorance (the title of Rawls's groundbreaking book, IIRC)

The title is A Theory of Justice.

Just checking if anyone is awake. Congratulations, you're one-eye in the
land of the blind.

Judging by your mis-characterization of the veil of ignorance, I take
it you've never read it.

Well then, constant student, you're entirely at liberty to offer us your
own redaction (1) of the essence of the veil of ignorance. We'll allow
you some latitude to fit Rawls to the subject of this thread.

I doubt that Rawls has anything to add to this discussion that couldn't
be supplied by common sense. I can't imagine why you brought him up,
unless, I suppose, you're a preening ass.

However,
merely saying someone mischaracterized a concept without explaining your
"more correct" version always results in a negative assessment aka a
minus mark.

First of all, as someone else has pointed out, the "curtain" or veil
serves no purpose in your scenario -- the outcome would be exactly the
same whether or not the two parties are hidden from each other. Thus, the
veil of ignorance, as you've mis-described it, is not "an incentive to a
fair division of the cake."

You seem to be using the phrase "veil of ignorance" to describe what
economists sometimes refer to as "asymmetric information"; that is,
information that one party to a transaction has that the other lacks.
That's not what Rawls meant by it. Even by your definition, the "veil"
doesn't add anything to the discussion since the OP didn't have to rip
aside any veils to get at secret information; all he had to do was
publicize what the company said quite openly to him.

In Rawls' view, one gets a fair view of Justice not by ripping aside the
veil of ignorance, but by putting it on. He thought that people could
come to agreement on a just system of distribution if they could reason
as if they were unaware of whether they were rich or poor, talented or
not (in other words, as if they were unaware of how their bottom line
would be effected).

If Rawls has to be dragged into this conversation, then he might say that
Lone Peak's behavior wouldn't measure up to the rules that Lone Peak
itself would have drawn up if it were unaware of whether it would be
buyer or seller in any particular transaction.

Andre Jute
LOL

(1) Not a spelling error. Look it up.

I'm familiar with the word redaction. It's a poor choice of word in this
context. Look it up.



is an incentive to a fair
division of the cake. In this case Scarfie has pulled aside the veil
of ignorance behind which Lone Peak would have preferred to work; and
Lone Peak screwed themselves by not considering whether the guy on
the other side of the curtain could or would retaliate.

Andre Jute
A bowl of water, quickly now, so I can do my Pilate act

In article ,
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

I had an old XJ40 Jaguar, on which the cyclinder head gasket blew -
the car was 11 years old (I was 3rd owner) and had bee serviced,
although it was years out of warranty.
I transpired that the gasket should have been replaced under a dealer
information notification wihen the car was 3 years old, but it was not
done (the one that failed on me was the original type).
Jaguar payed the full cost of replacement, including labour, and I've
been singing their praises ever since, with the result of several
known sales to them.

Wow. Very cool indeed!

On Dec 7, 12:01 am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Andre Jute considered Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:13:58
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:



On Dec 4, 5:27 pm, SMS wrote:
I have a two year old Lone Peak RP700 rack trunk where one of the four
attachment straps came off.

snipped part where Lone Peak blew off the customer


So stupid. For $12.50 they've alienated a customer that has bought
several of their rather expensive products Next time I'll go to
Performance and buy the Performance house brand. At least with Velcro I
can repair it myself when the Velcro wears out.

What a stupid, stupid thing for Lone Peak to do. They've just
motivated you to put on the permanent record that their word is no
good.

Indeed, and hte reverse applies - stand by your product and customer,
and the cost is often repayed many times in recomendations and
increased sales.
I had an old XJ40 Jaguar, on which the cyclinder head gasket blew -
the car was 11 years old (I was 3rd owner) and had bee serviced,
although it was years out of warranty.
I transpired that the gasket should have been replaced under a dealer
information notification wihen the car was 3 years old, but it was not
done (the one that failed on me was the original type).
Jaguar payed the full cost of replacement, including labour, and I've
been singing their praises ever since, with the result of several
known sales to them.

I bought a used record player. It was already around twenty years old
when I got it. The SME 3009 tonearm was missing the anti-skate
counterweight. I wrote a letter to Shure Bros somewhere across the
Atlantic, inquiring about availability. A little while later, out of
the blue, a packet shows up in my mailbox with the replacement part.

On Dec 5, 8:48 pm, SMS wrote:
Woland99 wrote:
100% correct. It is silly to argue about $12 and lose hundreds.
I had really good experience with Kurt Kinetic sending me another
resistance unit for their wind trainer. No questions - once they
determined that I am using it correctly and that old unit is very
likely out of balance they sent me one within a week.
So later when I had a chance to buy their fluid trainer on sale
I did not hesitate. Small investement in customer service bought
them loyal customer.

I thought of asking the guy that called me, "are you _sure_ you want to
charge me for this repair?" Then I figured that saying that would just
antagonize him, and I didn't want it to appear as if I was making any
kinds of threats or anything. If I said "I'm gonna tell Usenet on you"
that wouldn't have solved anything.

Ironically, I used to be a big promoter of this particular Lone Peak
product, see "http://tinyurl.com/6ysysn", where someone was looking for
a Velcro-free rear rack bag. I even show the bag on one of my web sites,
see "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/batteries.html" where I praise it (this
is my older one, not the one that broke). I guess I have to update that
page now!

Wayne, the owner/operator of thetouringstore.com is a major seller of
Lone Peak bags. (His other bags are Ortliebs. There may be no more
than 6 more online sellers of Lone Peak. I'll bet that Wayne would
have stood behind the bag.I think he claims never to have seen a
failure.

I understand from him that Lone Peak is a virtual factory. That's to
say the bags are made in home workshops on piece rate. Visit the
LonePeak web page or otherwise try to get descriptions of Lone Peak
bags, and you can see that is a small operation without marketing and
branding capacity. Before this complaint was posted, who know but that
fortune might have been made buying the company and giving the web-
page the full Arkel treatment.

So, LonePeak are made in Utah, USA, right in homes; unlike Tubus
racks--designed in Germany, but fabricated in China.

Harry Travis