Canon Users - Do You Believe????

[fb]

Digisol, you have no credibility. You flame on and on about OEM warranties
and how you are the expert on the fine print, but you obviously don't read
or understand other warranties. You claim (which I suspect is bogus) that
Calidad ink damaged your printer and that you had to purchase a new model,
yet Calidad clearly states in their guarantee that if your printer is
damaged by their ink that they will repair or replace the item.
http://www.calidad.com.au/guarantee_large.asp If you are convinced and have
written proof from Epson that your printer was damaged by the Calidad ink,
then why didn't you get them to replace the printer for you? I've been
refilling various printers for years and have never had a printer damaged by
third party ink, but if I did I'd at least have enough common sense to allow
the supplier of the ink to make good on their warranty. OTOH, please
continue, along with your alter ego - Measekite, to purchase the overpriced
OEM ink from Canon. This will help insure that they continue to sell new
printers at rock bottom prices and ink cartridges at sky high prices. We
refillers appreciate your generosity in supporting the OEM market instead of
saving a bundle by using third party ink.

What a great couple they make. An idiot and a moron who agree with each
other.
Impressive!
Frank

 

[measekite]

zakezuke wrote:

SNIP VERY LONG

And as you said before they will only
void the warranty if your using 3rd party ink and if it causes
excessive service calls... so using your own words... your own words
it's simply not an issue.

NEVER SAID IT IS A NON ISSUE. NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. CANON
SAID THIS IN THEIR WARRANTY.

 

[measekite]

What a great couple they make. An idiot and a moron who agree with
each other.
Impressive!
Frank

WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.

 

[me]

If you want to complain to his ISP use his email address:
(e-mail address removed)
They are really sick and tired of his bullshit.

They seem to be much more lax than ten or so years ago. Very seldom did
I receive junk mail then, as opposed to about five hundred and day now,
even with korea blocked! Anyway, I used to report and UUnet seemed
really quite good, in that they would acknowledge my complaint and then
a week or so later I would get a message that they had killed the
spamming account.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Let's go word by word:

Warranty Exclusions

This Warranty will not apply if:

4. A Product's malfunction or failure results from deliberate or
accidental damage, neglect, modification, incorrect voltage, power
surges or your use of non-Genuine software, replacement parts,
Consumables, accessories and/or interfacing.

This is exactly what I stated. The product's malfunction or failure
RESULTS from deliberate ... use of non-genuine ... consumables.


Now, what that says in that the failure is a RESULT of the use of the
non-genuine consumable. The operative word is "RESULTS", because that
assumes a direct causal relationship, which has to be proven.

I'm not sure what a "genuine consumable" is exactly, because it doesn't
state it has to be an Epson consumable, but let's assume it did. The
FAILURE has to be as a result of the use of the non-genuine consumable.
So again, the onus is on Epson to prove that's what caused the "failure".

Even if they could prove the ink was not "genuine", since clogs can
result with either OEM or 3rd party ink, the "failure" is not a result
of using non-genuine consumable. Besides which, a clog isn't even a
failure, it's an inconvenience.

Further:

Non-Genuine Items

Epson AUSTRALIA advises that if you use non- Genuine Consumables,
software, replacement parts or accessories, you may damage your Product
and may void your warranty.

You will notice the term "may damage" and "may void", the reason for
these disclaimers is because they would have to prove the "mays" in the
contract, and they cannot.


Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Does no one bother to read the warranties they get ?

Do you?

THIS WARRANTY SHALL BE VOID AND OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO

ANY EQUIPMENT WHICH IS DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF;

(D) USE OF SUPPLIES OR PARTS (OTHER THAN THOSE DISTRIBUTED BY CANON

USA) WHICH CAUSE ABNORMALLY FREOUENT SERVICE CALLS OR SERVICE
PROBLEMS;

Once again, 3rd party inks do NOT cause abnormally frequent service
calls or services, and therefore do NOT void the warranty. You are
reading this through biased yes because you wish to assume 3rd party
inks fit the description above, but they do not, and therefore they are
not relevant to the warranty exclusions.

"Consumables" can also include paper, as an example. By your examples
and interpretation, using non-"manufacturer's brand named" paper you
will have also voided your warranty, but we all know that paper is
extremely unlikely to alter the functionality in terms of electronics or
mechanics of the printer. The company has the onus of proving the cause
of the failure or defect is indeed use of an improper consumable.

Although the companies might wish to make it sound like they can void a
warranty due to the use of non-manufacturers consumables since their own
contract states a limitation on when they can do so, they take the
responsibility of proving a behavior causes undue failure rates to their
products.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

You don't seem to understand the difference between "flaming" and being
corrected.


Neither of the warranties you quoted supports what you stated. They
both try to "imply" it, but implication is not a legal stand, and since
warranties are contracts and therefore legal documents, they mean
exactly what they mean, and nothing more.

They are full of "loopholes' and the reasons is because the
manufacturer's arguments have hole large enough to drive trucks through.

If you choose to fall for the psychological ploys they feed you by how
they word their warranties that's your issue, not mine. The onus of
proof in such a contract is on them. Also any vagaries, since they
wrote the warranty, also falls against them.

If you wish to give up your rights because some manufacturers use
language to scare you with, go right ahead, but just because you think
the sky is falling, doesn't mean it is.


Art

 

[measekite]

You don't seem to understand the difference between "flaming" and
being corrected.


Neither of the warranties you quoted supports what you stated.

THEY DO SAY IT. AND ACCORDING TO REPORTS IN THIS NG THEY ENFORCE IT BUT
RATHER SELECTIVELY

They both try to "imply" it, but implication is not a legal stand, and
since warranties are contracts and therefore legal documents, they
mean exactly what they mean, and nothing more.

They are full of "loopholes' and the reasons is because the
manufacturer's arguments have hole large enough to drive trucks through.

THEY HAVE GOOD ARGUMENTS. I DO NOT THINK THAT BOB HENDRICKS WILL
CLEARLY SAY THEY DO NOT AND THAT HP DOES NOT PROMOTE ONLY HP INKS. HE
LIKE TO EAT

If you choose to fall for the psychological ploys they feed you by how
they word their warranties that's your issue, not mine.

YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT

The onus of proof in such a contract is on them. Also any vagaries,
since they wrote the warranty, also falls against them.

If you wish to give up your rights because some manufacturers use
language to scare you with, go right ahead, but just because you think
the sky is falling, doesn't mean it is.

WHERE IS CHICKEN LITTLE

 

[measekite]

Does no one bother to read the warranties they get ?

Do you?

THIS WARRANTY SHALL BE VOID AND OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO

(D) USE OF SUPPLIES OR PARTS (OTHER THAN THOSE DISTRIBUTED BY CANON

Once again, 3rd party inks do NOT cause abnormally frequent service
calls or services

JUST DECLOGGING OR RUINING THE PRINTHEAD. NOT ALL BUT SOME AND
ESPECIALLY WITH LIGHTER PRINTLOADS

, and therefore do NOT void the warranty. You are reading this
through biased yes because you wish to assume 3rd party inks fit the
description above, but they do not, and therefore they are not
relevant to the warranty exclusions.

"Consumables" can also include paper, as an example. By your examples
and interpretation, using non-"manufacturer's brand named" paper you
will have also voided your warranty,

IF THE PAPER IS SO POOR THAT IT ESPEWS DUST THAT RUIN THE MECHANISM.
LET SAY BRAND (CRAP) DOES THIS AND CANON GOT 10,000 SERVICE CALLS ON BAD
MECHANISM AND THAT ALL WERE USING BRAND (CRAP) PAPER. I BET THEY COULD
ENFORCE THE WARRANTY.

but we all know that paper is extremely unlikely to alter the
functionality in terms of electronics or mechanics of the printer.
The company has the onus of proving the cause of the failure or defect
is indeed use of an improper consumable.

Although the companies might wish to make it sound like they can void
a warranty due to the use of non-manufacturers consumables since their
own contract states a limitation on when they can do so, they take the
responsibility of proving a behavior causes undue failure rates to
their products.

Art


digisol wrote:

DIGISOL KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. HE FOUND OUT CHURCH MEMBERS DID
NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE PREACHING. TOO BAD HE STOPPED POSTING

 

[measekite]

THROWING A GANTER OR A TIZZY CAUSE I AM VERY BUZY

Let's go word by word:

Warranty Exclusions

This Warranty will not apply if:

4. A Product's malfunction or failure results from deliberate or
accidental damage, neglect, modification, incorrect voltage, power
surges or your use of non-Genuine software, replacement parts,
Consumables, accessories and/or interfacing.

This is exactly what I stated. The product's malfunction or failure
RESULTS from deliberate ... use of non-genuine ... consumables.


Now, what that says in that the failure is a RESULT of the use of the
non-genuine consumable. The operative word is "RESULTS", because that
assumes a direct causal relationship, which has to be proven.

I'm not sure what a "genuine consumable" is exactly,

CANON OEM SUPPLIES

because it doesn't state it has to be an Epson consumable, but let's
assume it did. The FAILURE has to be as a result of the use of the
non-genuine consumable. So again, the onus is on Epson to prove
that's what caused the "failure".

DOES POLEE WAGEE WANT A CLOGEE

Even if they could prove the ink was not "genuine", since clogs can
result with either OEM or 3rd party ink,

HIGHER RISK WITH AFTERMARKET. CANON TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR
STUFF. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBITY FOR
SOMEONE ELSES JUNK

the "failure" is not a result of using non-genuine consumable.
Besides which, a clog isn't even a failure, it's an inconvenience.

Further:

Non-Genuine Items

Epson AUSTRALIA advises that if you use non- Genuine Consumables,
software, replacement parts or accessories, you may damage your
Product and may void your warranty.

You will notice the term "may damage" and "may void", the reason for
these disclaimers is because they would have to prove the "mays" in
the contract, and they cannot.

A CLOGGED PRINTHEAD WITH JUNK IN IT IS PROOF

 

[measekite]

THIS IS NOT SPAM. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I THINK CANON OEM
GENUINE INK IS BEST FOR A CANON PRINTER. I THINK THAT EPSON INK IS BEST
FOR AN EPSON PRINTER. I THINK THAT HP INK IS BEST FOR AN HP PRINTER. I
HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT USE UNBRANDED PRODUCTS THAT CAN DAMAGE MY EQUIPMENT
WHERE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS AND THE VENDOR WILL NOT DISCLOSE IT AND
TELL ANYONE I WANT.

IF SOME WANT TO PINCH THEIR PENNIES THAT IS THERE CHOICE.

I THINK REFILLING IS A MESS.

I DO WISH THAT THERE WOULD BE BRANDED AFTERMARKET PREFILLED CARTS FOR
ABOUT $4.00 THAT ARE SOLD ALL OVER AND THE BRAND COULD BE FOLLOWED TO
SEE IF IT IS GOOD AND DOES NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS. RIGHT NOW I
CANUNDERSTAND THAT HEAVEY USERS NEED TO USE UNBRANDED INK BECAUSE THE
COST OF THE GENUINE STUFF IS TOO HIGH. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT I SAY
THAT IS TOO BAD.

THIS IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. MANY PEOPLE THRU A TIZZY WHEN DIGISOL
EXPRESSED HIS OPINION AND I GUESS HE THOUHG THIS NG WAS WORTHLESS.

 

[fb]

They seem to be much more lax than ten or so years ago. Very seldom did
I receive junk mail then, as opposed to about five hundred and day now,
even with korea blocked! Anyway, I used to report and UUnet seemed
really quite good, in that they would acknowledge my complaint and then
a week or so later I would get a message that they had killed the
spamming account.

Yeah he's worse than spam. The lying bullshit all cap crap...what a
loser. He is truly an idiot full of shit.
Kill file his stuck-on-stupid ass and be done with him.
Frank

 

[zakezuke]

measkite said: the usual

this is not spam

This is spam!

"The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "the same article
(or essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of
times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't
mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose
content I object to." usenet faq

The issue with you isn't the fact that you are expressing an opinion.
The issue is and always has been the fact that you take every legit
request for technical support and use it as a vehicel to promote OEM
ink. The issue is you harass anyone who has a different opinion than
you. The issue is you go beyond expressing your opinion but present
information as fact when you go out of your way to lie... and this sir
is liable by definition.

If you wanted to say OEM ink works best... that would be your
opinion... though you have NO absolutly no experence with ANYTHING else
above and beyond the single option on one or two consumer grade
printers, and no experence what so ever with any printer above and
beyond a4. Even though your opinion is worthless I'm pro anyone who
can point out legit reasons why OEM is a good choice.

You say here that only heavy users benifit from cheaper OEM ink. The
problem is you harass anyone and everyone including heavy users making
wild claims... not opinions... that somehow the ink they are using will
destroy their printer.

The issue with digisol wasn't that they expressed an opinion... they
expressed that aftermarket ink voids warranties. This isn't an opinion
and isn't even true. This is illegal In america and most civilized
countries. And the only person to tizzy at all was measkite.

You say if someone wants to pinch their pennies it's their choice.
We're not talking pennies here but hundrads of dollars, and the problem
is you don't actually leave it at this. You continue to harass anyone
who makes the choice to pinch their pennies... when it's not pennies
but hundrads of dollars.

You wish branded aftermarket inks existed at brick and mortor stores...
well they do. You wish there was accountability... well there is.
It's my opinion that self-filling is the better choice because it's the
best way to actually know what you are getting. You can see it... test
it, and for color consistency you can't beat having ounces of ink from
the same vat made the same day. But the difference between you and I
is I could care less if someone refills, buys prefills, gets serviced
refills, or buys OEM. I with all due respect do not tizzy when I hear
someone is spending top dollar. In fact, I even say that the Canon OEM
pigmented black is really good, really cheap, and worth buying.

So I would reccomend you look at your own post and actually practice
what you preach. It is a matter of choice.... and anyone who makes a
choice other than what you reccomend isn't stupid.

 

[Davy]

Epson might get peevish if their printers are returned with 3rd party
ink - are they really gonna spend time analysing if there ain no ink
cartridges supplied.

Canon appears not to be concerned what ink is used in their printers
as they dispatched a new print head to the guy who was given the
printer with non OEM ink and the printer wasn't even registered to
him.

Davy

 

[Davy]

This has gotta be how it all works.

Buy a printer, run out of ink, buy OEM ink, OEM inks very dear, run
out and buy 3rdy party ink next time, thats too dear try refilling.

Printer clogs, waste ink, again run out buy new inks, printer clogs,
ask Art for his cleaning instructions, "hey presto".

Or maybe
"sulk" that don't work, run out and buy another printer and it
repeats all over again, in the process all the ink venders are
laughing their sweaty socks of after running to the bank with all
your cash and the printer manufacturers still produces printers that
clog and now will only work with their own brand of ink.

What will they get up to next..?

"Oh, brother what a way to go", why can't they just produce printers
and let other folk do the ink producing.

Davy

 

[measekite]

This has gotta be how it all works.

Buy a printer, run out of ink, buy OEM ink, OEM inks very dear, run
out and buy 3rdy party ink next time, thats too dear try refilling.

Printer clogs, waste ink, again run out buy new inks, printer clogs,
ask Art for his cleaning instructions, "hey presto".

ha ha ha ha Sounds about right

Or maybe
"sulk" that don't work, run out and buy another printer and it
repeats all over again, in the process all the ink venders are
laughing their sweaty socks of after running to the bank with all
your cash and the printer manufacturers still produces printers that
clog and now will only work with their own brand of ink.

Hey you forgot spiffy nifty ha ha ha

 

[zakezuke]

and according to reports in this ng they enforce it but rather selectively

Who? Name one person other than digisol who has stated that their
warranty was void because of third party ink.

 

[digisol]

I just showed you the facts, what you do with them is your business.

Tip for those who have not tried it, find either an A3 or A4 sheet of
Bond paper cover it in a plastic cover and sit it on top of the paper
stack but tape the leading edge of it just in front of the paper entry
so no dust falls down into the bottom of the printers paper stack.

The plastic allows wiping it with a "slightly" damp rag.

While I can only speak for the dust I get here, the sheet of bond
paper that's been on several printers (it's just light cardboard) and
does not slow the paper feed, it will keep 95%+ of dust out of the
depths of your first waiting sheet of paper covered in dust ready to
clog your print head when it's fed in.

Of course you can simply toss the first sheet before printing but the
dust still gets into everything that lays down in the gap between the
paper and printer.

That lack of dust will allow the print head to last much longer, so as
the bond is not just plain, print something witty on it, I do the same
on my fax machine.

Sure I could use the paper feed from the bottom hidden tray of my
Pixma-4000 but I don't, so sue me.

What can I say, it does work on both machines, just block the gap with
anything, a tea towl will do the same.

Jeez, giving away such secrets should cost ? hmmm

 

[measekite]

I just showed you the facts, what you do with them is your business.

I agree with you. However, both you and I write blasphemous remarks
against the church of the latter day inkie stinkies so what do you expect.

Tip for those who have not tried it, find either an A3 or A4 sheet of
Bond paper cover it in a plastic cover and sit it on top of the paper
stack but tape the leading edge of it just in front of the paper entry
so no dust falls down into the bottom of the printers paper stack.

The plastic allows wiping it with a "slightly" damp rag.

While I can only speak for the dust I get here, the sheet of bond
paper that's been on several printers (it's just light cardboard) and
does not slow the paper feed, it will keep 95%+ of dust out of the
depths of your first waiting sheet of paper covered in dust ready to
clog your print head when it's fed in.

Of course you can simply toss the first sheet before printing but the
dust still gets into everything that lays down in the gap between the
paper and printer.

That lack of dust will allow the print head to last much longer, so as
the bond is not just plain, print something witty on it, I do the same
on my fax machine.

Sure I could use the paper feed from the bottom hidden tray of my
Pixma-4000 but I don't, so sue me.

What can I say, it does work on both machines, just block the gap with
anything, a tea towl will do the same.

Jeez, giving away such secrets should cost ? hmmm

I do not know why you bother

 

[fb]

I just showed you the facts, what you do with them is your business.

No, that's not true at all. You showed us certain written materials and
you then misinterpreted them and assigned certain facts to them that are
not true.
What you do with this information is up to you.
Frank