Clogged Black on i560

Burt wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
. ..


(snip)



Yeh, it works so well that he went out and bought 2 discontinued Canon
Printers and does not use the Epson a great deal.



Cleaning the Epson DID work extremely well and I still have it and use it
sometimes.


Just what I said. I said "does not use the Epson a great deal" and But
said "and use it sometimes" Now do apples = apples or am I missing
something?



What you are either missing or purposely attempting to gloss over is that
your comment about "cleaning the Epson..." was a sarcastic attempt to imply
that the printer didn't work so well.


Not true. I accept that you claim it works well.


It worked just fine after cleaning
with Art's instructions - just as well as the day I bought it. Given the
state of photo printing technology when I bought it, It was very good. With
my first digital camera (2 megapixel was pretty much state of the art at the
time) and this printer I printed 8x10 prints that looked very good. Prints
from a 5 megapixel camera and the canon i960 certainly look better and
withstand scrutiny, even under magnification, but in its day the Epson was a
good printer. What you are also missing is that I used that printer for
around four years (OEM inks) before experiencing a head clog that the
cleaning cycle wouldn't clear. I hope your ip4000 (and my i960 printers)
will give the same service. You are very busy trying to justify your
vendetta against Epson printers and aftermarket inks and you take comments
out of context.



I like Epson. I have an Epson scanner and almost bought an Epson R300.
My friend who has one compared results with my Canon IP4000. He claims
that the Canon is somewhat better on photos and much better on text and
business graphics. That matches what the reviewers say.



I don't understand why you would criticize anyone for restoring a
perfectly good printer that had a head clog to excellent function.


I didn't.

It
happens that the Epson is several years old and produces attractive
photos, but not with the sharpness, detail, or near-continuous tone that
the i960 produces. If I were going to continue using OEM inks I would
have continued to use the Epson. Refilling the Epson carts (non-chipped)
was more complex and less successful, in my hands, than refilling the
Canon BCI-6 carts.



Thats nice.




Another wise-ass sarcastic response that is absolutely meaningless.


In addition, I don't understand the mentality of someone who criticizes me
for purchasing two discontinued printers that get absolutely top marks in
photo printing.


I never said it was a bad printer. Sure is better than anything Epson had
to compete with.



Although you didn't say it was a bad printer, by inuendo you tried to give
the impression that a discontinued printer is less valuable than the new
model.



It has less features and is slower.

The only area in which it was downgraded was that it didn't have a built
in card reader



No important.



In English that would be NOT important. Are you trying to respond in
Spanish - No es importante?


- something I would never use on a printer because I do all my
photoprinting through Photoshop Elements 3. I doubt that your beloved
ip4000 photo prints are superior to the ones produced on the i960.


Might be as good as. The results will probably have better longevity on
the IP4000 because it does not use the light dye load inks.



The longevity issue you raise here is both premature and redundant. I
addressed that issue later in my post. Neither of us really KNOWS about the
light dye load ink fading characteristics, but if that is the case I can
live with it.


Take that up with your buddy Art.

My prints look really good after almost a year, and that's
about the best you can say for yours (your famous desk test) as well.



With my first order of non-OEM inks from MIS I have saved more than the
cost of the two Canon i960's and I still have the Epson to use when I wish
to. The i960's are still going strong, I am on my second order of MIS
inks, and will save enough, as compared to OEM ink costs, to buy my next
two printers, or more, when these give out. By then, Canon will probably
be on to a new model line and I will look for deeply discounted Pixma's
like the one you are in love with at less than half the price you paid.


I do not think you can get one for $50.00.





Actually, I like the prints from the six color Canon's well enough that I
would buy the six color pixma rather than your four color (plus pigmented
black).


The IP6000D produces somewhat poorer photo results and a slower speed and
the text and business graphics are no match.



Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, Measekite. I said that I
use the HP laser for text (read business) documents. I have no need for
business graphics.


Truth be known, I would continue to buy new i960's if I could find them
because the Pixma line is similar technology and uses the same inks
(except for the eight color or 1 picoliter printers).


Does not have dual paper feed and full duplex printing. These features
are nice to have and I use them all of the time.



Again, read my last post. I don't need either of those features. If I did
I would have considered a Pixma printer.


The low dye load inks are reputed to fade more quickly, but my prints are
either in albums, framed and displayed, or sent to friends who enjoy them
for what they are and don't care if they are not archival.


If birds of a feather is true then I am sure you are correct.



Although this is supposed to be some sort of insult to me or to my friends
or both, I can't quite figure out where the insult is!


Be liked Avis.


It is obvious that
you are not interested in archival quality either as you are using your
ip4000. That DOES NOT make us birds of a feather. Now that I think about
it mayby putting me in the same non-archival interest group as you was the
ultimate insult. If guilt by association extends to both of us because we
both use Canon printers, I would definitely dump my canon printer and
purchase ANYTHING ELSE!



When do you plan on doing that?


With my prints stored or displayed in frames I haven't noticed any fading
in almost a year. Not any different from your "famous"
prints-laying-around-on-your-desk fade test.


Are your framed prints under glass?



Am I to take this question literally? That would mean that the framed print
would be laying on the floor or a table, face up UNDER glass. Now,
Measekite, you see what you do to people when you take a statement out of
context? Yes, grasshopper, my frames are purchased with glass and my prints
are, therefore, behind glass.


Measekite - you buy your OEM cartridges at Costco so I assume you are a
thrifty person and like to get the best value for your money. My purchase
of the first i960 was done just as the full Pixma line hit the
marketplace. It was deeply discounted and considerably cheaper than the
comparable model of the Pixma line. Since I don't need duplex printing,
the second paper feed, or an onboard card reader, I made a good buy on an
excellent photo printer with the same printing technology as the newer
line.


For you thats OK



You statement, "For you thats OK" is meant to convey a sense of superiority,
another not so subtle slur.


Not intended that way but now that you mention it.

As if my purchase was inferior to yours.
That means that for you getting a very good price on a product with
technology equal to, if not better than, the next model would NOT be OK? I
thought you were supposed to be a thrifty fellow who researched things well
and tried to make wise decisions. Given the same needs I had (and the same
lack of need for the duplex, extra paper feed, etc.) would you have made a
different decision and purchased the newer model with a much higher price
tag, even though it would not have delivered a better photo print? In my
opinion that would really be a foolish decision.



I might have. The 4000 is much faster.




My second one, a few months later, was for $100, somewhat less than you
paid for essentially a four color photo printer with the added ink for
text printing which I do with an HP laser printer. My ink costs me about
$1 per cartridge as compared to Costco @ $9 and retail @ $12.


Not comparable. And you never know if it will be consistent with each
order. They won't even tell you what you are buying.



Absolutely comparable. I have made side-by-side comparisons with OEM and
MIS ink prints. How would you know? You've never taken the opportunity to
personally do this evaluation as I have. You only speak from your bias and
your agenda to speak against all non-OEM inks. Acura doesn't tell you who
makes the air, fuel, and oil filters they sell you (with their name printed
on them) at the dealership when they do your servicing. Are they also
whores and hawkers? I don't think so, but by your definition they are as
they relabel products and hide the manufacturer's name. The anti-freeze,
brake fluid, and motor oil that have Honda or Acura written on the label
were certainly not manufactured by them either.
I would bet that they change vendors or manufacturers when they can get the
product for a nickel cheaper.



In essence, my two i960 printers were free after considering the deep
discount and the savings on ink!


That is like going to a grocery store and spending $100 on gorceries. The
clerk than tells you that you saved $20.00. If you did not go to the
store you would have saved $100 so what is the big deal?



You know very well what I mean. To use your example, it is like going to
one grocery store that charges $100 for your basket of food or going to the
secong grocery store that charges $80 for a comparable basket of food. The
savings is real. If you want to go to the more expensive store you are
welcome to do so. And don't throw the "not comparable" garbage back to me
in your guaranteed reply - I did the side-by-side prints, and I used the
inks for nearly a year. You didn't. You have no real knowledge of
comparability and I do. All you have is your often repeated bias,
put-downs, and sarcasm. Given that I am going to print the same number of
prints whether I use OEM or MIS inks, the savings from using MIS inks is
real. Where is your MBA training in this argument? Even a high school
dropout knows that if you research carefully and find a comparable, equally
functional product that you need, you save money when you buy the lower
priced item!


I expect that my next two will be the same, given the fact that I look for
the just discontinued good performing printer model and have the good
sense to use high quality aftermarket inks that perform as well as Canon
OEM inks.


You probably buys a year old new car at the end of the model year. In a
week the car is a year old but you probably think it is a new car.



Again, an apples and oranges argument. The end-of-model year printers I
bought were at least equal in technology and function (less the bells and
whistles I don't need) and came with the same one year waranty that yours
did. With an inkjet printer there is no consideration of a resale value or
the social recognition of buying the newest model. There is no loss of
intrinsic value with a $100 to $150 printer. What is important is the
quality and functionality. The same should be said for cars as well, but
the marketplace dictates otherwise. What sometimes does happen, however, is
that the end-of-year car model can sometimes be purchased at a deep discount
that compensates for the fact that a new model has come out. And, most
important, ANY car you drive off the showroom floor loses thousands of
dollars of value the minute the tires hit the pavement! You are also a bit
confused on another issue. If I were to go to a new car delership today and
buy a 2004 car that had never been sold or driven, it would still be a NEW
car with the same waranty and same useful life and functionality as if I had
purchased it one year before. Just the same as the printer. And - in one
week my 2004 and your 2005 with the same milage on them would both be ---
one week old! The difference is the drop in resale value relative to model
year. If it were purchased at a price commensurate with the drop in resale
value you would actually have the same functionality and longevity at a much
lower price. For someone who keeps cars fror a long time the end of model
year car, if purchased at a good price, would possibly be the better value.
Of course all of this discussion is irrelevant if you need to drive the
newest model as an affirmation of your social value. In other words,
feeding the ego in addition to satisfying your functional needs. What price
do you put on your ego, Measekite? Does your MBA tell you how to calculate
how much you pay for the ego factor?

I have no ego needs when it comes to having a Pixma over an "I" series
printer. Beautiful prints are what I am after and that is what I got.
And - at half price for the printers and 1/10 the price of comparable inks,
I think that anyone but you would regard my choices as good ones. You and I
have made choices that reflect our perceived needs and level of risk taking.
The good news is that I have had extremely positive results in spite of the
low level of risk I took.


We'll leave it to the judgement of the others on the NG as to who is more
savvy with his printer and ink purchases and who is the fool for
criticizing him.



Canon thinks people like you are fools.



Canon loves fools like you who have been sold a bill of goods and love to
pay at least nine times my ink costs. I'm glad you do that, however, as you
support their plan to continue to offer low cost printer to all of us in
exchange for you and many others paying nine to twelve dollars for a little
plastic box with 14 cc. of ink. Pricy stuff. Right up there with the best
single malt scotch.

measekite wrote:

Canon thinks people like you are fools.

Yon may think that Canon thinks people like Burt et al are fools.
But as usual you'd be dead wrong.
"Think" is operative word here.
For sure, Canon KNOWS that people like you are the real fools who are
willing to pay for their very overpriced OEM inks and keep their execs
in very high paying salaries and great bonuses.
They depends on fools like you.
Without fools like you, who are willing to pay at least 4 times as much
for their OEM inks as compared to 3rd's, they'd have to start
discounting their overpriced OEM inks, or take a pay cut.
But as long as there are fools like you, those great salaries plus
raises and bonuses just keep on coming.
I do hope they send you a wonderful Xmas thank you card every year.
Fool!
Frank

Frank wrote:
measekite wrote:

Canon thinks people like you are fools.


Yon may think that Canon thinks people like Burt et al are fools.
But as usual you'd be dead wrong.
"Think" is operative word here.
For sure, Canon KNOWS that people like you are the real fools who are
willing to pay for their very overpriced OEM inks and keep their execs
in very high paying salaries and great bonuses.
They depends on fools like you.
Without fools like you, who are willing to pay at least 4 times as much
for their OEM inks as compared to 3rd's, they'd have to start
discounting their overpriced OEM inks, or take a pay cut.
But as long as there are fools like you, those great salaries plus
raises and bonuses just keep on coming.
I do hope they send you a wonderful Xmas thank you card every year.
Fool!
Frank

Also, let's not forget that it's the people buying OEM ink that keeps
the price of inkjet printers low. For that, I am greatful to them.
Under the current senario I get inexpensive printers AND inexpensive
ink. This is why I don't mind that measekite buys, and promotes the use
of, OEM ink. It's good for my bank account.

I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the two of you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different designs and
they can respond differently to ink formulations and to cleaning processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with inks
not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party inks, per se,
but ones outside of the original design and intent of the printer, such
as using pigment colorant inks in a dye ink designed printer, or using
dye-sub inks in a dye colorant printer) these same heads are designed
for permanent usage, and as such they are less vulnerable to damage by
using wrong inks, or by using mildly corrosive solvents.

Thermal heads are probably more vulnerable to damage of some types.
Obviously, Canon has done something to their thermal heads to improve
them enough to allow them to work for 12-18 months or even more, well
beyond the previous abilities of thermal heads in most cases.

I have no stats on how Canon heads respond to differently formulated 3rd
party inks. Some people seem to be pleased with them, and when head do
eventually fail, they seem to remain fairly stoic about it, for the most
part.

But indeed piezo and thermal heads aren't the same technologies, and as
such can't be grouped together is a discussion such as this.

Art


Burt wrote:

"PC Medic" wrote in message
news:Ytnoe.84748$yV4.19253@okepread03...

"Shooter" wrote in message
...

Absolute Rubbish, nothing but the spread of alarm. I have been using
this
ink now for three years with a CIS. Does it alter the colour and quality,
it
certainly does by an increase of around 50%. to qualify, no bronzing with
semi gloss or full gloss paper, no clogs, colour so vibrant that you
would
think the photo's were taken with say a Nikon F4 and processed in a pro
lab.


You're suggesting the after-market ink you use 'improves' your print
quality by 50% over that of the OEM designed for your printer!?
I find this quite unbelievable. While there may be some fair quality
after-market inks out there, none that can claim this.


If this is what the printer now produces I will take the very slight
chance
of a head burnout. With regards to tossing solvent into the heads, what
do
you think happens when you use cleaning carts and please don't use the
excuse that cleaning carts are only used now and again, don't forget
cleaning carts are pure cleaner irrespetfic of the formula used.


And cleaning carts are *not* OEM any more than the after-market inks you
push, or are they ever recommended by the manufacture (none I have ever
dealt with any way). The cleaning carts I have see are also NOT "pure
cleaner" and are usualy a diluted soulution of distilled water, amonia and
alchohol.


Which, from my experience, works quite well in Epson dye-based printers.
Actually a mixture of Windex original formula (main components are water and
alcohol with a hint of ammonia, a surfactant, and a splash of blue dye to
make you think you bought something more than water and alcohol) and a bit
of isopropyl alcohol clears the usual head clog that doesn't respond to the
cleaning cycles. For specific proportions and more detailed instructions
read Art Entlich's manual. I don't want to quote from his material as I may
misquote it --- his technique tells how to clean the under surface of the
print head without removal and clean the jets with cleaning cartridges.
PC - To my knowledge, these are not the corrosive materials that you warned
about in an earlier post.

Arthur Entlich wrote:

I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the two of
you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different designs
and they can respond differently to ink formulations and to cleaning
processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with
inks not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party inks,
per se,



But when you buy AfterMarket inks from an AfterMarket vendor and they do
not disclose who formulated the ink you could be getting the same bad
ink from a variety of sources. You really never no what you are getting
nor do you know if the consistency is there. If there is one or maybe
two AfterMarket inks that will not harm your printer it is very
difficult to sort them out. That is unfortunate. I wish that was not
the case.

but ones outside of the original design and intent of the printer,
such as using pigment colorant inks in a dye ink designed printer, or
using dye-sub inks in a dye colorant printer) these same heads are
designed for permanent usage, and as such they are less vulnerable to
damage by using wrong inks, or by using mildly corrosive solvents.

Thermal heads are probably more vulnerable to damage of some types.


For sure the integrated thermal heads onHP carts are just fine.

Obviously, Canon has done something to their thermal heads to improve
them enough to allow them to work for 12-18 months or even more, well
beyond the previous abilities of thermal heads in most cases.

I have no stats on how Canon heads respond to differently formulated
3rd party inks. Some people seem to be pleased with them, and when
head do eventually fail, they seem to remain fairly stoic about it,
for the most part.

But indeed piezo and thermal heads aren't the same technologies, and
as such can't be grouped together is a discussion such as this.

Art


Burt wrote:

"PC Medic" wrote in message
news:Ytnoe.84748$yV4.19253@okepread03...

"Shooter" wrote in message
...

Absolute Rubbish, nothing but the spread of alarm. I have been
using this
ink now for three years with a CIS. Does it alter the colour and
quality, it
certainly does by an increase of around 50%. to qualify, no
bronzing with
semi gloss or full gloss paper, no clogs, colour so vibrant that
you would
think the photo's were taken with say a Nikon F4 and processed in a
pro lab.


You're suggesting the after-market ink you use 'improves' your print
quality by 50% over that of the OEM designed for your printer!?
I find this quite unbelievable. While there may be some fair quality
after-market inks out there, none that can claim this.


If this is what the printer now produces I will take the very
slight chance
of a head burnout. With regards to tossing solvent into the heads,
what do
you think happens when you use cleaning carts and please don't use the
excuse that cleaning carts are only used now and again, don't forget
cleaning carts are pure cleaner irrespetfic of the formula used.


And cleaning carts are *not* OEM any more than the after-market inks
you push, or are they ever recommended by the manufacture (none I
have ever dealt with any way). The cleaning carts I have see are
also NOT "pure cleaner" and are usualy a diluted soulution of
distilled water, amonia and alchohol.



Which, from my experience, works quite well in Epson dye-based
printers. Actually a mixture of Windex original formula (main
components are water and alcohol with a hint of ammonia, a
surfactant, and a splash of blue dye to make you think you bought
something more than water and alcohol) and a bit of isopropyl
alcohol clears the usual head clog that doesn't respond to the
cleaning cycles. For specific proportions and more detailed
instructions read Art Entlich's manual. I don't want to quote from
his material as I may misquote it --- his technique tells how to
clean the under surface of the print head without removal and clean
the jets with cleaning cartridges. PC - To my knowledge, these are
not the corrosive materials that you warned about in an earlier post.

Simply put, the pH of Epson inks are alkaline. If the concentration of
ammonia in window cleaner is enough to damage the heads in those
printers, so is the ink formulation.

I would be more wary of "very hot water" distilled or otherwise,
something Epson heads never have any contact with (the inks are cold and
remain that way) than I would concern myself with the corrosively of the
pH of window cleaner used for a short term basis.

Art

Burt wrote:

"PC Medic" wrote in message
news:advoe.84775$yV4.66618@okepread03...

"Burt" wrote in message
om...

"PC Medic" wrote in message
news:Ytnoe.84748$yV4.19253@okepread03...

"Shooter" wrote in message
...

Absolute Rubbish, nothing but the spread of alarm. I have been using
this
ink now for three years with a CIS. Does it alter the colour and
quality, it
certainly does by an increase of around 50%. to qualify, no bronzing
with
semi gloss or full gloss paper, no clogs, colour so vibrant that you
would
think the photo's were taken with say a Nikon F4 and processed in a pro
lab.


You're suggesting the after-market ink you use 'improves' your print
quality by 50% over that of the OEM designed for your printer!?
I find this quite unbelievable. While there may be some fair quality
after-market inks out there, none that can claim this.


If this is what the printer now produces I will take the very slight
chance
of a head burnout. With regards to tossing solvent into the heads, what
do
you think happens when you use cleaning carts and please don't use the
excuse that cleaning carts are only used now and again, don't forget
cleaning carts are pure cleaner irrespetfic of the formula used.


And cleaning carts are *not* OEM any more than the after-market inks you
push, or are they ever recommended by the manufacture (none I have ever
dealt with any way). The cleaning carts I have see are also NOT "pure
cleaner" and are usualy a diluted soulution of distilled water, amonia
and alchohol.

Which, from my experience, works quite well in Epson dye-based printers.
Actually a mixture of Windex original formula (main components are water
and alcohol with a hint of ammonia, a surfactant, and a splash of blue
dye to make you think you bought something more than water and alcohol)
and a bit of isopropyl alcohol clears the usual head clog that doesn't
respond to the cleaning cycles. For specific proportions and more
detailed instructions read Art Entlich's manual. I don't want to quote
from his material as I may misquote it --- his technique tells how to
clean the under surface of the print head without removal and clean the
jets with cleaning cartridges. PC - To my knowledge, these are not the
corrosive materials that you warned about in an earlier post.


Windex can in fact be corrosive to the substrate used to form the nozzle
patterns on many printheads.
Out of warranty, I guess at that point you haven't much to lose, but I
would stick to straight VERY warm distilled water (in an ultra-sonic
jewelry cleaner if you have one).


Would then have to remove the Epson print head. Not usually a good idea for
the average home printer user. How about very warm distilled water with a
bit of alcohol in it? Actually setting a clogged Canon print head in a
container with just a few mm. of very warm distilled water often clears the
clog. If not, adding a little alcohol to the water will often do the trick.
Remember, PC, that when these printers are out of warranty, taking them to a
repair shop is not cost effective unless they are high end printers. If a
head clog can't be cleared with the printer software head cleaning routines
the printer is useless. Before buying a new one it is cerainly worthwhile
to try this home remedy. Nothing lost if it doesn't work or can potentially
ruin the printhead. I have owned several small ultrasonic cleaners for
cleaning debris off of surgical instruments before sterilizing them. I
don't think they were large enough, however, to accomodate a Canon
printhead. You would need a fairly large one (translate - costly one) to
clean a print head. Again, not cost effective for the ususal home user.
Bottom line is that Art Entlich's home brew cleaner worked great on my Epson
Stylus 900 and the printer is still working well almost a year later.

"measekite" wrote in message
. ..


Arthur Entlich wrote:

I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the two of
you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different designs and
they can respond differently to ink formulations and to cleaning
processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with inks
not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party inks, per se,



But when you buy AfterMarket inks from an AfterMarket vendor and they do
not disclose who formulated the ink you could be getting the same bad ink
from a variety of sources. You really never no what you are getting nor
do you know if the consistency is there. If there is one or maybe two
AfterMarket inks that will not harm your printer it is very difficult to
sort them out. That is unfortunate. I wish that was not the case.

As in many other businesses, many years of operation with satisfied
customers tends to establish trust. No one should rush to buy from any
vendor without doing some careful evaluation. I'm sure you would subscribe
to that concept.

(snip)

Burt wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
...


Arthur Entlich wrote:



I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the two of
you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different designs and
they can respond differently to ink formulations and to cleaning
processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with inks
not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party inks, per se,



But when you buy AfterMarket inks from an AfterMarket vendor and they do
not disclose who formulated the ink you could be getting the same bad ink
from a variety of sources. You really never no what you are getting nor
do you know if the consistency is there. If there is one or maybe two
AfterMarket inks that will not harm your printer it is very difficult to
sort them out. That is unfortunate. I wish that was not the case.



As in many other businesses, many years of operation with satisfied
customers tends to establish trust. No one should rush to buy from any
vendor without doing some careful evaluation. I'm sure you would subscribe
to that concept.


(snip)



If you want to trust hawkers that spend a few dollars and put up a
storefront website you can do that. That is not the way to do business.

measekite wrote:



Burt wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
. ..


Arthur Entlich wrote:



I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the two
of you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different designs
and they can respond differently to ink formulations and to cleaning
processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with
inks not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party inks,
per se,



But when you buy AfterMarket inks from an AfterMarket vendor and they
do not disclose who formulated the ink you could be getting the same
bad ink from a variety of sources. You really never no what you are
getting nor do you know if the consistency is there. If there is one
or maybe two AfterMarket inks that will not harm your printer it is
very difficult to sort them out. That is unfortunate. I wish that
was not the case.



As in many other businesses, many years of operation with satisfied
customers tends to establish trust. No one should rush to buy from
any vendor without doing some careful evaluation. I'm sure you would
subscribe to that concept.


(snip)


If you want to trust hawkers that spend a few dollars and put up a
storefront website you can do that. That is not the way to do business.





Well tell us about your experience with your own business, ok.
Oh...you say you've never, ever been in business for yourself? You say
you have no experience to speak of? Is that correct?
Just like you have no experience at all in using 3rd party inks or
dealing with 3rd party ink vendors..is that correct?
Then why do you keep posting your apparent lies and libelous remarks to
this ng? Are you mentally ill or just plain crazy. Or it is that you're
actually just stupid enough to think no one knows who and where you
really are and won't take legal action against for your libelous remarks?
You think you can get by with defaming business people forever?
Dream on sucker!
Frank

Frank wrote:

measekite wrote:



Burt wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
. ..


Arthur Entlich wrote:



I think a distinction needs to me made here, in fairness to the
two of you.

Thermal ink heads and piezo ink heads are totally different
designs and they can respond differently to ink formulations and
to cleaning processes.

While piezo heads may tend to clog more, especially when used with
inks not designed for that particular model (not all 3rd party
inks, per se,




But when you buy AfterMarket inks from an AfterMarket vendor and
they do not disclose who formulated the ink you could be getting
the same bad ink from a variety of sources. You really never no
what you are getting nor do you know if the consistency is there.
If there is one or maybe two AfterMarket inks that will not harm
your printer it is very difficult to sort them out. That is
unfortunate. I wish that was not the case.




As in many other businesses, many years of operation with satisfied
customers tends to establish trust. No one should rush to buy from
any vendor without doing some careful evaluation. I'm sure you
would subscribe to that concept.


(snip)


If you want to trust hawkers that spend a few dollars and put up a
storefront website you can do that. That is not the way to do business.





Well tell us about your experience with your own business, ok.
Oh...you say you've never, ever been in business for yourself? You say
you have no experience to speak of? Is that correct?
Just like you have no experience at all in using 3rd party inks or
dealing with 3rd party ink vendors..is that correct?
Then why do you keep posting your apparent lies and libelous remarks
to this ng? Are you mentally ill or just plain crazy. Or it is that
you're actually just stupid enough to think no one knows who and where
you really are and won't take legal action against for your libelous
remarks?
You think you can get by with defaming business people forever?
Dream on sucker!
Frank


You must be an idiot. Frankie Crankie and Burtie Furtie are the worst
members of the AfterMarket Club.

Happy clogging to you. Maybe you are secretly in the ink business.
Nothing would surprise me. Well, I got to back to work designning a
website for an ink vendor.

Goto www.inkystinky.biz