warehouse club warning

Ron Hunter wrote:



Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
and end up spending 40% or so of their GDP on it, and people wait for
months, if not years, for needed surgery while doctors flee to other
countries.




Oh really?

And how much of the GDP is paid out "privately" in the US on medical
costs? (And how much of that is ripped off by your lovely "for profit"
insurance and medical system). And how many people in the US just end
up dead before they "wait months if not years" for the surgery they
need, because they have no insurance.

The doctors that flee, BTW, happen to usually be the unethical ones who
went into medicine for the money anyway, so, good riddance, and further,
if they had nowhere else to go, because the other countries also worked
under socialized medicine, that would solve that problem pretty fast,
wouldn't it.

You obviously have never lived in a country with good socialized
medicine. I have both lived in the US (half my life) and in Canada and
Europe (half my life) and I would NEVER consider going back to the US as
an option.

Simply put, the US provides medicine for SOME of the people, those who
can afford the horrific costs (and why do I bet you have a nice paid for
health plan through your employer or pension while you would deny that
of Walmart employees (which you parasitically live off of by shopping
there)). In the meantime, a good percentage of Americans suffer with no
health care or substandard health care, and the proof is in the UN
rankings that show the US, the great wealthy super-duper power, never
even gets close to the top of the list for health, education or standard
of living, year after year. Daily, people in the US are bankrupted
financially by health care costs; the poor, the elderly, the sickly,
those with rare diseases.

Now, I will agree on one thing, Canada has suffered tremendously as a
result of having the misfortune of our geography, situated right next to
your toxic country. Your private insurers scramble to get the Canadian
business and are helping to ruin our medical system. Your medical
"corporations" (who used to be called doctors), lobby here continually
to try to break up the medical system we have. Stupid Canadians, which
unfortunately, there are too many of, who don't know better, look to the
US as a model of a perverse "cheap tax" haven, and suffering from US
Envy, due to their ignorance, have voted in governments here that have
slowly damaged our health system. Even then, however, it's still better
for most people than what the US offers. We have a healthier population
as a country than the population of the US. I know that nothing matters
to you but yourself, and maybe your immediate family, but here in Canada
there still does exist the understanding that a healthy and educated
society benefits everyone, that keeping guns out of the population
protects everyone, and that keeping right-wing fundamentalist crazies
out of public office (by not voting for them) protects the separation of
"church" and state so all people can be equally represented under law
with fairness.

In all my days, I have never seen a more paranoid population as exists
in the US today. You people consider any society more evolved and saner
than your own a threat to your way of life, and I suppose in some ways,
it is. Heck, the rest of the world just might work on solving things
like global climate change without you, and wouldn't that be horrible,
so your country does everything in its power to derail the process and
spew your poisonous pollution and greenhouse gases at a rate unsurpassed
by any other country. Well, Mr. "Texian", while your crazy government
goes around punching holes in the permafrost looking for oil in fragile
tundra of Alaska, so you can drive SUVs, the rest of the world works on
fuel cells, and while your country continues to foul your nest so you
have no clean water left, coming north begging for a cup of clean
drinking water, we'll probably be good neighbors and give you some out
of pity, and just shake our heads the way people do when encountering
fools and madmen.

Art

Ron Hunter wrote:



Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,
and end up spending 40% or so of their GDP on it, and people wait for
months, if not years, for needed surgery while doctors flee to other
countries.

The situation reported regarding Walmart indeed has been documented
numerous times.

Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:

It's mostly Iiford's mistake (I prefer to call it a mistake, rather
than trick)



How about if it's neither a trick nor a mistake...

One of the ploys that companies like Sam's, (+ Walmart of course,) and
Costco do is
buy millions of dollars worth of product and when the manufacturer
ramps up their
product to the increased demand, the big store demands price decreases
or threatens
to bail out. The manufacturer has no choice but to lower quality to
get to the lower
price.


Bull! You obviously never shop at Costco or no over a long period.
Costco often gets newly introduced stuff which sells at a high discount
to other stores. And we are not talking about different models but the
identical item. Then Costco often sells out of the item and it is never
offered again. What is happening is that Costco's low prices create a
market and the manufacture will no longer sell at a discount to Costco.
Quite a contrast to what you are saying.

Don't know if what you say happens at Walmart, but I doubt it. Any
substantial reduction in quality would quickly result in decrease sales
and an excess of product.

I don't know who is responsible for the lowered quality of products sold
at some of the discount big box stores, but it definitely happens.
Several months back Loblaws Super Store was selling Epson Photo paper,
with the identical product number on it as that sold elsewhere, in 100
sheet or so packages for a "great price". However, upon sampling it, I
discovered the paper was literally nearly half the thickness of the same
product sole elsewhere in 20 sheet packages for considerably more money.

The big box version was so thin as to ripple out of the package and by
the time the ink hit it, well, forget it.

I don't know who was to blame for this product. The big box, Epson,
collaboration of the two, a counterfeit product, all I know is it ended
up no deal for anyone who used the product.

And the problem is I'd imagine many of the buyers were unfamiliar with
the other product of the same number, so they couldn't make a direct
comparison to know they had been provided with an inferior product,
which saved them nothing due to the quality differences.


Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:

NO company has the personnel to inspect every shipment of a product
for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.



Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving
quality control
to chance.


Whoa, you were just saying that manufacturer's were forced into lowering
the quality by Sam's demand for lower prices, but that Sam's didn't
check everything. Now you are saying that Sams knows what the quality
is, so you are saying that Sams deliberately lowers the quality by
lowering the price paid to the manufacture. You can't have it both
ways. And, don't you think that Sam's knows that lowering the quality
at the same price will have an adverse effect on sales?


Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of paper
from Ilford.
The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on with
a printer, 8"
x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more
detailed. They
know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality
control people who
will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant. They
check HOW a
product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is
made to those
specifications.

Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies will
sometimes
compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but
companies like
Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.


Right, Sam's can afford to screw over their customers, but that is
exactly what you have been saying with regard to the prices they are
willing to pay the manufacture after the manufacturer ramps up
production. Your whole argument is a house of cards. One little push
and it collapses.

Your argument is likely half the story.

In all the time I have used Epson Photo paper, I have never seen the
paper sold by the big box store in Epson's line up. It was obviously a
special run, maybe even an exclusive for that big box store. A buyer
likely contacted Epson and they agreed on the product at a price. I
would be very surprised that Epson went and reduced the thickness by
nearly half without agreement by the big box. I suspect that prior to
the end deal, samples change hands and are agreed upon.

I am not sure the product is reconfirmed when the product arrives at
warehouses. I imagine it is delivered to many warehouses at once and
then further distributed, but I still suspect that a contract didn't get
signed until the exact product was agreed upon.

Art

George E. Cawthon wrote:

leo wrote:

Petey the Wonder Dog wrote:

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:

NO company has the personnel to inspect every shipment of a product
for quality, and suppliers KNOW that.




Maybe not, but... don't assume that Sam's got where it is by leaving
quality control
to chance.

Let's say you are Sam's Club, and you order $25 million worth of
paper from Ilford.
The order is a LOT more concise than "Paper for printing stuff on
with a printer, 8"
x 10, 100 sheets per pack." The specifications are far far more
detailed. They
know and specify EXACTLY what they want. Then you have quality
control people who
will do random inspections of various batches right at the plant.
They check HOW a
product is made. They have to see the process whereby the product is
made to those
specifications.

Granted, someone may not have been doing their job, and companies
will sometimes
compromise even the safety of foods or medicne to make a buck, but
companies like
Sam's can't afford to screw over their customers for long.




All retailers would do such thing -- to a limit, but I would think
that to many discounters, glossy photo paper, is just, glossy photo
paper, unless there is radically change in the appearance, as if
changing to matte finish. You think the purchasing department would
hire a photography guy to test the paper, and other _experts_ to test
ten and thousands of the merchandises? I do hope it's just some goof
up at Ilford, but not intentionally to make such a confusion. BTW, I
don't shop at Sams and rarely visit Walmart (or Target etc.) but I
think we shouldn't simply assume it's Walmart's evil act without
further checking.


I can't believe all this crap about stores testing products. Stores
don't test products, they sell product. Warehouse and such type stores
sell what sells. The research they do is market research not quality
control. If 50 percent of the market is held by brand X toothpaste,
they will sell it at the lowest profitable price. If there are
agreements on minimum sales price for a brand name, the warehouse may
get the manufacture to sell the same product under a house name.

No store is going to test a Cannon A95 camera. They will probably look
at sales stats and customer satisfaction before offering it for sale or
baring information may simply test the sales by buying a small amount of
the product. The same thing is true of all those brand name groceries,
drug items, etc.

When it comes to buying a personal care item in a bottle, it better damn
well be the same in every bottle manufactured (within quality control
limits). I buy a lot of contact lens solution, (a single kind within
one brand). The cost varies from about $6 a bottle to nearly $9 and I
and everyone else expects to get the same product regardless of what
store it is bought from. Does anyone really think the manufacture make
deliberate changes in a formula and marks those for specific stores.
Depending on the facilities the manufacturer most likely makes a run of
100,000 for Walmart, 100,OOO for Target, 50,000 for Albertsons, etc.
from the same batch. And the shipping department has no idea if it is
mixed batches or not.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:16:08 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Arthur
Entlich in YNa2e.128924$fc4.45460@edtnps89
wrote:

Matt,

You are wasting your typing fingers. Didn't you read the views of your
detractors?

I must say that there was a lot of huff and puff that seems to have
disappeared. I did not even mention that Afghanistan is pretty much a
narco state now, one that has get women in the state they were in
under the Taliban. Or that women are loosing their rights daily in
Iraq and that our "friend" Saudi continues to mistreat them with no
word from the U.S.

If it isn't "profitable" to the US, it doesn't warrant
getting involved.

The one absolutely valuable lesson that the Bush administration and the
9-11 events have revealed clearly to the world is that the US government
only acts within its own interest, for the well being of those it is
most heavily in debt to, or owned or run by.

While the U.S. are not angels, neither are we devils. Countries act in
their own interest, the U.S. is a country. My problem is not that, my
problem is that we don't act in our interest as I see it, we seem to
act for a small group of people with a very short time-frame. Shrub
pushes on drilling in ANWAR, but does not meaningful to reduce oil
consumption. Or, since I am in venting mood here, this recent gross
hypocrisy regarding Schiavo. The Republican Party gained tremendous
political success by taking the mantle of "States Rights" from the
Democrats. They repeat over and over that they believe in small
government and states rights and the family. So they could not do
anything about civil rights. They were against discrimination, but it
was not the role of the federal government. But suddenly it is the
role of the federal government, they took this case right out of the
state. They passed laws (and tried to pass more laws) to *reduce* the
value of marriage and of the family. If you actually believe these
people this one brain-dead woman is worth more than millions of blacks
and Hispanics, she is worth more than the families of America. Either
that or they have spent decades using prejudice as a weapon, they
don't give a hoot about states rights, they wanted the votes of
Southern bigots. You can see their view of states rights when you see
that they override the states when it comes to drug usage or tort
reform or a host of other issues.

Venting over for now.




As opposed to the U.S. waiting until we were attacked? Can you imagine
the world intervening in Sudan now that we have acknowledged that
genocide is going on? Or actually doing something about Pakistan's
exporting of nuclear weapons? Or doing something about Saudi Arabia's
exporting of hate? Or trying to reverse the re-imposition of
dictatorship in Russia? Or maybe actually working to stop terrorism in
the world rather than give excuses and motivation? Imagine actually
going after Bin Laden instead of diverting forces to Iraq. Imagine
taking the time to ensure you had enough troops and that they had
enough amour before attacking. Imagine working for rule of law rather
than just doing what we wanted to do.





--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]

Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,

Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.


It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
from time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]

Pavel Dvorak wrote:
Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]

Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
try it,

Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.


It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
resist:

Canadian health care system does not work.

Nor does the American.

If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait
for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
too late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

What is the life expectancy? How about cancer death rates? So they what
if they don't use the American system, the more money you have, the
better and sooner you get care. We ration her.

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are
drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them
drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
attention, or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
from time to time.

How about some stats? I don't see the kind of misery due to lack of
health care I see in the U.S.

I'm betting you weren't using the Canada healthcare system 15-20 years
ago, when it worked quite well. It has been sabotaged by corporate and
political interest which wish to prove it doesn't work, and they have
almost done so. But as long as there are people like me who were around
when it did work, we can attest to the lie that it can't.

Art

Pavel Dvorak wrote:

Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]


Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries try it,

Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.



It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be too late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)

Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate attention, or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin
from time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]

Arthur Entlich wrote:

I'm betting you weren't using the Canada healthcare system 15-20 years
ago, when it worked quite well. It has been sabotaged by corporate
and political interest which wish to prove it doesn't work, and they
have almost done so. But as long as there are people like me who were
around when it did work, we can attest to the lie that it can't.


Hey Canada does not have a monopoly on corporate and political
imbiciles. I think we invented them in the US. You guys just copied
them. ;-)


Art

Pavel Dvorak wrote:

Matt Silberstein ) writes:

[lot nuked]


Oh, you mean socialized medicine? Doesn't work. Many countries
try it,


Works well in Costa Rica and Canada.



It's really outside the comp.periphs.printers topics, but I cannot
resist:

Canadian health care system does not work. If you have to endure many
months of pain before you can get an 'elective' surgery, like a hip
replacement or fixing a herniated disk, or have to helplessly wait for
diagnosis and then cancer treatment knowing full well that it may be
too late
when your turn in the hospital comes - and the law does not alow you
to get it done fast privately if you want and can pay, then something
is wrong, isn't there?

(Well, unless you subscribe to the idea that if two people are drowning
and you know you can save just one of them, you let both of them drown,
because saving one would be unfair to the other you could not save.)
Canadian health care system is OK for you if you a

(a) rich enough to buy any urgent treatment outside the country, or
(b) a high level politician or athlete who gets an immediate
attention, or
(c) generally healthy and all you need is to buy some aspirin from
time to time.

Pavel

[rest nuked]

:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:29:28 GMT, SamSez wrote:



I recently noticed that Sams Club was carrying "Ilford Galerie Professional
Inkjet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper" [sic] in 100 sheet boxes, and through
their web site you could also order "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet
Photo
Range Smooth Pearl Paper" [sic], so I bought two boxes of the gloss and one
of
the pearl.

Only when I went to make a print on the pearl, I saw immediately that it was
different than the "Ilford Galerie Professional Inkjet Photo Range Smooth
Pearl
Paper" that I had used previously. It had a lower base brightness, a duller
finish and felt thinner despite the box being apparently the same size.

Here's Ilford's response:

"Many thanks for your email. We are sorry thqat you are dissapointed. the
Sam`s
Club version of our media is NOT the same as the general brand found in Pro
dealers and is NOT covered in the sample pack. The description of the media
in
the sample pack at 280gsm is correct for the media supplied via our dealer
channels where the sample pack was purchased. The packaging is very
different
for the Sam`s media and sorry to say that you should have purchased the
media
via the same dealer route as the sample pack. Your comments will be passed
over
to our marketing group, but the Sam`s media although to the same standards
is
very different and is why the media is cheaper. We do not include the Sam`s
version in our sample packs as this is the only outlet for this version
generally. "

Kind of interesting that the name on the box is exactly the same for two
"very
different" products.

Sigh....



Any company that pulls tricks like this deserves to go bankrupt. Ooops...
Ilford IS bankrupt. Justice?



Ilford did not pull tricks. They just sold a reduced quality product
based on a customers specifications and packaged it differently.
Hopefully they gave it a different name. The tricks are from Walmart.

Pete



In case I didn't make it clear enough in my original post, they did NOT give it
a different name. That is my point.



After reading and rereading much the same line here without this point
being injected, I want to add something. Here where I live (in SC),
this town has two Wal-Mart stores and one Sams Club. I've never seen
Ilford paper in either of the Wal-Mart stores here. Further, the
local Sam's club ONLY sells the one labeled "Ilford Galerie
Professional Injet Photo Range Smooth Gloss Paper", I have never seen
the pearl type in there. And I've been buying the smooth gloss paper
from them for several years now. It is always in the same packaging,
and is marked as 250 gsm (or grams/sq.meter). I've never test weighed
in out of the dozens of boxes I've used, but I have checked its
thickness regularly with a dial caliper, and it consistently falls in
the same range from box to box.

Of some interest to me, at least, I tried to find their smooth pearl
paper there, and have been told they do not carry it. And I even
tried to find it listed on their web site, some months ago, but it was
not listed. So, how did you manage to get some from them at all? I
ended up ordering it from B&H Photo, and they were out of the 100
sheet boxes, and had to buy it in 250 sheet box.

Just don't understand the furor.

Olin McDaniel