The Pete Rasmussen Files

OR
People Are "Funny"

Personal Editorial Opinion

During the past ten years I have had successful commercial sales with tens of thousands of customers, selling books, music, and the occasional bit of technology- the odd computer, musical instrument, or camera. I also have contact with literally hundreds of thousands of people through the Internet, and literally MILLIONS when I make national and international radio appearances speaking about my specialty, brain and behavior science.

Needless to say, I have contact with all kinds of people. For the most part, people act respectfully, even when they disagree with one's point of view. In my sales, I enjoy and extremely low rate of returns by customers dissatisfied with either the content or quality of books, music, or other goods. My basic philosophy of trade is that I need to be more than fair- and give people more energy/goods/information for their money than they can get anywhere else, and to be completely honest and fair to the buyer, while still respecting my own rights as seller, and not to be taken advantage of. I mean, come on, any intelligent person understands why this makes the most sense on all levels.

Extremely rarely I get complaints from persons who feel that they have gotten the short end of the stick from a sale. Similarly, I very very rarely get negative feedback from web site visitors- and this is even a bit of a surprise, considering the volume of visitors coming through my site, which, last time I checked was about a half million. In the past five years, I can't say that I've heard from more than a dozen nut cases. Pretty good numbers.

But it happens. No matter how fair, how rational, how much you bust your ass for some people- certain individuals do not have brains that are properly connected to conduct a simple and fair business transaction.

Below is a fine example of a deal gone sour, communication breakdown. Despite my best attempts to resolve the matter in a fair, equitable, and timely manner- it was to no avail.

You cannot rationalize with an irrational person.

The ego of a person that has been caught telling a lie/manipulating the truth will not allow them to admit either error, wrong doing, lack of judgment, etc. And this is no surprise. Such a person operates from such an infantile mind set that allowed lie/manipulation to occur in the first place.

It is the three year old's lie/cheat in an adult body. Morality and the lessons/advantages of 100% honesty have not yet been learned. An encounter with such a cheater adult is the equivalent of catching a three year old child with his hand in the cookie jar......"Not Me! Not Me!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

The more one confronts an adult-with-infant-morality with the reality of their fiction or nonsense behavior the more they protest, the more the insist "NOT ME!!!!!!!!" , no matter the rock solid evidence.

 

Neil's Rule Of the Universe #1:

Tell an asshole that they are an asshole and they become a bigger asshole.

 

This is a permanent and unbending rule, as solid as Newton's 1st law of motion.

Even at Nuremburg, the murderers claimed "NOT GUILTY!"

---

Beware, the NEOCHEATERS are out there. Their numbers are not overwhelming, but they exist like the crafty spider, hidden in the cracks. They may be particularly crafty in that the majority of relations they have with other people may be positive.

But beware- when the chips are down, when there is a subtle break in the confidence and cooperative circuits in their cortex even the most polite, trustworthy good neighbor can turn into a Neocheater.

Its that brain intelligence switch, the amygdala clicking backwards into the ME ME ME reptile brain circuits in the last instant.

The wolf in grandma's bed whom you never would have suspected.

---

If you use your frontal lobes, the effect of such infant/adult Neocheaters will be kept at a minimum. Your advanced logic/intuition consciousness will keep you from being taken- even as such cheaters point the finger at you and claim "NOT ME!"

Your brain radar will alert you that "All is not right here.... Careful"

You will not get caught with your pants down. You will not lose money, and pay for the cheater's cheat.

---

This true story is about a person to person sale originating on a telescope/camera trading web site. The camera was an extra camcorder I purchased three months earlier, virtually unused, and thus I decided to sell at about 2/3 the price paid. It was used a few hours only, and I tested the operation of the camera before sending it out.

The camera tested out perfectly as expected, both video and audio. I am a professional audio engineer as well as an experienced video and still image photographer with professional paid experience in the industry. Any defect no matter how small would be immediately obvious to me- and there was absolutely nothing wrong with this camera whatsoever when it was shipped.

I further was able to test the camera sold against both a higher quality consumer camcorder, as well as a professional quality camcorder, both which I also own. The Sony TR818 (the sold camera) certainly held its own in audio quality against these much more expensive cameras, and exhibited exceptional video quality for its price range against the much more expensive cameras.

Reading the actual complete emails regarding the transaction, one will see the eventual downward spiral of logic, rationale, and the increasing paranoia and lack of common sense and trust of the buyer, Mr. Rasmussen.

Despite my best attempts to provide Mr. Rasmussen with a satisfactory handling of his sale, this proved impossible.

I offered a complete and full refund upon receipt of the returned camera, providing it arrived as sent with the exception of the described malfunction. No feedback from a qualified technician was ever supplied.

I was never given an opportunity to re-examine the camera for problems.

The camera was never returned.

To this day, Mr. Rasmussen makes unsubstantiated accusations about his treatment in this transaction, and no evidence that supports his claim that there was ever anything wrong with the camera sold to him.:

---

(Large typeface here is for emphasis and did not occur in original emails. Message in brackets: [ ] is current commentary by N.S.)

----- Original Message ----- From:
To: neill@xlslade.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
Neil,

This is a resend in hopes you receive message.
Thanks it looks good and maybe very, very slightly more resolved than my
Canon. Let's go ahead and do the deal. I will look forward to the camera
plus mentioned accessories and your interesting Cosmic Conversations CD.
You can mark ad sale pending or sold if you like...
Thanks again.
PETE RASMUSSEN
XXXXXXXXXXXX
HEBER SPRINGS AR 72543

---

* ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com > To:> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:49 PM > Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
Okay then-- I will ship tomorrow.
Thanks and enjoy.

---

*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com
To: "Pete Rasmussen"
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
INVOICE BILL OF SALE
One Sony TR818 Camcorder with soft case and all standard > accessories
including postage and handling.
$215 billed to credit card.

May 10, 2002
Sold to
> PETE RASMUSSEN
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HEBER SPRINGS AR 72543
Sold by

Neil Slade Brain Music and
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX 80206
XXXXXXXXX

**************************
The total postage was $13 and change-- I charged your card a total
of
$215--
and included both the Cosmic Conversations CD and Mind Music.
Oops- just realized I didn't send you the video/photo software and
will
do
that tonight separate.
I insured it for $300 and added delivery confirmation. It should
arrive
safely very soon.
Thanks again- stay in touch.
Neil

---

*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Rasmussen">
To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264 >
Hi Neil,
Camcorder arrived today (Monday).

Thanks for packing well.

*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com
To: "Pete Rasmussen"
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
No problem-- I aim to please and do a better than fair deal.
Neil

*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Rasmussen" > To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
Neil,
Thanks, I appreciate you. It makes the following difficult for me to
relay.
I checked over the camcorder and it works nicely in all ways with one
unfortunate exception. There is a quite easily audible hum sound noted in
playback. This is potentially caused by an IC ?(I was told this when I had similar with a stereo) and is going to be a significant problem for me. Doyou still have the unit under warrantee? If so we might could send it in for repair.

Otherwise I'd like to please send it back.

* ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com > To: "Pete Rasmussen"> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:13 PM > Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264 I have never ever had this come up, and used and checked the camera immediately before sending- in fact dubbed a tape as a trial. In no way EVER would I send someone a defective item under any condition.

If it turns out the camera truly is messed up (and you haven't dropped it yourself) I will certainly take it back, but it left here in perfect condition.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Rasmussen"To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:49 PM Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264 > Hi Neil, I'm sorry you couldn't get through on the phone.

I sure appreciate your detailed expression of concern in determining what may be the problem for > me.

And so you know, I don't believe for a minute you knowingly sent me a defective product.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264 Well, this is what has me totally puzzled- and thinking there is something else going on besides an electronic or mechanical problem-- I think we'll figure this out.... First , tapes are NOT necesarily successfully interchangable from one manufacturer to the next- and even one camera to another - analog tape heads must be precisely aligned, and two cameras may have audio tape stripes out of alignment from one camera to the next. You would think so, but this is not always the case-- I have occassionally had problems going from Sony to Canon or vice versa- can't remember which cause I usually don't do it. If you are shooting a tape with the Canon, then playing it back in the Sony- this could be problematic. Shoot a tape with the Sony and play back in the Sony. It should be perfecto. I would keep doing some detective work before you send back if you like the camera, as I mentioned in one of my emails-- I have the video shot when I made the stills for you- the camera is totally quiet, zero hum or anything problematic at all and this was with the auto volume gain being very high since I wasn't talking or anything. You can practically hear me breath. This is very strange that you are having a problem- truly bizarre puzzle. In addition to this, I dubbed the only 2 HiBand tapes I have in my possesion immediately before sending, running the TR818 into my digital camcorder-- absolutely quiet, no hum, zip, perfect dubs. So, I did both a live shoot and a dub- perfect audio for both. That's what has me stumped in this case and leads me to believe something is just sneaking by your conciousness observation. ??? #1) Just plug the Y connector cord from the Sony into the TV and monitor the camera live. Talk so you have an audio signal being generated. You will not be able to turn the volume WAY up because of feedback. Any problem should be obvious. Better yet, plug headphones into the camera (Using the headphone jack) and monitor--- hear any noise? You shouldn't. Then plug into the TV and monitor the TV with phones. Shouldn't be any noise. Again, you are using the A/V jack in the front near the lens and have the cord plugged all the way in? Note- if the TV is stereo-- you may have to make adjustment for the channel which is getting no input perhaps.?? #2) Substitute the cord. It could be that when I packed the cord I twisted something and destroyed the sheilding. I have seen this happen. #3) However, try first and make sure and use the cord I sent-- It is a audio/video cord-- tip and two sleeves. Make sure it is plugged all the way into the camera into the A/V output jack in the front of the camera. If you are placing the camera ON TOP OF THE TV or another device that would cause electronic interference-- you could create hum that way. Get back to me or call again- I'm around a lot- or leave a message when I can get through to you.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:56 AM Subject: Accurate test A more accurate test would be to put the two cameras next to each other and shoot the same visual and AUDIO signal- like music playing and/or someone talking- SIMULTANEOUSLY. Then play back the two tapes using the tape IN THE CAMERA THAT SHOT THE TAPE. Don't adjust anything on the TV, just plug in the camera that you want to see. Switch patch cords from one camera to the other to make sure both cords work properly. When doing pro audio-- one has to use alignment tapes to standardize the record/playback heads on the machines, or using two different machines to play back the same tape would be impossible. Unfortunately, this is next to impossible with home camcorders. There is no way to line up the heads. That's why its not a good test to move the same tape from one camera to another. The audio track, especially, is prone to error since it is on - I believe- the edge of the tape. You might get a picture that looks good on both machines, but a really crappy audio portion that sounds good on one, but terrible on the other.

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10:25 PM Subject: Re: Accurate test Neil, Thanks for the many suggestions to try and resolve this. I've now played separate tapes, switch played tapes, switched cords (used mine), and there is the hum sound from the Sony and nothing unusual produced from the Canon. I'm sorry to be the bearer of this bad news. I would appreciate the opportunity of returning this item for a refund. Currently I'm recharging the battery. I first reread the instructions and attached everything correctly (plug arrow symbol up) and the wall plug in last. I also have kept the battery and tapes removed when not used and have stored the unit in its case. Sincerely, Pete

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: Re: Accurate test Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:02:58 -0600 This is really bizarre.

Certainly send it back. I'll refund when it arrives, and everything looks as I sent it.

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: Re: Accurate test Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:27:56 -0600
Pete,

Please return as sent, in the double box, priority mail with delivery confirmation and insurance for $300-- postage will be under $14, which I will refund to you providing your claim of bad operation pans out, which I expect it to at this point. I cannot be responsible for the camera if not returned in this manner. I'm sure you agree, and were planning on doing anyway.

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"
Subject: PS Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:42:25 -0600Needless to say, I am sorry the camera was apparently damaged in transit and appreciate the time you will have to take in returning it. I am dissappointed that the postal service would do this to a piece of equipment- and will never send anything of value via US Postal Service again, this being the case. I recently sent a package to the Netherlands, and to my total dismay took 44 days to arrive via air-mail. Two strikes and they are out. Thank you Neil

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: One last thing-- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:51:13 -0600 Try one more thing if you can-- I think, though not certain-- that there is a RESET button on the camera which resets all the factory set settings. This may do something if it is internal software related. I don't recall if there are any menu settings for audio that are adjustible, and you may have already tried this-- but may be worth checking. Thank you again, Neil

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: URGENT: I MAY HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 02:19:11 -0600 Wait wait wait--- DO THIS-- RUN A QUICK TEST ON BATTERY POWER ONLY If not, try once more and Do not use the AC--- It may work perfectly. Audio hum is most frequently a function of 60hz AC function- if polarity is messed up, or for that matter the shielding in the AC circuit, it frequently causes problems. Here's what may be the problem: I have the following Sony products Two Sony Vaio computers, a couple of Sony boomboxes, a Sony TV, Sony CD player, Sony walkman Cd player, Sony VCR, Sony PC9 camcorder, a Sony digital still camera-- obviously, you can see I like Sony products. One thing SEVERAL of the Sony products have in common is similar looking AC wall warts and cords. The Sony TR818, my PC9 camcorder, my digital camera, my sony Vaio laptop all use identical lookingAC PODS-- that is the square box- one end plugs into the wall, the other end into the device. Each device has a specialized end for the device, and a similar LOOKING plug that goes into the wall and into the box- the laptop being the exception. I THOUGHT I sent you the one that came with the TR818 with the correct wall cord-- as I am always swapping these things. I notice that the computer does NOT require a POLARIZED cord-- while the cameras DO--- their wall end section, the part that goes into the AC wall wart box, is square on one side, and rounded on the other. The computer cord is rounded on both sides (the part that plug into the box). Your plug is likely rounded, although the box has a square + round jack (on the box itself). If the camera makes no hum on battery power only- not plugged into the wall-- then the problem lies in a mixed up AC cord/box. I have four of these things, I apparently- IF this is the problem- sent the wrong cord. If you have already tried to run it on battery only, and still have this hum problem- then send back as planned. If it sounds fine on battery only-- tell me. I will replace the AC box and cord- problem identified. Neil

From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: Hmmmmm Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 02:50:30 -0600Hmmmm-- I just checked the specifications via the manuals for all of the Sony devices previously mentioned-- All of the cameras work with the same ACL10 Ac power adapter-- and my own test with my PC9 camcorder showed no difference when the AC cord at the box was reversed. If the problem dissapears with battery only power- then its the AC box which has failed in transit. I can send another if you discover this. It the problem occurs with both battery and AC-- then, again, I'm stumped totally. When (or if) it arrives here- I will compare the sound of the camera with both the higher end Sony camera and my $2500 Canon (which has significantly better audio specs than any of their analog cameras) and measure with my pro audio equipment and meters for difinitive diagnosis. The signal to noise ratio of the TR818 should be in keeping with both. Any true audio problem will be obvious and verified then. Thanks

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Accurate test Neil, [HERE COMES THE CREEPING PARANOIA- Neil] Your two statements at 1:02 AM & 1:27 AM are conflicting. First you tell me I can return for refund pending everything looks as you sent it to me. Then you are saying refund is pending my claim of bad operation. I'm confused. Are you not going to give me the benefit of doubt and accept this return based on your first remark? Do I not have a reasonable right of expectation that you should do so based on our coorespondences?

To be frank, you are making me nervous as to how sincere you are with being fair over this matter.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Accurate test The replacement cost of this camera is $300 and I have the original receipt which is what the post office requires when merchandise is damaged or lost. I spoke with the post office clerk about this when this camera was sent to you. They do not require this receipt when sending and insuring, and they have no problem insuring for the replacemet value. See the insurance tag on the box which I believe should have the value of $300- if not I have the other half of the receipt here. In any case, if the camera is lost in transit to me (extremely doubtful- and you can confirm delivery with delivery confirmation-- about 45 cents) and YOU have to make such a claim, go ahead an insure for $200. Any claim you make requires only your invoice which you have. Again, I am sorry for any inconvenience on your part regarding this matter, and my apologies if the camera was damaged en-route to you, despite the precautions I made in shipping, padding, and packaging. Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Accurate test Neil, Ok, I didn't realize a used item would be replaceable at original cost value. I can insure it for $300, no problem. I was planning to add the delivery confirmation. Since you claim to be able to easily verify the problem I've experienced with your camera, I see no reason in sending my test tape as well. [HERE'S MORE BLATANT UNSUPPORTED PARANOIA, GUILT- REALLY BIZARRE and TELLING-WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM??-Neil]

From the lengthy inference that I am, rather, a potentially dishonest person suggests you purposely summed up all of my dialog, and obvious efforts to help rectify this, the way you wished to.

I now feel offended after spending so much time on this in an attempt to be fair. I personally don't think you believe me at all so I don't see it realistic trying to further convince you of anything.

Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:38 PM Subject: Sound Tests Done Pete, I have made an additional audio test tape using my $1300 Sony PC9 digital camera. You can download and view both this and an identical test shot with your camera, which you may download and view/listen to at Your TR818 http://www.neilslade.com/818test.rm and my higher end digital PC9 http://www.neilslade.com/PC9.rm These are Real Audio files, you will need Real Player to view if you don't have that installed on your computer. In my test comparing the two cameras under identical conditions, the TR818 is actually QUIETER than the digital camera costing five times as much. See for yourself. It is unreasonable to expect a $300 (new) camcorder to have sound qualities that rival any dedicated tape recording device. People with good camera experience know that to eliminate all camera noise, you have to use an external mike. But for most applications, home use, and STILL photography (your inteneded use for taking pictures of telescope lenses as you mentioned during our phone conversation), the built in mike and its inherent limitations are entirely satisfactory. If the noise you are talking about is present here-- what you are hearing is the mechanical noise of the cameras themselves, absolutely unavoidable on a camcorder with a built-in mike.- digital AND analog are the same. This is even more apparent when the Auto-Level circuitry kicks in-- the mike becomes very sensitive, and if there is no environment sound, the overriding sound becomes that of the camera itself. This is in no way abnormal and occurs on EVERY camera with a built in mike. The pro-model cameras have a detached mike, away from the body. These appear on cameras that cost about $2000, such as the Canon GL-1 or the Sony TRV900, expressly to correct for this. sony cameras, as previously mentioned have exceptional audio circuitry, and it the camera sounds noisier- and not because it is broken- its because the mike is very sensitive, and you are hearing more ambient sound because the Sony sound, in fact, has better frequency response and sensitivity. You might try merely TALKING during your test comparing the audio qualities of each camera. If the Canon sounds quieter, it may be that the mike is not as sensitive to begin with and has limited frequency response. Once you begin talking, or filming where there is sound, this mechanical inherent internal camera noise becomes irrelevant entirely. It sounds like you may not have enough camera experience to identify this as opposed to a malfunctioning audio component.

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Sound Tests Done Neil, I could indeed hear the hum in your recording with the 818! I could not hear anything even remotely like it in the other camera recording. There is no way for me to know if it was more or less audible as the takes I have made. And like I mentioned they did vary in volume. I wonder if I could transfer a wav etc. file to you of what I heard via my Snappy4. I'm not sure I can do it and this device isn't hooked up yet to my new computer. The best thing might be for me to send that Hi-8 tape afterall with the camera and have you check it out. Pete

[A FEW EMAILS ARE NOT PRODUCED HERE, AND CONSIST MAINLY OF MY COMMENTS REGARDING SUPPLIED AUDIO FILES COMPARING AUDIO TESTS OF PETE'S PURCHASED CAMERA AGAINST MORE EXPENSIVE AND PRO CAMERAS, and POSSIBLE OPERATION BY PETE THAT MIGHT BE CREATING THE PROBLEM, OR OTHER TROUBLESHOOTING THAT MAY RESOLVE THE PERCEIVED REAL/UNREAL PROBLEM.......]

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Audio Samples From Cameras Neil, The issue of detection at volume is not the problem. Your recording must have been made when the hum noise was either not as bad a problem with the unit, or during a session when it was less apparent in noticeability. The actual issue of concern appears to be related to the product itself. As indicated, the unusual noise was presented at differing audio levels on different test recordings that I made. The pitch of this noise was exactly the same each time. As I mentioned, the volume level on my TV was set at midrange and it was also set much lower to verify problem significance. On occasions, the hum produced from the camcorder was quite obvious. My best analysis suggests this must be an issue related to the camcorder electronics that apparently can be less noticeable at times, or more prominent at others. I purchased this previously owned camcorder with the understanding it was to be in perfect working condition. From my investigations, and for whatever reason, it seems not to be the case. Therefore, I believe I should be entitled to expect a normal refund per my request. To allow myself to be clear, I am not lying about this issue with this item for any alterior motive. My intentions are fully sincere and I simply wish to receive a refund at this time. Best regards, Pete

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Audio Samples From Cameras

That's fine. Send the camera back. A defective item certainly deserves a full refund.

I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt until I have any evidence to the contrary.

Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:13 PM Subject: Re: Audio Samples From Cameras Neil, I do appreciate your concern and efforts at clarification. Still, at this point, I'm not sure you are to the understanding that the problem I found with the camcorder is perceived as distinct from normal operation sounds produced in audio playback. Nor that you accept the fact that it may or may not present itself at a higher volume level to the normal sounds of operation at any particular time when under inspection. These are crucial and realistic points to be considered. What I'm saying is that I specifically need to know prior to returning the item if you are going to provide me with a full refund independent of what you yourself might determine with the camcorder. In other words, there is no way of my knowing with certainty you will locate and accept the problem I as I found it.

[HERE, CONSUMER INSANITY/PARANOIA/ILLOGIC TAKES ITS TOLL- PETE WANTS A FULL REFUND NO MATTER WHAT. NOTE, I HAVE ALREADY PROMISED A FULL REFUND I WRITING ON MAY 14, and MAY 16, AND REPEAT IT OVER SEVERAL TIMES MORE IN SUCCEEDING MESSAGES]

Therefore, I would be left not knowing if this is a conditional return for refund or if you are intending to provide a full refund irregardless of my claim of defect.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Audio Samples From Cameras Pete, If you want a refund you are going to have to send the camera back, regardless. This is why I suggest you have the camera inspected by a disinterested third party-- Sony dealer such as Comp USA-- if you are unsure about what to expect from a camcorder.

I am most certainly NOT providing a full refund irregardless of your claim or defect--- you are surely kidding.

Simply send the camera back-- its messed up, I believe you, but not till I have it in my hands. I hope you are a saint, it would make the world a better place. I wouldn't accept any money from you in any case that the camera is messed up despite your offer anyway- thanks however for the offer.If you KNOW this camera is fine-- you can still return it, but I am not going to pay for you to look at it, i.e. postage. That's what they have retail stores for. I am sure you completely understand. Best wishes Neil

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: Re: In case you missed this: Neil, Here are the facts. Take them or leave them but I will not repeat myself again: I do not know this camera is fine. I believe it is defective and not as was described in advertisement. It does not matter to me if you knew about the discrepancy. I did not ever accept to buy this just to "look at it" as you suggest I may have done. I take great offense to your comment that I chose to make my refund offer minus shipping and pay you for the CDs because my conscience was somehow bothering me. It is not bothering me, and you just made a mockery of my sincere offer in kindness! I did nothing wrong nor have intended to do so at any time so please don't suggest otherwise again. I no longer trust you. I only made my offer based on FAIRNESS because I cannot know if you knew the camcorder was defective in the first place. Now, let us recap this for the clearest possible understandings... [PETE HAS TROUBLE READING---I.E.] Are you telling me you will accept back the camcorder and all of the accessories sent with it (including the two music CDs) without question or penalty other than the $13.40 shipping you incurred? Yes or no? Regards, Pete

Reply-To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: Re: In case you missed this: Date: Fri, May 17 2002 3:58 PM -0600 [I'M TRYING! I'M TRYING!! I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH TO THIS GUY - BUT I DON'T THINK HE'S GETTING PLAIN ENGLISH SENTENCES] Please review the previous correspondence in which I have clearly detailed my return and refund policy. Here it is again:

If the camcorder is returned here without defect, easily substantiated by a Sony authorized dealer, I will refund $199 to your account, period. You will be responsible for all postage to and and from you. The camera must be returned with delivery confirmation and insurance via double box, via US Postal priority mail. If it is returned with discernable problem as described as abnormal audio problems, I will refund $215 plus your own postage to return.Neil

---

Reply-To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com To: "Pete Rasmussen"Subject: Continued Date: Fri, 17 May 17 2002 4;39 PM -0600 Pete, I offered that you keep the two music CDs that I sent you without charging you regardless of your decision, as well as acknowledging that your original offer to return the camera and pay for the postage yourself- being quite a generous offer- that the chances were at least 50-50 that you were indeed a saint and that I hoped this was the case, as we need more honest people in the world. I would not be so generous in such a situation if the situation was reversed. Your statement below- "I do not know this camera is fine" is slightly puzzling as it would seem to me, that if a camera is broken, it would be pretty obvious, rather than ambiguous, and certainly obvious upon inspection, say, given a trial period of recording over perhaps an hour-- probably in keeping with the amount of tril you yourself have given this camera. I am sensitive to even the sightest malfunction of electronic equipment, as I deal with many different types of audio and video equipment daily. As I have tried to point out, I am an experienced photographer and videographer, having in fact worked in this field professionally with Douglas Gerash as a camera operator in his legal video service, as well as being a recording engineer since abpout 1980. If the camera has any problems whatsoever they would be immediately obvious to me, certainly within an hour of operating the camera. Any manufacture audio shortcomings of the TR818 would be clearly obvious to a reviewer well versed in camcorder operation, and this was the point of sending you the web review. {NOT REPRODUCED HERE] Sony cameras have outstanding reputation, if not the best in the video business, Sony Betacams are the industry standard for portable cameras at any price.

If the camera is messed up-- no problem, I promised a full refund and apologized for any inconvenience on your part. Just return the camera- it will be quite obvious to us both, then, what the facts are.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen ; support@buytelescopes.com Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 4:05 AM Subject: X-Files Pete, If you think the camera is broken, send it back, per my email a WEEK ago: [OKAY, 4 DAYS AGO ACTUALLY----I QUOTE MY OWN EARLIER MESSAGE HERE] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com > To: "Pete Rasmussen"
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:13 PM > Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264
I have never ever had this come up, and used and checked the camera > > immediately before sending- in fact dubbed a tape as a trial. In no way EVER would I send someone a defective item under any condition. If it turns out the camera truly is messed up (and you haven't dropped it yourself) I will certainly take it back, but it left here in perfect condition.

If you think you may be wrong about the audio qualities- simply take it to a camera store and show THEM and have them tell you that it is either defective or perfect. You don't have to take my word for any of this. [I AM CONVINCED AT THIS POINT PETE IS HALLUCINATING ANY PERCEIVED DEFECT, OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SIMPLY SHIPPED THE CAMERA BACK AT THIS TIME. NOW I AM TRYING TO CONVINCE HIM THAT IF THE CAMERA IS INDEED FINE AND HE IS WRONG ABOUT THE HUM- WHICH I DON"T EVEN BELIEVE EXISTS AT THIS POINT GIVEN HIS EVIDENCE- HE IS GOING TO LOSE OUT ON WHAT WAS A GOOD AND FAIR DEAL:] If you do send it back, and you are wrong about it being defective, however, you lose out on what was a decent and good bargain. I could care less what you do, because I will simply find another appreciative buyer, or simply keep the camera for myself again. Incidentally, I bought and gave EXACTLY the same model camera for my friend Stan Romanek to keep in his car in case he as any futher UFO sightings. See http://www.neilslade.com/UFOs.html His video, which is totally legit, is receiving national recognition. He had the previous model Sony camcorder WITHOUT image stabilization, and after we looked at ALL the cameras out there- including the GL1, and Canon ZR20, and more expensive Sony's-- we settled on the TR818 because it absolutely had the best low light image of ANY camera made- ten times the sensitivity of TRV900 or GL1, both which cost $2000+. It also had a great zoom, image stabilization ( a HUGE step up from the camera without it) , and other features. I bought the same camera for myself, but decided 3 camcorders was overkill, and someone else might have good use of this camera and appreciate a bargain. ********************************************************************* From your description, and saying the normal 818 sound file I supplied you with sounds like the "hum" (which is the totally normal low level sound of the camera)-- and from total lack of anything else, such as a dealer or knowledgable third party examining the camera and verifying your evaluation of broken audio on the camera--

I can't honestly say I have any proof of broken camera. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

Like I said, send it back if you're not a happy camper. If its broken- great, you get every cent back. I've said this this for a WEEK now.

Like I said, return the unit if you don't want it and if you think its broke. If its messed up, you get all your money back- same as any retailer. If its not-- you still get your money back , minus shipping-- BETTER than most retailers.

HE BECOMES HIGHLY DEFENSIVE IN HIS NARRATION>>>>>> I KEEP SAYING "SEND THE CAMERA BACK ALREADY" ........... ]

Neil, You have only your personal perspective to go on and I have mine so please, I request you lighten up. If you are sincere then there is no real tango, only assumptions that will mislead you. From my standpoint you are misunderstood about me. I'm not "pissed" but feeling to be made to feel and become defensive. Understand? I have not shown that kind of a negative attitude. On a separate issue, not everyone is just like you in this world. Others have different concepts and needs. Yours are not the only ones so you should base your aggression (or lack thereof) accordingly. What I'm referring to is the side of this where you are acting out of line assuming too much and jumping to conclusions. I don't move at the same pace as you and should not be expected too! There are often two sides to things and nobody knows the complete picture at any one moment. Give things a chance and ME the benefit of the doubt. Would you please do that? Settle down and be less anxious than you seem to be indicating. Like I said, you are making me nervous and that is hardly fair. I don't know you but you do have fine references of me so you can breathe a whole lot easier than I can. I have found and say to you the camera has a significant problem. I didn't buy it under those conditions so it doesn't matter what I told you I would be using it for. When I found there was an unusual noise present or to crop up that indicates an electrical discrepancy, the product is not up to my expectations and rightly so. It was your perogative to bombard me with data and I did my best to keep up. I have to have a life, too. I think you should be more careful to be fair and patient with people or potentially cause undue hardship for them. You have with me this time. The problem with the camcorder is not a simple volume level normal sound issue. That's the third time or so that I'm telling you this. I have it on recording as a distinct sound that seems most likely not normal but instead a defect, a discrepancy in the electronics. You are right you don't know so should not assume you do based on your recording of the unit. I indicated ONLY that the sound (a hum) was present in your recording in order for you to here it specifically. There is no way I could know your recording is of good enough quality or the noise present enough at the time it was made to assure your getting a good understanding of its nature. All I indicated was that I could detect it on your recording. It was not well documented but I could hear it based on the type of sound I was familiar with. The reason I have not taken it to a Comp USA is based on, first, I didn't find one listed the first time I looked for them (a few weeks ago looking for monitors). Out of curiosity I redid a search and have learned yesterday there is one at Little Rock. That's 1.5 hours away, one way! I'm in the country, friend, and that is a factor in how I must be forced to do things. I've also considered the other day I might have to go to the local electronics repairman and have him verify the discrepancy. I've debated it and have decided against that option as well. One reason is I believe there is without a doubt in my own mind a problem befitted of a return of the item. I don't want the problem in the first place. The other is that I have, no matter if you give me credit for it or not, spent a lot of my time working with you, reading the things you wrote, replying at length as rapidly as I can. I don't know about your situation, but I allowed for an excessive waste of my time. That should also indicate to you I was with you on this issue all-the-way trying to reach resolution. The resolution is to return the camcorder so you can inspect it, accept it is fine per your understandings, or find it has a problem according to mine. As far as I know and believe, it really should be an issue of your responsibility at this point. I did acknowledge more than once that I appreciated your efforts. I didn't ask you to go on and on about volume issues and I'm not obligated to run hours of tests. Especially when I feel there is a problem with the purchased item that is unacceptable in the first place. I hope now you will understand my side of this. Can you really think this is that bizarre? Please settle down and stop agonizing over assumptive aspects. I'm confident I made it clear I'm a good guy and it has been shown that it is also of my interest to not offend you. Unless you have something else that is urgent, please give me a break I have to catch up on other things this weekend and I don't want to feel unhappy at the same time. Sincerely, Pete.

[AT THIS POINT I NEED TO PROTECT MYSELF AND SET UP TIME LIMITS FOR RETURN- THE SAME AS ANY RETAILER- AND MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR, IN CASE THERE IS ANY LITIGATION OR CREDIT CARD CLAIMS MADE. IT IS GOOD TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CUSTOMER BUT AT SOME POINT, WHEN THE CUSTOMER LOOKS LIKE HE"S LOSING IT, THE SELLER MUST PUT HIS FOOT DOWN, NOT LEAVING HIMSELF OPEN FOR UNWARRANTED CUSTOME/BUYER ABUSE OF IMPLIED/AGREED SELLING/BUYING TERMS.]

This is my final email to you regarding this transaction. I have been as courteous and as patient and as reasonable as I could possibly imagine in this case. Send the camera back or keep the camera. You have until May 27 to get a postmark on the camera and back in the mail. Any return postmarked after that date will not be accepted un any condition. See the original receipt for this camera from Comp USA and their policy for return. My policy as a Visa, Mastercard, Discover merchant is the same. Determination of "like new return" must be corroborated by the seller, which is standard practice in all transactions. Here is your initial description of the problem ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Rasmussen"To: "Neil Slade" neill@xlslade.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:49 PM Subject: Re: ASTROMART - Response to ad #122264 Hi Neil,
I'm sorry you couldn't get through on the phone. I sure appreciate your detailed expression of concern in determining what may be the problem for me. Please let me offer some comments that should help further. First of all, believe me when I say I did not drop or mishandle this camcorder at anytime. Please know that I am extremely meticulous and careful with special equipment within my possession. I'm actually rather fanatical in this regard. I also did carefully read the entire manual before attempting to use it even though I am already with good general understanding of camcorder use and care. What I did to help me determine data about the unit was to use a Sony Hi-8 tape back and forth in sequence between it and my own camcorder. I carefully did this procedure several times late last night. This way I was able to glean similarities and differences in types of images, etc. This procedure allowed for a direct and accurate comparison. Everything checked out well visually and mechanically and I was pleased with what I found against my Canon. It beat the Canon somewhat in every respect visually and for mechanical user-friendliness. The problem shown at audio playback was discovered when I viewed and listened to the tape from my Sony TV. I hooked everything up correctly and, of course, the tape itself eliminated any potential bias. At normal and even lower volume levels, the hum was very apparent from off the Sony camcorder playback, and virtually nothing at all was heard from the Canon. I understand what you say about tape shuttle mechanism noise. The audible hum on playback clips varied slightly in volume for this specific noise heard. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that would suggest an electronic discrepancy. I'm relatively confident I have a reasonable expectation of what would be normal vs. something abnormal introduced from the electronics themselves. This is at least from my current level of understanding and use of a Few camcorders to date. What I found truly seemed on the excessive side in nature. It sounded similar (but obviously not as loud) to what those old test patterns on TV sounded like. It was distractive to me and I believe to that of a standard recording as well.
Neil, If you feel it useful for me to call you tomorrow evening I certainly will do so. I want you to know I'm an honest fellow always with good intentions. I have a tremendous reference history file about me to back this up. I would also happily send you the Hi-8 tape I made for the test to add proof to this issue. It should also indicate how I was a careful user of the equipment as well. I wish the Sony didn't have the hum so I could keep it. That was why I asked about potential repair service.

OTOH, it might be best for me to just return it to you for a refund minus the shipping and minus full cost of the two music CDs.

I have not received either a sound file or phone call confirming the abnormal operation of the camera and noise levels above normal- so I am left with GETTING IT BACK HERE to make my determination.

I am completely unable to make such a determination without you supplying either 1) the camera 2) a taped demonstration 3) even a phone call During the past week you have supplied none of the above.

1) If I cannot find anything wrong with the camera, and you cannot prove there is anything wrong, and you are unwilling to supply such proof from an authorized dealer, then you will not receive postage return. 2) Proof of the perfect or defective nature of this camera will be obvious from your description and trial here. 3) I have tried to point out to you that I have nearly 20 years experience in the professional audio field. If there is the slightest thing wrong with this camera I will find it, and it will be more obvious to me than it would ever possibly be to you. I further have both Sony and Canon camcorders on hand to run comparative evaluation. 4) If you don't trust me-- then you had ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BUYING ANYTHING FROM ME IN THE FIRST PLACE. 5) I am not promising a refund of postage without examination of the camera upon return here first. PERIOD In fact, ANY and EVERY store return determination of merchandise condition is corroborated by the SELLER obviously. And it would not matter if you lived on MARS. This is so simple and so rudimentary, it is beyond belief that you would expect anything else.

----- Original Message ----- From: Pete Rasmussen To: Neil Slade Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:16 PM Subject: Re: FINAL EMAIL Neil,

I called Sony last night and they confirmed a problem per my description.

[?? PHONE DIAGNOSIS??] I have the event I.D. number as proof (E17097398). [GOOD GOD, PROOF OF WHAT? THAT PETE THINKS THERE IS A HUM? ]

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:29 PM Subject: Re: FINAL EMAIL **I will not pay for any repair or inspection you make at your own cost, at your own location, and this is in no way part of our agreement which is completely documented at this end.**

There is no way Sony, or anyone for that matter, that can make an definitive diagnosis over the phone without having the camera in their hands.

----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Slade To: Pete Rasmussen Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:46 PM Subject: Re: FINAL EMAIL Mr. Rasmussen, My return policy stands as previously stated, and is supported by my merchant services per Visa, Mastercard. I am now notifying your credit card company of problems I have had dealing with you concerning this matter, as I have found your correspondence highly disturbing and well beyond any original agreement of our sale/purchase via email, which implies nothing concerning repair of your camera. If you intend to return the camera, I suggest you do it immediately outlined as previous, priority mail, insured, delivery confirmation, with all supplied accessories postmarked by May 27. All of these requirements are absolute and without any exception. If you want to independently have the camera checked out for proper operation, you do so at your own expense, and this will NOT modify the return requirements. I would think you can find someone qualified to do this for you at no expense while you wait, my suggestion is the dealer Comp USA in Little Rock. If the camera needs repairs, you will be credited the full amount for all postage to and from this address. You may or may not send any written proof of such. If the camera needs no repairs, which will have to be determined here, I will send you a wrttien verification from an authorized Sony dealer once the camera has arrived here and is checked out-- something that will be done the day it arrives. Neil Slade.

[THERE WERE A FEW CLOSING EMAILS BETWEEN US OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. I HAD LEFT MY OWN PHONE NUMBER WITH PETE- AND CALLED HIM SEVERAL TIMES, AND FINALLY A MESSAGE OF UTTER DISBELIEF OF HIS COMMENTS, EXPECTATIONS, AND INACTION. HE NEVER CALLED BACK.]

PETE NEVER SUPPLIED ME WITH
1) ANY PROOF OF HIS CLAIM OF DEFECTIVE CAMERA,
2) NOR SUPPLIED ME WITH ANY GENUINE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION/PROOF OF HUM
3) NOR RETURNED THE CAMERA.

If any sane person purchased then received a bad piece of equipment, and KNEW it was bad- obviously, back it would go immediately, delivery confirmation. And if no refund was forthcoming- call the credit card company for resolution. Intelligent logical action.

Did Pete do this?

No.

My final evaluation was that there was most likely nothing wrong with the camera to begin with. His own photographic inexperience led him to buy a camcorder to take still pictures to begin with- something I tried to talk him out of when I initially spoke with him on the phone before any money was exchanged. He insisted that he wanted the Sony camcorder I had, even though he admitted that ALREADY HAD A CANON HiBand 8mm camera that was working and he was using to take still pictures of the telescope items he regularly sold on the web. I suggested that he get a dedicated still camera for this purchase rather than my camcorder.

HE INSISTED that I sell him my camcorder, so I did.

WHAT THE HELL WAS GOING ON HERE?

It certainly is not unknown that persons buy an item to use, with full intention to return the item for refund once they get the temporary intended use out of the item. People figure its okay to "borrow" items from retailers on occasion, eh? Don't they?

Maybe Pete needed to take some photos quickly, and had no money to buy another camera.

Maybe he needed to dub some copies of HiBand 8 mm video from his Canon to another camera.

Maybe Pete got the camera, and after he saw it, and realized it wasn't THAT different than his Canon was too embarrassed to return it, or was fearful to try and return a perfectly good camera- and so made up a little white lie about "HUM" as an excuse for return. Perhaps to cover his own guilt about impulsive purchase.

Maybe Pete just wanted to check out the camera to see if it WAS any better than his present camera.

Maybe Pete was broke, and couldn't afford to keep it.

Maybe Pete imagined the whole "hum" thing and misinterpreted sensitivity increase of the auto-volume circuit in a quiet environment, causing the natural increase of background noise.

Maybe the camera DID have an audio problem.

Maybe Pete was experiencing psychotic paranoia.

WHO KNOWS?????????!!!

Pete kept the camera.

Ultimately I don't think he had confidence that he had a legitimate complaint.

I made it clear that I wouldn't buy any old bullshit excuse, had the technical knowledge to separate fact from fiction, and was determined, at the very least, not to foot the bill for his postage costs.

If it was broken upon delivery at his end (and I had proof, shared with him that the camera left here perfect), he should have returned it and gotten his money back.

I provided him with that opportunity from the very beginning and throughout, as well as tried to determine to the best of my ability whether or not there was actually a technical/mechanical/electronic problem per his description.

He will have to live with his decision, his karma, and his lack of ability to apply faith in another person to render a fair deal.

No proof of defective operation beyond his personal claim was ever shared, nor was such a claimed defect ever repaired according to a recent email of his to a third party.

Ultimately it is the seller's right to examine a piece of merchandise claimed defective before any refund is forthcoming or promised. Duh.

Ultimately it is, so obviously, unfair for the buyer to accuse a seller of supplying defective merchandise without supplying evidence, as contrary to unsubstantiated claim. Duh, again.

From here it looks like a clear case of amygdala clicked backward into dormant brain cells in Pete's cranium. On several levels.

Clown.

Ultimately Pete says (paraphrase): "You sold me a broken camera- and I am not supplying you with evidence, nor sending the camera back for refund. I'm just gonna hold you responsible, keep the camera, and whine about it."

You make the call.

-Neil Slade
Have Fun!