Home Forums Gear Free Classifieds Warning: Got screwed by the theduke308. Judge for yourself

I think Jeff/RAS is acting a little high and mighty about all this. All of you condemn Duke over $95, well what about Jeff? Both parties could be way above this if they put a little effort into it. Really, for $95?! Man up.

Dude,
I hear you and you aren't wrong.
On the other hand, duke says his ad said the scope was fogged.........
Did you gather that from his ad?
I saw a crappy pic that I wouldn't draw that conclusion from.
Why didn't he just say.....the scope is a little foggy?
I don't see RAS as ruining his rep.
Can't say that for duke.
YMMV.

Jeff/RAS is a seasoned buyer on auction and web sites. If he's looking at the same photos of the scopes clarity I'm looking at, and he wanted clearer, he shouldn't have bought it. Jeff's no internet dummy.
I think he should accept that he took a risk and it didn't pan out for him. I mentioned earlier that in my opinion when you're shopping for $100 scopes you can't ask for the moon and stars, but apparently he is.
At this point I think both parties are being petty over very little money. And I don't like Jeff's "I'm above this" attitude. I've always been supportive of Jeff and his lovely family, and do not begrudge him, but find this whole exchange distasteful.

I never said it was fogged, I never said it wasn't fogged, I said it was not as clear as scopes are today, and I showed that via a Digital camera picture, its not like I scanned a polaroid image in. The picture, I felt, was a very accurate depiction of what I was selling and had RAS not acted like a bad a s s about this I would have acted differently about the refund.
He is obviously stubborn and arrogant and truthfully I dont feel all that bad knowing how he is acting about this situation.

Is the way to get fair treatment from someone to shoot orders, to ignore PM's, and say that you are not stooping low enough to communicate with me?

I am not saying I am right, I am not saying I am wrong, I am simply saying that if he wants to act like a baby, that's his choice.

Duke,
Before you edited your original post on this thread, you claimed that your ad had stated the scope was "foggy".
Turns out, the ad did not say, or to me anyway, represent that.
Correct?

Then you edited your post, removed the " I said it was foggy in the ad" part along with removing your offer of a refund.

Why the need for all the editing?

Where the hell is Judge Judy when u need her. I normally dont post on these heated topics but i cant resist this one. I do agree if the scope is truely fogged it should clearly state that. I do see this guys point in posting a pic and it does show a fair amount of unclearness. I have sold many Weavers handed down from family and none of them could even come close to being what i would call clear. I would like to see some picks from the buyer through the scope to see exactly how bad this fog is or if it is just not as clear as newer optics. I think this is the deciding factor here to is the scope fogged or is it just really not as clear as newer scopes. If it is fogged and needs repair than the wording was misleading and a full refund with shipping should be made. Lets see some photos and give this guy a chance to continue defending or admit that he should of disclosed the scope needed repair.

99.9% of the posts from the "theduke308" are in the classifieds. I'd say his selling days here are up in smoke.......

I thought you stated a few posts back you were DONE with your comments on this?

I can only say that had I sold the scope,I would have explained it's condition so that there could be no question the buyer knew what he was buying.

It would seem to me,the seller here explained the condition in such a way that he could claim full disclosure without disclosing the actual condition.

The picture doesn't mean much.Pictures of scope views rarely show the actual clarity of any scope.I would expect a much worse than actual immage in a picture,even from very high end scopes.

Bottom line is that I don't sell junk and the only way I would have offered the scope would be for someone to repair who was looking for a period correct scope.Even then I would have likely just given it away.

I dont see a fogged scope in the pictures, I see a scope thats not clear but in no way fogged, or maybe I dont know what a fogged scope is

duke just man up and admit you were wrong and misrepresented the scope refund his money and let it go. quit trying to play some mind game with your misleading words. do what's right and go on

And the duke goes on ignore..

You didn't say it was fogged! You owe the guy his money back and try to resell it, stating that it is cloudy and fogged! Then if someone buys it, it's at their own risk.

You are another "bad" dealer in my book till you get it right. Hope it was worth your reputation. You should have sent it in or repair, then sold it. You did the buyer wrong. Glad he informed us so I can put you on ignore to remind me to beware.

That whole damn pic. is blurry, just look at the table. Not to mention it looks like the pic. is from inside a porch. You should of just stated blurry view or foggy. Leaving a pic for someone to judge without telling him what you know is wrong with the scope is shady.

You obviously have no clue how a digital camera works..??.. In order to take a picture through a scope, you have to use the macro setting. In the macro setting the scope focuses on a single object, in this case the inside of the scope. It focuses all of its picture taking magic on this one spot thus making the rest of the image cloudy. Sheesh people are getting dumber and dumber and dumber.....and for the record I WASNT SELLING THE TABLE so why would it matter if it was blurry?

This is a total misrepresentation. Saying it's not as clear as today's scopes is totally different than saying it's fogged and you know it. Trying to judge if a scope is fogged from a picture is almost impossible. Is it fogged, is there fog or frost on the window, is it just a weird artifact of the camera trying to focus through multiple layers of glass, or what?

Each time you put pen to paper you devulge more clearly who & what you are. I think the above statement is all telling. Be gone!

DMc

And for the Last Time...I AM NOT REFUNDING MONEY TO A PERSON THAT WILL NOT COMMUNICATE WITH ME... CASE CLOSED

This site really needs moderators to keep stupid posts like these from escalating to sh-it storms

Ain't the first schit storm........ definitely not the last!!!

I guess the objective lense could have been cracked and simply described as "not in 'new' condition" or "not as clear" as newer ones....??? How would you feel if I sold you a scope like that??? You would be right to "expect" a refund and perfectly within your rights to express it that way. Just sayin....