Bernini - The Rape of Proserpina & Justice below.

Force of Destiny
Philosophy,
Music,
Logic.

2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare. Shakespeare

Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws

Bernini - The Ecstasy of St. Teresa & Truth below.

Are you yet fed up being told a pack o'flies in rebuttable presumptions that the conferrer delivers to you, in his belief, that you KNOW to be false and to the contrary. Here's how to deal with them both;
United Parcel Service and Josiah Wedgwood Ltd.

A rebuttable presumption is a presumption that is taken to be true, UNLESS you or someone, contests, controverts or proves otherwise. It begins wholesale with predatory greed, and want of integrity by courier firms and their suppliers, mainly the former, unless they offer a tariff to the supp-liars to remedy any complaints and exclude the courier from the overhead. Typically it begins with the simple form like the Post Office, when they attempt to deliver a parcel. Observing this conduct some years ago, after a week of having small packets carded without delivery. I had collected a few cards through the door, (at least there were cards, mostly there is NO TRACE of a visit.) and waited the next morning. In came the card through the letter box, NO ring or knock! I opened the door called the postman back a few yards he had already nearly disappeared. I said, “Sorry you were not at home” to him, and asked him if that was true or false? “Oh, he rep-lied, (ignoratio elenchi, not answering the question,) I don't have the parcel with me.” “Why not”, “I don't like to carry the parcels around with me in case nobody is at home but I will definitely bring it tomorrow.” The conclusion is, that they prefer to “NOT perform” their contract, and get the receiver to either collect or take responsibility for the attempt. (Attempt = futile endeavour OED.)
They then classify an 'attempt' as performance under the contract, bending truth, so that providing one attempts, futilely, to perform, then one has fulfilled the contract. Clever disgraceful semantics? When they are presented with the argument. “Hold there Morocco!” I was at home, when you failed to card the main or private entrance, they some back with this sick argument below, and try to outface you with 'credent bulk' (the big NAME but little integrity of the company) saying either 'you were out' or something more subtle like ' “THE RECEIVER WAS UNAVAILABLE TO SIGN” Omniscience? They think so. which happened to be a clear, incontrovertible false representation, within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006, 1-5, the Misrepresentations Act 1967, and if they resist with more repLIES, then it's harassment, based on a false cause. From the act Harassment Act 1997. The first time this occurred and it was a serious delivery of an item £200 being needed very urgently, paying £15 for a next day delivery”, and the farce began. Read Amtrak, defending £8, and prepared to lose £1200, ask yourself WHY?

Because these 'standard cards' are delivered daily in thousands, the probability of their being rebuttabe is exceedingly HIGH, since there is NO thought given at all, to their (the notice) delivery. Often not even a notice is left, they just SAY so, and 'mouthing attempts' is NOT making deliveries to be quite certain.

Our sick, and sickening rebuttable presumption world of greedy corporations, totally lacking in integrity, and moral courage. Ethics? Forget it. Principles? Forget it. MONEY, AH now your talking! We don't mind failing, because we have great recitals of prepared template letters, you don't have the time to consider in your busy lives, and we can get away with THEFT (Theft Act?) Simply because you don't rebut!

What they will do to protect a mere £5-8, because behind it all is a floodgate of thousands more, in hiding.
United Parcel Service and Josiah Wedgwood Ltd.

Ever received the all too common, rebuttable presumption conferring you with an AWARD that is sick semantic gibberish, and telling you what you KNOW to be FALSE?

Solution

Visual TimeAnalyzer click here.....

I have had it far too often. Predatory, greedy, companies do it, and when it comes to admitting, they write you the the ridiculous assertion below, the simplest form is the Post Office who put a card through the letter box that states;

“SORRY YOU were not at home”.

This happened once too often to me. I opened the door, and asked the postman to tell me to my face I was not at home, then tell me where was the parcel?

He 'clarified' it was at the depot, because he doesn't like carrying them when people are not at home, and I, disabled, was expected to trot over there depot, to do their work for them, and meantime feel guilty about it all.

Who are these guilty sick companies, Amtrak the first, whom I took to court to their costs of £1200, defending a refund under their own contract for £8. Why do they protect such trivia? Ah, well, at that time they were delivering 40,000 parcels monthly with a failure rate of 5% making 2000 deliveries refundable under their contract terms. That's why companies defend trivia, because they hide the gross plunder behind it. Defending a potential floodgate.

Royal Mail the next one, shown above, still putting the same cards through people's doors that 'they are not home,' because the delivery man is in too much of a hurry, or can't be bothered to carry more than two parcels.

In step U.P.S. United Parcels Services, and Wedgwood, TWO MIGHTY NAMES fighting in the mud over £4, with the worst semantic muck for a long time.

Wedgwood tells tells me what I know to be false, and they know to be a template, that “no receiver was available to sign.” When I take the issue up with Wedgwood, all the alerts go red, and guess what?

The “parcel experienced an exception.” (story coming shortly.)

Who ever heard of such drivel in speech in the last thousand years? ONLY rebuttable presumers telling falsehoods, simply because they lack the moral courage, and integrity to admit a fault and correct it.

Here is the way to corner these false representations that; in fact and deed, are well within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5. All you have to do is show any rational person that you were working on your computer at the relevant time. NOT alone that.

The programme is a fabulous time analyser for billing work carried out with utter precision.

Try it, it's very inexpensive, and highly recommended.

Here is one simple picture from dozens you can get.

Look at the time details, and then ask your fraudulent presumer, how you managed to work the keyboard, in such detail.

Then ask him to admit you were not at home, or not available!

Ask him to prove his delivery in a similar way, then ask him to refund or expose him as the lowest kind of predatory puttock imaginable.

Here's the way to do it.

Simple, ask them to show how you were not at home, and all this keyboard activity took place.

You can't modify the reports as they stand.

See screen shots here.

http://www.neuber.com/timeanalyzer/index.html

A sample screen showing a minute by minute presence at the keyboard. NOW then, presumers, tell me how I did all this and was not at home, or else admit your system is deplorably opportunistic, and sick at the heart.

This program costs has a free edition, and then is less than £8 for the pro version. It shows the PC uptime for each day. Useful to show when you are in or out. Part of the tool kit to rebut those disgraceful rebuttable presumptions. Here....

Wedgewood and United Parcel Service (U.P.S.)

Here is how to rebut a rebuttable presumption that is believed by the deliverer, and known to be false by the recipient. Line by line.
Their original letter and its text are here....

To Mr. James stringer.

Wedgwood.com Internet Manager

Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd,

Barlaston,

Stoke-on-Trent

ST12 9ES England

FAX .44 (0)1782 ????? EMAIL customer.focus??

Per fax..or..Email.. Please acknowledge this email, to avoid it being faxed as well.

“Without prejudice”

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:02:22

Not having received an acknowledgement email here is the fax, that will be tidied & further added in the public domain.

Dear Sir,

Mrs. Winter passed your letter to me late yesterday, that I was unaware of. I have been very pre-occupied with family bereavements and she didn't wish to vex me further, rightly so, since I regard your letter as anti-logical, unsound in reasoning, and inept in presentation for any arguments based on facts. After the preamble, you can read my reasoning, and see how it compares with yours regarded as untenable, uncorroborated, and inadmissible as it is, in any court other than one that is venal or irrational.

Preamble:

You make a number of assertions that are highly rebuttable, and to test them I suggest you address every sentence where there is a question mark, then append you signature to a witnessed document that argues from knowledge, then belief and leaves out your being satisfied, a subject of no interest having seen the manner of your arguments.

In paragraph 4. below you make the assertion concerning 'attempts' at delivery without backing them up. You also quietly overlook the actual and factual delivery date of the goods, from the U.P.S. Records as 4^th of September. This is part of an age old art of 'suppressio veri' and 'suggestio falsi' in the function of 'appetition and aversion' in presenting a case that is craftily biased and selective, to reach a hasty generalisation that is utterly flawed unless you can rectify the matter in the ensuing admissions. Treat this as a notice to admit facts, under the standard form N266, and thereafter I suggest you refer the legal terminology to a competent person advising in law. This is very weakly handled by a person whose job function is called 'Internet manager' managing presumably web sites for the company, and cob-webs in legal detritus.

Here is a title your reply should begin with.

A.

This statement (consisting of ? pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

You should bear in mind carefully the spirit of CPR 31.6 (b),(i),(ii), and particularly deal with any questions mindful of CPR 15,5,5. where a failure to deal with the issues and or allegations is 'accepted', meaning what I depose is true. You are invited to contest, controvert and prove otherwise with full candour befitting a person of integrity.

There is no need to concern yourself over the refund of £4, please keep it, this is now the issue that my previous letter informs your company of, I keep my promises, and is worth in my view £100 in PR. To ensure compliance with the EU HR Convention Protocol 5 Article 6, this will be fair, and public, allowing readers to make up their own minds on who is the truth seller and the truth teller. You have 7 days to acknowledge that you intend to contest the assertions, and corroborate what you depose, following which the exchanges shall be placed in the public domain without further notice. We don't need fair and public in this case to be in a small room. It will be fair and very public. Otherwise you can leave the matter as it is and do nothing that is your right.

There will follow three levels of interrogatives relating to the assertion in paragraph 4 below, the first of which is to first “please ask U.P.S. to corroborate their deposition that a driver came to any of the doors at the relevant delivery address, stating the time, day and precise location, he made these alleged 'attempts' and providing a short description of what he did showing the effectiveness of his 'attempts?' After that there will be several questions focussed on context, and then drawing the strands together, comparing them with my own testimony, and then you shall see how unambiguous contextual inferencing works in practice. All in all very brief questions, the first of which has been highlighted for your.

Second please state yourself, under the terms above A. State clearly whether you carried out any research to corroborate your assertions of 'attempts' or did you simply take if from inadmissible third level hearsay testimony please?

Third, state clearly how you calculate that a delivery (fact from U.P.S. records) on 4^th September 2007, from a despatch date (fact from your statement 7^th August for 7-10 days delivery) amount to roughly 29 days (inc / exc) makes up 7-10 day? I would like to see the calculations as you made them, this is fascinating.

Fourth, Please ask U.P.S. to put into plain English for the readers, what it means for a 'parcel to experience' anything, let alone an 'exception.' (fact from U.P.S. web tracking, see below 10.a.)

I suggest an answer here, purely a conjecture, that this means the parcel was focussed on, taken out of its normal transit opacity, and escalated to managerial level, where everyone was now looking at Wedgwood, and U.P.S. to see if their words on delivery 'Attempts' corresponded with facts. Mrs. Winter notified your staff that CCTV cameras were on the lookout as well as traders, and children, around the 3^rd Inst, the first (apparently re-scheduled) alleged 'attempt' Suddenly the parcel experience an exception after this information was transmitted. This is also fascinating.

Failure to deal with these simple questions renders the 'position' you have 'outlined' admitted as either false or misleading representations, and untenable. I have in mind the meanings in Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-5. Compare the level of corroboration with a small insight in the manner in which I shall and can corroborate what I state, based on 3^rd party facts not possible to manipulate since in the example given, the material sits on an external website run by Bt. Yahoo.

To elucidate the difference mentioned below, between knowledge and belief, and then your term 'satisfaction' If you know something, believing it is superfluous, trite and implies you don't know for sure. Believing something declares that lack of knowledge. Hence belief and knowledge are of two distinct disciplines. Satisfying yourself in such matters, has little to do with either, in is certainly nothing do do with proving things whatsoever.

Your invitation is now placed, and the matter stands now wherever you deem you are satisfied with doing the job thoroughly.

End of Preamble.

Therefore: With the utmost courtesy and respect, no personal derogation intended, I shall now traverse your recital and show you a mirror to your reasoning, that I do see, and you do not, since you fail to understand several basic principles. Excuse me if I am not merely irritated, but amused. I will take your letter and comment in sequence, with a few jumps internally to relate the reasoning system you use that is critically flawed and uncorroborated.

1. “Thank you for taking the time to write to us in relation to your concerns regarding the delivery of an order placed by Mrs M C Winter”

   1. They are NOT concerns, they are criticisms of the appalling delivery service given by your courier company, and supported by your letter that fails in its attempt to palliate and gloze the breach of performance.. The 'concerns' as you put it, also point out that you have breached your contract on delivery times, and your courier assisted in this. I shall come to that part shortly.

2. “ Although there is privity of contract and we have no confirmation in writing from Mrs Winter that she has requested you to handle this matter on her behalf, I felt it would be courteous to respond outlining our position on this matter.”

   1. IF you understood the privity rule, even a little, you would know; that in it, the contract terms are governed by promiser, promisee, and 'consideration moving.'

   2. You presume as demonstrated thus far, that I am not a party, and then you also think that the person representing the parties is somehow no allowed to speak on their behalf. This is; in moral terms, simply patronising. If you were attempting to score some sort of point, you failed abysmally, I suggest you ensure you KNOW what you are talking about, instead of believing and speculating in future.

   3. Equally and as aforementioned and demonstrated further down, if you even partially knew the vast distinction between knowing AND believing, you would be very careful in reciting rebuttable presumptions, that are totally incapable of being corroborated or proved by yourself or your couriers. I will refer again to this further down also, as this is treated sequentially.

3. “We use UPS across our global business as they provide a cost effective and reliable service to our customers.”

   1. Template recital of procedures of no interest nor of any material relevance in the substance of the matter at hand. The term reliable is contradicted, by your own dates provided, (where you carefully make the oversight on actual delivery,) and cost effective. Yes they may do much like several other couriers, namely skate over the small deliveries, bottom prioritising them, recite semantic misdirects to detach themselves from culpability, and, as many in this trade, get away with some 5% overall, in breaches that they and their clients; who believe them, in counterfeit performance of contracts at the lower end of the scale of charges, and get away with it.

4. “In this instance the order was placed on 7^th August and UPS made three attempts to deliver the items on 11^th, 12`^h and 13^th August, all within our 7-10 day delivery promise.”

   1. The farce is already on the table in your very own words, BUT; add back in the date of actual delivery, recorded by U.P.S. As delivered on 4^th September to see the whole truth. You play with economic truths like a novice.

   2. You craftily implie, that attempts are the equivalent of actual performance of the contract, without any corroboration whatsoever. I shall come to that shortly.

   3. You look remarkably like you are unable to subtract 2 from 20 and get 18, when calculating 4^th September back to 7^th August. That's just short of nearly a month on MY planet Earth is it not? Where did you train in mathematics, I would be fascinated to learn? Then you confidently add the number of days between August 7^th and September 4^th to get a result of 7-10? I don't call that clever even beyond '0' level. At the extreme end in your favour I make it the 17^th at the outside. From this presumption you construct the first premiss of a false cause argument that proceeds abductively in reasoning, that clearly you do NOT understand.

      • Additionally, you clearly see the objective you wish to 'outline' (recall that: “outlining our position”) and then proceed by reasoning backwards in 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' reasoning to re-enforce your hypothesis.

   4. Now I will focus on 'attempts.' Anyone knows that attempt in the OED, care to look it up, before you get lost in a sea of words, who's meanings you do not understand, and drown in gibberish? OED: 1.b =- The effort in contrast with the attainment of its object; effort merely, futile endeavour.

Think about it Maestro! If one wishes to swim the channel, and finds the water too cold at first touch, and before gaining a distance of 100 yards, giving up, then that is what an attempt looks like. Analogise it with attempting deliveries and you see you are talking in the subjunctive mood, with barely any imperceptible velleity, and it the attempt fails at he first 000.1 percent of the idea becoming a thought, declining to an unfulfilled wish. I wonder if you see that ?

• I also wonder if these semantic primers and deliberations proceed from the impulse of the moment, or do you practice them or even take them from templates without even thinking about them? Delivering them at chosen moments when they may touch the association complexes, in PR, and NLP to attract the gullible tourists and foreigners unfamiliar with the English Language.

• So, returning to the FACTS, if you know what such things really are, you will see clearly, I hope MY reasoning, that delivery on 4^th September from 7^th August does NOT come to 7-10 days. That is a fact. To establish a fact as opposed to a thought, and conjecture, one goes off into the real world and compares one's, literal indicative sentences purporting to describe reality, and establishes IF they correspond with reality. If not, then the words are either misleading or false representations. It's a fascinating topic called grounds, corroboration and correspondence theory, clearly you look unfamiliar with.

5. Now we come to the amusing stuff, that is really farcical. Please pay very close attention, you could miss it easily.

   1. You; like U.P.S. talk about things, that without the slightest notion of what truth and correspondence theory is all about. You attribute your cerebrations with omniscience.

   2. 1- “ no one was available to take delivery”, this is you.

   3. 2 - “THE RECEIVER WAS UNAVAILABLE TO SIGN” this is from the U.P.S tracking.

   4. Please pay attention!

      • It is not epistemologically possible to KNOW (unless as aforementioned you are God,) if the receiver is IN FACT unavailable without checking every door, and every room in the place of delivery and confirming this as a FACT, that nobody is present. It's as mentioned, a rebuttable PRESUMPTION, and I can rebut it, moreover corroborate it, and prove otherwise, that's the bad bit for you. Can you do likewise?

      • You and they presume to believe that you think what the receiver, (someone on the premisses,) KNOWS to be false. Let's look at your reasoning and mine. To be sure, one of us resists living in a world of appearances and illusions.

      • You reveal you are not even modestly aware of the vast distinction between knowing and believing. Since you confer your beliefs on others who know the contrary.

6. Let's look at how you corroborate your assertion that “ no one was available ”. Carefully scan you letter as many times as you like, and you will find amusingly enough you DON'T at all. Your testimony relies on either speculation, a few printed words that are false representations, or some belief in eternal magic of words that go without thoughts. You relie thus far, on I assume, on 3^rd level testimony that's over the garden fence chat, from some delivery man, in too much of a hurry to even ring the bell, or gain entry using automatic entry, and come even to our front door. Did he leave any note to prove his visit, certainly NOT from our examinations? Three alleged visits, plus one on the 3^rd Inst allegedly while all the street traders were on the lookout, and the CCTV cameras were scanning for any sign of a purporting deeming seeming visitor that manifests himself in words only.

   1. Not a sign of him, nor does he leave a trace of his visit. Were I to ask for his itineraries those days, I wouldn't be surprised of its contents, and you would be rightly horrified if what I guess is there, and you clearly don't know, save for hearsay, whose only difference is that its printed. Neither YOU nor U.P.S. make available your actual times of attempted delivery, (better to keep that quiet?) check their tracking and see at best you only know it is 'OUT' for delivery,' and when it was scanned in and out of the depot. Nice to keep the customer guessing, yet when Tesco and Waitrose deliver they tell us exactly the time slot of expected delivery, calling when ther is an expected breach. They are selling the goods they deliver, unlike U.P.S who are only selling the deliveries, and the looser that is in tracking the better. Since there's money in't. My evidence for a particular delivery courier is that usually they breach their performance on average some 5% of their overall deliveries, particularly to private clients as opposed to businesses. In that court case, they were making some 40,000 deliveries monthly and their supplier recorded about 5% in failures and breaches, that were compensated by a lower tariff in exchange for transferring the overhead to the supplier, to compensate clients. It's really not rocket science stuff is it now?

7. Let's look at how I corroborate,what I know. As opposed to what you believe. After all you do know when you eat a meal at lunchtime that you are eating don't you? You do know if you don't get last month's pay cheque that it's a fact, since you are running to the family or bank to borrow for food? How would I know if you were available to sign for your cheque or eat your meal, any ideas how I would find out, or should I just as you do, make a presumption of guilt to abrogate culpability? It's the same methodology. It's called being in close epistemological contact with the object of your thoughts and senses that confirm all being what it IS, and not what it seems. Simple isn't it?

8. Well cast your eye over this, that is a mere commencement on trivial corroboration of my location with utter precision at the relevant times, that you are invited to challenge, contest, match them or controvert.

   1. Re: Wed, 13/8/08 24KB

Re: Wed, 13/8/08 24KB

Re: Wed, 13/8/08 2KB

Re: Wed, 13/8/08 24KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 15KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 13KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 10KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 48KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 9KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 47KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 44KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 44KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 13KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 8KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 3KB

Re: Tue, 12/8/08 5KB

RE: Mon, 11/8/08 16KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 446KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 121KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 7KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 4538KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 1696KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 117KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 345KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 16KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 2KB

Re: Mon, 11/8/08 2KB

9. These are the emails that left my machine on the relevant days you refer to when I was unavailable. My machine has an IP address that you ought to know as a web manager. Each email has a precise time when it left my machine, and the file it was written in has its date and time of creation, modification, and accessing. You don't think that happens by magic surely? Moreover it is stored as seen above on a third party server, BT. I can provide their times.

• I have another system under the Unix, o/s that has 'accton,' which I am sure you know is an audit trail of every program launched and accessed from start-up to power down detailing specifically for on-line time accounting purposes that I do not use, since I am retired.

• Next I am disabled with mobility problems that mean I get out very rarely. So at all times, one person is 'available to sign' 24 hours a day, and days a week with very minor variations.

• Next, there are my telephone calls, logged on Bt-internet, daily, and that tells any serious thinking person, that someone has to be present to take calls lasting longer than a message centre takes to record short messages. Some important ones where there is something contractual taking place get recorded.

• Next there are people calling me, and there is a daily diary of calls I need to make, confirming the calls took place.

• There is more in this vein. My location can be determined with such precision at all times you would be amazed, why even going into town, my car is recorded on camera, and registered in congestion zones. My whereabouts is not a mystery, and not clouded in opacity like 'out for delivery.'

• I could go on much much more.

10. I shall now examine the most farcical part of all. Your U.P.S. 'service' has parcels that are given cognitive functions to experience things. Are you laughing yet? Let's look at the semantic company you keep, relie on, and support. From their very own tracking pages.

1. Your package has experienced an exception. (wow!) How do packages you do that?

• Tracking Number: 1Z 169 7A0 68 7127 823 0

Type: Package

See description below

Rescheduled Delivery: 09/04/2008

Shipped To: LONDON, GB

Shipped/Billed On: 08/29/2008

Service: STANDARD

Weight: .80 Kg

1. Not laughing yet? They have parcels that can experience things, or at least when they enter the ambit of their easily rebuttable presumptions they become anaesthetised or inebriated and exhibit cognitive functions of living entities. Who ever heard of parcels that experience exceptions? None of the rest of us on this planet, ONLY U.P.S. and any con - spiritual parties, whether inanimate, vegetable or mineral.

   • That's the language of gibberish. It may mean something to U.P.S. but to me it means this is all a farce where as above I said. “lost in a sea of words, who's meanings they do not understand, and drown in gibberish?”

2. Where is my parcel? Oh it has experienced an exception!

   • I asked where it was, not what its latest experiences were,

3. How do you know that I am not available to sign? Oh, we decided it! I see, that's now a fact is it?

4. Can you prove it? Apparently 3^rd level hearsay testimony that is inadmissible in a court is your proof!

5. I almost forgot how all this began, did you?

   • We wanted to order one six inch bowl, and during the ordering process increased it to FOUR to help you out. When these arrived they were the WRONG ones, not bowls but saucers, So we co-operated over YOUR mistake, and to manage our collection properly bought another 3. Then the real farce got under way, from ordering specific goods and being sent different goods, to receiving when we were unavailable to receive them, since there was NO difference between 4^th September and all the other days in your attempt schedules.

1. “we have subsequently successfully delivered the order at no additional cost to Mrs Winter.”

   1. You muck up the order and forget all about it, then muck up the delivery purporting to attempt to deliver it, and then blame US for not being available, when you cannot possibly KNOW, but pretend your beliefs are real things, when we were behind the door waiting for a ring. You can't believe in your sceptical minds surely that we order goods and then deliberately go out to cheat ourselves surely now? Next you have the effrontery to try and convince me that you did all this for no extra charge, when we already paid for a delivery that failed in performance (sale of goods act?)

2. “As a result, we are unable to refund the cost of delivery (£4) or any additional costs.”

   1. Now get it right please. As a result of your initial delivery of goods not ordered and your non performance on delivery timing, and your magnanimous free delivery that we paid for, and didn't get, in breach, you are all whitewashed and innocent looking. BUT try at least to get it right, it only LOOKS and APPEARS that way in true chameleon fashion because that's how you 'OUTLINE' things in brush strokes of fallible and farcical reasoning. When it comes to the detail, the appearance is NOT what is seems, and as time unfolds what plighted cunning hides, truth surfaces and finds our drama to be your farce.

3. “I hope you will understand our reasoning in this matter and we are confident that we have satisfied our legal obligations.”

   1. Yes of course I do, it's the function of appetition and aversion, in true predatory style that when unravelled shows the face and features of pure mendacity. Moreover the mathematics are really mind blowing.

   2. “You are confident?”

   3. Don't worry about the £4 you OWE us in breach of contract, forget it, and keep it, material like this is ideal for a writer such as myself. And will be published shortly as advised.

In case you want to get your legal team to challenge this, first corroborate what you say, and contest and prove what I say is otherwise. Then show me how you add up.

Just in case I need to say it, I am making these comments under the EU HR Convention Protocol 5 article 10.

If you do replie, please try to connect your ideas and thoughts logically where the English is comprehensible AND most importantly corresponds with facts, you ought to know what they are by now. They don't grow in appearances or foolish conjectures, but reality for sure.

Special apologies for spelling errors some terms I tend to get wrongly spelt. Also for any syntax or typos, this is not the best time for me to deal with your letter.

Yours most respectfully, and courteously.

A. H. Winter.

Josiah Wedgwood Ltd.
United Parcel Service

WEDGWOOD
Josiah Wedgwood Ltd.

Mr A H Winter

10^th September 2008

Ref: Order placed on 7^th August 2008 Dear Mr Winter

Thank you for taking the time to write to us in relation to your concerns regarding the delivery of an order placed by Mrs M C Winter. Although there is privity of contract and we have no confirmation in writing from Mrs Winter that she has requested you to handle this matter on her behalf, I felt it would be courteous to respond outlining our position on this matter.

We use UPS across our global business as they provide a cost effective and reliable service to our customers. In this instance the order was placed on 7^th August and UPS made three attempts to deliver the items on 11^th, 12`^h and 13^th August, all within our 7-10 day delivery promise. Unfortunately, no one was available to take delivery of the order and we have subsequently successfully delivered the order at no additional cost to Mrs Winter.

As a result, we are unable to refund the cost of delivery (£4) or any additional costs.

I hope you will understand our reasoning in this matter and we are confident that we have satisfied our legal obligations.

Yours sincerely

James Stringer

Wedgwood.com Internet Manager
The original

Via - United Parcel Service

Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd, Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent ST12 9ES England Telephone: UK 0845