don't shop at deep roots, seattle

the following is a chain of events which ensures i will never give
Deep Roots (seattle, wa) any more of my money:

a few weeks ago:
1. went in looking for 5/8" lobe jewelry with a shorter width so as not to
bump into my vertical conch piercings
2. found some screw-together steel tunnels which would do the job
3. was not allowed to touch or closely examine eyelets due to a sterility
policy in the store, but was told they're from custom steel, & that suited
me fine
4. paid, left store.

that night:
5. realized that one tunnel had a large scratch on the side from where
someone used metal calipers to measure its gauge
6. realized that the interior of the tunnels were NOT polished, & that the
outside polish was lousy & flawed
7. realized this is nothing pat would ever let out of his shop
8. called deep roots to inform them of these things & request my money
back despite their no return policy. after ten minutes, was told i'd have
to talk to the owners on sunday.

that sunday:
9. went in to talk to the owners. eventually got them to agree to take the
flawed, defective jewelry back. got only store credit written for the
dollar amount of the jewelry, despite my having paid tax. was assured that
the tax would not have to be paid again.

last weekend:
10. went in, found something suitable to spend store credit on. this
jewelry was the exact amount of the previous jewelry.
11. had to fight for another ten minutes over $5.40 which i refused to pay
again
12. had to get counterdick to call owners again, same owner chick answered
who had assured me of #9 above
13. was told "you know what? just take them" on the phone, making me feel
like i was trying to PULL ONE OVER on them, when they were trying to rip
me off AGAIN.

fuck those people. some of the jewelry's really nice, & some of
the people working there were great, but i'll never go in there again &
they'll never get my money again.

lish "it's been written with love
crank@got.net & it's been sealed with a kick." -jc
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

i'll teach you to turn away. <crank@got.net> wrote:
l> the following is a chain of events which ensures i will never give
l> Deep Roots (seattle, wa) any more of my money:

cc to livejournal:
http://community.livejournal.com/seattle/4628046.html
cc to yelp:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/sDdhTyrqn3kH...deep%20roots1~

fuck them. i'm loud when i'm happy OR angry, & they have mightily
pissed me off.

lish "i like your tattooed
crank@got.net convictions." -ar
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

On Jul 25, 5:01 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
wrote:
<snip>

lish> 3. was not allowed to touch or closely examine eyelets due to a
sterility
lish> policy in the store,

Because they don't autoclave in-house? That's absurd.

<snip>

lish> 9. went in to talk to the owners. eventually got them to agree
to take the
lish> flawed, defective jewelry back. got only store credit written
for the
lish> dollar amount of the jewelry, despite my having paid tax. was
assured that
lish> the tax would not have to be paid again.


Even if they did eventually credit the tax, I'd still make their lives
miserable and call the state revenue commission and have them
investigated. They cannot keep tax for a sale that was refunded.

Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
Kgc> On Jul 25, 5:01 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
lish>> 3. was not allowed to touch or closely examine eyelets due to a sterility
lish>> policy in the store,
Kgc> Because they don't autoclave in-house? That's absurd.

no, & they autoclaved the jewelry i bought before i left. took all
of ten minutes in a statim. it's just retarded. i can understand them
being this paranoid about organics, of which there are plenty in the shop,
but i bought steel both times.

Kgc> Even if they did eventually credit the tax, I'd still make their lives
Kgc> miserable and call the state revenue commission and have them
Kgc> investigated. They cannot keep tax for a sale that was refunded.

someone commented to the lj post that tax in washington is charged
PER TRANSACTION, not per item, so they legally SHOULD have charged tax
each time. i didn't do the research to find out if that's accurate or not,
but either way, I WAS TOLD I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT AGAIN. so fuck them.

lish "daily i am amazed at your
crank@got.net inexhaustible ability to just live." -as
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

On Jul 26, 11:34 am, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
wrote:

> someone commented to the lj post that tax in washington is charged
> PER TRANSACTION, not per item, so they legally SHOULD have charged tax
> each time. i didn't do the research to find out if that's accurate or not,
> but either way, I WAS TOLD I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT AGAIN. so fuck them.

Tax is charged on a sale. It would therefore be for each item sold.

But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
for a future sale.

And no, it's not per transaction. That makes no sense.

Kavin

KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
> for a future sale.

exactly. they should've refunded the entire purchase price, including
the tax, and then charged the appropriate tax on the new transaction.

The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
TQoCaJ> KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
>> for a future sale.
TQ> exactly. they should've refunded the entire purchase price, including
TQ> the tax, and then charged the appropriate tax on the new transaction.

& everywhere else i've lived, this is indeed what has happened
with any sort of return.

lish "who the hell are you
crank@got.net & why are you talking to me?" -pm
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
Kgc> On Jul 26, 11:34 am, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
>> someone commented to the lj post that tax in washington is charged
>> PER TRANSACTION, not per item, so they legally SHOULD have charged tax
>> each time. i didn't do the research to find out if that's accurate or not,
>> but either way, I WAS TOLD I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT AGAIN. so fuck them.
Kgc> Tax is charged on a sale. It would therefore be for each item sold.
Kgc> But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
Kgc> for a future sale.

like i said, i didn't do the research. take it up with her:
http://community.livejournal.com/sea...4174#t75364174

Kgc> And no, it's not per transaction. That makes no sense.

well, did YOU do the research? laws don't always make sense.

lish "your house is standing
crank@got.net on a foot & a half of silt." -uc
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

On Jul 27, 10:49 am, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
wrote:

lish> well, did YOU do the research? laws don't always make
sense.


lish is maaaaadddddd. I'd say livid, but she's already so white, how
would you know?

(and I was contrasting that each item in the transaction is taxed, not
the transaction. 20 items can make up one transaction. And in some
states, items are taxed at different rates. Within one transaction,
there can be several tax rates. That's all I'm a sayin')

Kavin

i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
> KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kgc> On Jul 26, 11:34 am, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
>
>>> someone commented to the lj post that tax in washington is charged
>>>PER TRANSACTION, not per item, so they legally SHOULD have charged tax
>>>each time. i didn't do the research to find out if that's accurate or not,
>>>but either way, I WAS TOLD I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT AGAIN. so fuck them.
>
> Kgc> Tax is charged on a sale. It would therefore be for each item sold.
> Kgc> But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
> Kgc> for a future sale.
>
> like i said, i didn't do the research. take it up with her:
> http://community.livejournal.com/sea...4174#t75364174
>
> Kgc> And no, it's not per transaction. That makes no sense.
>
> well, did YOU do the research? laws don't always make sense.

http://taxpedia.dor.wa.gov/isysquery...2a52415/8/doc/

Item #2 (RULE 108). It is from 2004, but it seems to make sense.

Dave.

>
> lish "your house is standing
> crank@got.net on a foot & a half of silt." -uc
> 43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70
>

--
Dr. David Cronk, Ph.D. phone: (865) 974-3735
Research Director fax: (865) 974-8296
Innovative Computing Lab http://www.cs.utk.edu/~cronk
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

David Cronk <cronk@crs.emutovk.edue> wrote:
DC> i'll teach you to turn away. wrote:
>> KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kgc> But you have to refund tax on a refunded sale. You cannot keep tax
>> like i said, i didn't do the research. take it up with her:
>> http://community.livejournal.com/sea...4174#t75364174
DC> http://taxpedia.dor.wa.gov/isysquery...2a52415/8/doc/
DC> Item #2 (RULE 108). It is from 2004, but it seems to make sense.
DC> Dr. David Cronk, Ph.D.

a PhD just owned kavin. :D

thanks, david. yep, that would make sense since they're reselling
the jewelry. i wonder how much trouble i can get them in with the city for
telling me something different?

lish "your house is standing
crank@got.net on a foot & a half of silt." -uc
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

KavinTaylor@gmail.com <KavinTaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
Kgc> On Jul 27, 10:49 am, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
lish>> well, did YOU do the research? laws don't always make
Kgc> sense.
Kgc> lish is maaaaadddddd. I'd say livid, but she's already so white, how
Kgc> would you know?

huh? i'm not mad at all. i don't like when anyone makes blanket
statements without doing the research, & it appears that you're wrong,
anyhow. so.

& actually, i'm poisoned. i'm home sick today 'cause they must've
used hemlock on my sandwich yesterday instead of oregano. really, it's
just dangerous to keep the hemlock on the spice rack, don't you think?

lish "who the hell are you
crank@got.net & why are you talking to me?" -pm
43.9% / 30 RANA 128 / 70

On Jul 27, 1:50 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
wrote:

lish> a PhD just owned kavin. :D

I think not.

There was no barter involved in your transaction. Also, they accepted
your jewelry back for the full price.

I'm owned, but not by Mr. Cronk.

Kavin

On Jul 27, 1:47 pm, cr...@got.net (i'll teach you to turn away.)
wrote:

lish> & actually, i'm poisoned. i'm home sick today 'cause
they must've
lish> used hemlock on my sandwich yesterday instead of oregano.
really, it's
lish> just dangerous to keep the hemlock on the spice rack, don't you
think?

No. It's just poor portion control.

Kavin

Kavin Taylor wrote:
[...]

> No. It's just poor portion control.

Was that a joke, Kavin? Because, hey, i don't get your joke.

--
Curt