[討論] 各位覺得這麼做會很沒品嗎?
---
剛剛發現一件事情
發現上週末買的東西今天因為網站特價所以買一樣的東西便宜400多塊錢
大家都知道網路有鑑賞期這種東西(我領了但還沒用),
其實可以領了貨退錢再買一模一樣的東西
只是基於一些原因,所以我沒這麼做
我是覺得有點浪費自己的時間,還要配合物流業者的時間退貨,也浪費物流的資源@@??
各位覺得這麼做會很沒品嗎?
--
你好啊~!
布魯ㄍㄨㄥˊ 阿ㄎㄧㄚˋ 猴鳥~ 猴鳥龍 髂屋 尿~ 鬥!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.115.205.64
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Lifeismoney/M.1492083486.A.BF5.html
※ 編輯: jj840917 (140.115.205.64), 04/13/2017 19:39:24
推
04/13 19:40, , 1F
04/13 19:40, 1F
推
04/13 19:40, , 2F
04/13 19:40, 2F
→
04/13 19:40, , 3F
04/13 19:40, 3F
就是奇摩耶! 是同家店超級商城和購物中心的差價
(超級商城周末買是5折,購物中心這幾天是44折)
如果不用退貨重拿我就願意了,詳細能站內嗎 謝謝
推
04/13 19:40, , 4F
04/13 19:40, 4F
→
04/13 19:40, , 5F
04/13 19:40, 5F
→
04/13 19:41, , 6F
04/13 19:41, 6F
推
04/13 19:41, , 7F
04/13 19:41, 7F
→
04/13 19:42, , 8F
04/13 19:42, 8F
※ 編輯: jj840917 (140.115.205.64), 04/13/2017 19:42:47
推
04/13 19:43, , 9F
04/13 19:43, 9F
推
04/13 19:43, , 10F
04/13 19:43, 10F
推
04/13 19:43, , 11F
04/13 19:43, 11F
推
04/13 19:46, , 12F
04/13 19:46, 12F
→
04/13 19:48, , 13F
04/13 19:48, 13F
推
04/13 19:50, , 14F
04/13 19:50, 14F
→
04/13 19:51, , 15F
04/13 19:51, 15F
→
04/13 19:51, , 16F
04/13 19:51, 16F
→
04/13 19:51, , 17F
04/13 19:51, 17F
→
04/13 19:51, , 18F
04/13 19:51, 18F
如果能直接帳戶退差價的話我是要求退差價啊
但如果需要重新換貨走一堆程序的話我就不會了 這中間沒存在任何矛盾吧??
另外,我所購買的東西商城和購物中心是同一家公司經營的 所以應該沒有通路的問題
→
04/13 19:52, , 19F
04/13 19:52, 19F
→
04/13 19:57, , 20F
04/13 19:57, 20F
→
04/13 19:58, , 21F
04/13 19:58, 21F
推
04/13 19:59, , 22F
04/13 19:59, 22F
※ 編輯: jj840917 (140.115.205.64), 04/13/2017 20:01:41
推
04/13 20:04, , 23F
04/13 20:04, 23F
推
04/13 20:05, , 24F
04/13 20:05, 24F
→
04/13 20:05, , 25F
04/13 20:05, 25F
省錢版果然能讓人意外省些錢
推
04/13 20:11, , 26F
04/13 20:11, 26F
→
04/13 20:11, , 27F
04/13 20:11, 27F
推
04/13 20:14, , 28F
04/13 20:14, 28F
→
04/13 20:14, , 29F
04/13 20:14, 29F
※ 編輯: jj840917 (140.115.205.64), 04/13/2017 20:16:49
→
04/13 20:19, , 30F
04/13 20:19, 30F
推
04/13 20:19, , 31F
04/13 20:19, 31F
推
04/13 20:24, , 32F
04/13 20:24, 32F
推
04/13 20:26, , 33F
04/13 20:26, 33F
還有 125 則推文
還有 13 段內文
推
04/14 13:05, , 159F
04/14 13:05, 159F
推
04/14 13:29, , 160F
04/14 13:29, 160F
推
04/14 13:48, , 161F
04/14 13:48, 161F
推
04/14 14:02, , 162F
04/14 14:02, 162F
→
04/14 14:02, , 163F
04/14 14:02, 163F
→
04/14 14:02, , 164F
04/14 14:02, 164F
→
04/14 15:06, , 165F
04/14 15:06, 165F
推
04/14 15:39, , 166F
04/14 15:39, 166F
→
04/14 15:39, , 167F
04/14 15:39, 167F
→
04/14 15:45, , 168F
04/14 15:45, 168F
→
04/14 15:45, , 169F
04/14 15:45, 169F
推
04/14 18:33, , 170F
04/14 18:33, 170F
→
04/14 18:34, , 171F
04/14 18:34, 171F
推
04/14 22:05, , 172F
04/14 22:05, 172F
→
04/14 22:05, , 173F
04/14 22:05, 173F
→
04/14 22:05, , 174F
04/14 22:05, 174F
推
04/14 22:51, , 175F
04/14 22:51, 175F
→
04/14 23:48, , 176F
04/14 23:48, 176F
→
04/14 23:49, , 177F
04/14 23:49, 177F
→
04/14 23:55, , 178F
04/14 23:55, 178F
→
04/14 23:55, , 179F
04/14 23:55, 179F
→
04/14 23:55, , 180F
04/14 23:55, 180F
→
04/14 23:55, , 181F
04/14 23:55, 181F
→
04/15 00:00, , 182F
04/15 00:00, 182F
→
04/15 00:00, , 183F
04/15 00:00, 183F
→
04/15 00:00, , 184F
04/15 00:00, 184F
→
04/15 00:00, , 185F
04/15 00:00, 185F
→
04/15 00:00, , 186F
04/15 00:00, 186F
→
04/15 00:01, , 187F
04/15 00:01, 187F
回頭來看沒想到這篇還多了這麼多推文@@!
你們在吵的這部分其實apple和sc講完我就懂了,apple是想說通路不同
而sc想強調的是即使舉例也不應該舉雖然邏輯通,但實際上例子內卻有錯誤的部分,
因此這樣舉例其實並不恰當
這我也能理解,畢竟生活中很多事情也是這樣,不能只求結果對就好
最簡單的講法就是像後來推文內kanakin直接講而不舉例最恰當
不過真沒想到我都解決完這問題了這篇還能因為這種枝微末節的東西還能吵這麼久
還幫我預設一些立場...
讓我懷疑是不是以後問問題懂了都要昭告眾人說 我因為推文中的xxx而懂了樣才行
真不知道該說是求好心切又或是為爭面子還跑回來這篇吵這麼久...
總之很謝謝版友們提供很多有用的資訊,也希望有其他人因為這篇文章而受惠
※ 編輯: jj840917 (140.115.205.64), 04/15/2017 04:38:05
推
04/15 04:10, , 188F
04/15 04:10, 188F
→
04/15 04:11, , 189F
04/15 04:11, 189F
推
04/15 16:34, , 190F
04/15 16:34, 190F
噓
04/16 11:45, , 191F
04/16 11:45, 191F
→
04/16 11:45, , 192F
04/16 11:45, 192F
推
04/17 01:23, , 193F
04/17 01:23, 193F
→
04/17 01:24, , 194F
04/17 01:24, 194F
→
04/17 01:24, , 195F
04/17 01:24, 195F
推
04/18 21:51, , 196F
04/18 21:51, 196F
→
04/18 21:52, , 197F
04/18 21:52, 197F