Comment on [deleted]
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day agoYes, I read and understood what you said. If the packaging was obviously faulty, that means the drives were rendered unfit. If the drives were determined to be fit for purpose, that means that packaging was sufficient and not faulty. Hard drives are not eggshells, they are designed to survive FedEx punting them onto your porch.
If you want to play the combative game and accuse each other of disregarding each others’ comments, I will ask again the question you did not answer: do the drives not function, or do they fail any SMART test? If you are accusing your suppliers of being inadequate, please, support that with data.
Benjaben@lemmy.world 1 day ago
YET AGAIN, answered that. I never opened the drives. It’s right there in the comment you’re replying to.
This is a fruitless back and forth, I’m tapping out. Have a good weekend, I wish you well, sincerely.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
If you rejected the drives out of hand, then it’s impossible to say they were unfit. You also did not answer my question about how exactly they were packaged. The plastic clamshell is generally fit for purpose and I doubt WD, Seagate, etc. would continue using packaging that resulted in high rates of failure. If you wish to contest that assumption, prove it with data.
Benjaben@lemmy.world 1 day ago
For now the 4th time, the information you’re asking me to provide exists in comments I have already typed and that you have replied to. May we have an easier time seeing eye to eye if our paths cross again, again I really wish you well. I’m not going to reply any further, goodbye.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Call me blind if you will, but I don’t see anywhere you’ve said exactly how they’re packed. One place you said “only air bubbles”, but another place you mentioned boxes. All I’m asking is that you bring all the complete relevant information to the table in the first place.