私は同じ事を繰り返し主張する。あなたは大きな障害を"●"と記載し、問題点を矮小化（trivialize）して説明した。さらに、scratches、fungus、hazeを多く抱えるレンズを"●"と説明した。あなたの説明と実際のアイテムのコンディションは大きな乖離がある。実際のコンディションは、私が提示した写真が証明している。あなたから届いたこのアイテムは、私が想定していたアイテムでは無い。事実と異なる説明をしたのはあなたです。そのあなたが勝手に主張する"●"は無効です。
Rating
50
Translation / English
- Posted at 17 Apr 2014 at 12:47
I insist on the same fact repeatedly. You listed the large problem as " ”, and explained the problem by trivializing.
You also explained the lens which has many scratches, fungus and haze as " ".
Your explanation and actual condition of the item are quite different.
The actual condition is verified by the picture I had shown.
The item that I received from you is not the one I was expecting.
You are the one who explained in the way that is different from the fact.
What you insist at your discretion " " is not effective.
yoshidama likes this translation
You also explained the lens which has many scratches, fungus and haze as " ".
Your explanation and actual condition of the item are quite different.
The actual condition is verified by the picture I had shown.
The item that I received from you is not the one I was expecting.
You are the one who explained in the way that is different from the fact.
What you insist at your discretion " " is not effective.
Rating
50
Translation / English
- Posted at 17 Apr 2014 at 12:54
I argue the same thing repeatedly.
You described a bid barrier as "●", explained the problem by trivialized.
Still more, You explained lens facing many scratches, fungus, the haze as "●".
There is a large divergence condition of the actual item and the description of you.
The actual condition is evidenced by the photos that I have presented.
This item came from you is not the item I had expected.
It is you the explained me a different explanation of the facts.
This "●" that you insist on its own is invalid.
yoshidama likes this translation
You described a bid barrier as "●", explained the problem by trivialized.
Still more, You explained lens facing many scratches, fungus, the haze as "●".
There is a large divergence condition of the actual item and the description of you.
The actual condition is evidenced by the photos that I have presented.
This item came from you is not the item I had expected.
It is you the explained me a different explanation of the facts.
This "●" that you insist on its own is invalid.
