InkTec ink Problems?

[pharmacist]

If you look at the cartridge codes: PGI-5, BCI-3eBK, PG-50 etc, than you can make up this is the universal one.

 

[websnail]

Oooh hold on a tic...

Ok... mea culpa... The reason the expression "KMP Universal" came about was because of the way the manufacturer/supplier described it in their emails ie:

I can offer you two alternatives for PGI 5 BK.
An universal ink, that is compatible for all Canon inkjets and our especially for PGI 5 BK developed ink

After that, the term "KMP Universal" sort of stuck and it's become the terminology to describe the ink that covers the different Canon originals.

I think you'll agree though that "KMP, compatible with all Canon inkjets" is a bit of a mouthful compared to "KMP Canon Universal"

 

[The Hat]

pharmacist If you look at the cartridge codes: PGI-5, BCI-3eBK, PG-50 etc, than you can make up this is the universal one.

websnail I think you'll agree though that "KMP, compatible with all Canon inkjets" is a bit of a mouthful compared to "KMP Canon Universal"

I got this black ink from websnail and whether its called original or universal, (it can be used in 3 dozen different printers) and all I know is it just works great and at the end of the day that all that matters..

 

[ghwellsjr]

I have purchased both the KMP Universal and the KMP PGI-5 inks from Websnail and am using them, along with eight other brands, in my clog tests. I plan to also evaluate the characteristics of all ten of these pigment black inks in terms of how they print. At that time, I hope to determine if there is any difference between the KMP Universal and KMP PGI-5 inks.

 

[leo8088]

So there is not really a KMP Universal. Some of us called the cheaper one KMP Universal. So I am correct that Pharmacist never said he was using KMP Universal. I don't want your 50 cents. I would be glad to have it if it were $50.

 

[ghwellsjr]

It doesn't matter what the cheaper KMP is called (normal, cheaper, original, universal, generic, no name), you said in post #7 that pharmacist was talking about the "KMP for PGI-5" and I offered you a bet in post #8 that he "never purchased or used the more expensive KMP PGI-5 ink" and you accepted my bet in post #9 stating "I will guess that he never used the cheaper Universal one". In post #10, pharmacist confirmed that he used the Universal KMP in all kinds of printers and couldn't see why anyone would use the more expensive ink. One of us owes the other one 50 cents. Are there any independent judges out there that would like to weigh in on this? (I'll give you all an equal cut.)

 

[leo8088]

Where did I say I accepted your 50 cent bet? I never said a word accepting or not about it. I would not bet on a cheap 50 cent bet. I would not bet with people who turned a discussion into a betting on how the words were spoken. I was saying Pharmacist must have bought the expensive version of the KMP ink because he did not say it was KMP Universal. So I made an incorrect assumption. Wow, I can't imaging you got so excited for catching me on that.

It is perfectly clear to me that Red John started this thread because of your repeated report of the Inktect ink problem that was first reported and repeatedly reported by you. I responded because I think you are misleading people into believing that Inktec's pigment black ink has problems now. Your reply to his question was giving a link to your report despite that it has been clarified that the new ink from Inktec works fine. Your interest seemed to be beating the dead horse. What a great opportunity Red Jogh's question brought up to you to kill it one more time?

The best answer to his question should have been to make a absolutely clear clarification that it has been said that the current ink works fine. The report of problems was on the old discontinued ink. Your reply will simply continue to mislead people. That's why I responded. Now you want to steer this thread into a 50 cent bet I will settle with you else where (outside?). Don't get it wrong. I'm saying how about telling me how I can reach you and give you a pad on the head. I can bring some candies too.

 

[ghwellsjr]

This whole thread could have been limited to the first two posts: Red John's question and my correct, direct, complete and perfect answer. There was no reason for you to come on and bash me and KMP Universal ink. Red John was aware that I was planning to test that ink and the Inktec PGI-5 ink and several others and was merely asking for a progress report which I gave him.

You are the only person who thinks that I am bashing Inktec's newer ink. Not only will you not accept the fact that Inktec's BCI-3eBk pigment ink had a clogging problem, but you have declared that their newer ink does not have the same problem. I don't know if it has a problem or not but I want to do a test to determine if it does. Until then, I'm not going to declare either way.

But you do not accept my test method nor do you accept any of my findings. If you legitimately find a flaw in my method, why don't you point it out? Why don't you help me do a better test, one that you will accept? Why won't you help?

I will meet you sometime around noon on October 19, 2010 at Keeble and Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto California so that you can give me a tour and then a pad on the head and some candies, too.

 

[leo8088]

This whole thread could have been limited to the first two posts:

Sigh! You finally said it. Your reply was the only valid one. You are the only person qualified to reply. Do I get it right?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Are you a salesman?