Originally posted by: Ken90630
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: slots
Always trust the blue hippo.....
Hey, why not? It helped Intel sell lots of overprices CPUs.. with dancing blue men, right?
To be honest, I didn't even look at their web site yet before I wrote those long responses previously. I was just soooo ticked off, at reading about another's opinions that we somehow need more laws passed, or more administrative oversight, in order to protect one from one's own decisions in life. That's more than just a little disturbing to me. In fact, after making that Darwinism-related commment, I was effectively called a nazi in a PM. Sorry, I just don't see the world as a giant welfare state. Clearly, this person is living in some detached world. I just don't see things the same way. You can't legislate compassion, nor fairness, nor equity in life. If you believe this, you are living in a dream world. Best of luck to you. That's all.
Well, I said I was done with this thread
Yes, but I didn't say anything of the sort, so I responded in the thread.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
, but since you've chosen to blatantly misrepresent what I sent you in my PM (yes, all, it's me he was so transparently referring to), I'm not going to allow you to do that without calling you on it.
Alright then. I'll let everyone decided for themselves, if my statements in reference to the contents of the PM were accurate or not. Here's the full text of the PM, without modifications, quoted:
Hey, Larry,
While I was tempted to jump back into the thread to answer your post, I decided my word and credibility are more important. So I'm doing a 'work around' by sending you a PM instead, and only because you said you were curious about a few things.
I have five minutes here, so I'll respond briefly to your post, hitting the highlights:
I can't understand how you can say that all capitalist merchants are fleece artists, "more or less." When I say "fleece artists," that means scam artists or ripoff artists. Simply selling a product for profit, which is what a capitalist merchant specializes in, is not fleecing. There are millions of capitalistic merchants all over the globe who don't fleece people. They sell honest products and services without deceiving people or engaging in profiteering.
A key component to all this is, to a large extent, where we draw the line. I agree with you. And, of course, that's a nebulous thing to quantify. It depends on each individual situation, I suppose. This particular example of PCs for All fleecing people is just so egregious, so over the top, that it is OBVIOUSLY profiteering. There is no gray area here -- these people are ripping people off, and you know it. Would they be ripping people off if they only charged $1500 for that same pathetic computer? In my opinion, yes. Would I say the same if they charged $1,000 for it? Again, yes. But at $800? Or $625? Probably still, but I dunno. There is no way to "draw the line" without knowing a lot more about those merchants than I do. Keep in mind here that PCs for All are not -- as you and Insomniak keep insisting despite evidence to the contrary -- merely "selling a product for a price." The inflated price is just one transgression. Read their Web page again. They are exaggerating claims and appealing to buying triggers that they know unsophisticated buyers will fall for. Calling those things a "great PC value" is ludicrous and you know it. There is NO criterion under which those PCs could be called a "great value."
quote:
LOL. Do you belive that car dealers that don't sell vehicles with power door locks/power windows either, are somehow decieving buyers? ("Because all cars should come with those features. Because I decided that."). Well, you're not the buyer, are you?
If you can read their Web page again and still insist these people aren't deceiving consumers, I don't know what to say to you.
quote:
Bottom line - is making a profit, absent coercion or fraud in the transaction, actually un-ethical?
Why are coercion and fraud the only things that would make a transaction unethical? Intentional deceit and praying on people's lack of sophistication is absolutely unethical. So is lying. So is profiteering (and no offense, but I think maybe you need to look that word up -- it doesn't mean just making a profit). And selling a PC in 2005 without a firewall and a-v program to ANYONE who will be connected to the Internet is irrefutably unethical. So is bundling supposedly "$600" worth of outdated, mostly useless bloatware software.
Your Darwin comment is utterly astonishing to me. No offense, but you really should look into getting some professional help if you really believe that. Cruelty and lack of human compassion are not things to be proud of, and my guess is that if you live your life according to this creed (or whatever it is), you are probably one very unhappy human being. When you're old and gray, I guess we should just put you out to pasture because only the strong should survive, huh? Sounds an awful lot like a certain German leader who came to power in the late 1930s, actually. No, I'm not directly comparing you to that cretin, but it's just really sad that you feel this way.
And I don't share personal details with people online, so I won't answer your question about what I do for a living. I assure you, however, that I am an ethical businessman and I don't cheat unsophisticated consumers out of their money and then claim that if they fell for it, it's their fault. Unbelievable that some people really believe this. May they rot in hell.
As for "fixing the system," I advocate fixing people, not the system in this case. Insomniak criticized capitalism; I defended it. Capitalism has nothing to do with this issue -- there are theocratic societies in the middle east that have merchants selling things, and if they rip people off, then those merchants are unethical too. Whether or not they are capitalists is utterly irrelevant. By "fixing" people I mean holding them accountable for unethical behavior. How, and to what extent, I can't answer that in a PM on an online forum. This is a subject that would take hours to hash out in person, let alone online. And I certainly don't advocate abolishing free will or getting Orwellian -- quite the opposite. In the case of PCs for All, there probably is no realistic fix except for letting the market determine their fate. Like you say, they're not committing blatant fraud or coercion, I suppose, so they're not doing anything "illegal." But legality was never the issue with me -- the issue was more a theoretical one of ethics and simply what's right and wrong. I don't recall ever saying what they're doing is illegal.
I will share one more experience with you and ask you to give it some thought: I recently received a call from a very nice man, a senior citizen in his 80s, because he was having trouble with his computer. A mutual acquaintance of ours told him I was "good with computers." This guy was ill (his heart was working at 30% capacity), and he couldn't bring the computer over to me. So he had me come over to look at his machine. I discovered it was full of malware. He pulled out a receipt from a local computer repair shop here and showed it to me. They had charged him $240 to wipe the HD clean, reinstall Windows and then install Norton A-V 2004. That right there is obscene. And then, they didn't say a single word to him about needing a firewall. Well, guess what? Two weeks later he called me. Why? Because he didn't have a firewall and he got infected again. These scum bags knowingly and intentionally withheld recommending a firewall to him because they knew he would get infected again and have to bring the machine back in for more service. Cha-ching $$. It was NOT this poor man's responsiblity to spend hundreds of hours studying computer magazines and Anandtech.com and other resources to learn all about computer security. Would he have been wise to do that? Sure, but it should not have been his responsibility to do it. It should have been the repair shop's ethical responsibility to fix his machine for a fair price ($240 for what they did was NOT a fair price) and also tell him what he needed to know -- help him, in other words (gosh what a bizarre concept :roll -- so that he wouldn't get infected again. You and Insomniak believe that it was his responsiblity, that the repair shop was justified in what they did because they could get away with it, and that this nice man deserved to be ripped off because he didn't put forth the "effort" to "educate himself." Darwin and all that cruel nonsense ....
Sorry, man. We just see the world entirely differently. So much for 5 minutes. This was more like 20. Gotta get back to real life responsibilities and "reality." I'm done with this topic. Really. 02/20/2005 07:59 PM Mark as unread View Delete Message
So as far as the "nazi" comment goes - this is what you wrote: "Your Darwin comment is utterly astonishing to me. No offense, but you really should look into getting some professional help if you really believe that. Cruelty and lack of human compassion are not things to be proud of, and my guess is that if you live your life according to this creed (or whatever it is), you are probably one very unhappy human being. When you're old and gray, I guess we should just put you out to pasture because only the strong should survive, huh? Sounds an awful lot like a certain German leader who came to power in the late 1930s, actually."
Is that or is that not being "effectively called a nazi", as I stated?
Am I "lying", as you stated?
The sentance that you wrote after that, "No, I'm not directly comparing you to that cretin, but it's just really sad that you feel this way." - ok, you're not
directly comparing me to him... but you
are, indirectly. The comparison
was clearly made. If you didn't mean to make it, you simply wouldn't have written that entire previous paragraph.
For someone that claims to demand such a high level of ethics from others, its interesting how you feel that adding some weasel-wording at the end, absolves you completely from the statements that you made.
Now, I will apologize for posting the contents of your PM in public, I normally don't do that, but I do feel that it was justified, by the fact that you outright called me a liar in a public forum, and I don't appreciate that at all.
(Not to mention, after being "effectively called a nazi" in a PM before being called a liar. I stand by my belief that you
intentionally made that comparison, by writing that paragraph, weasel-wording or no. You were clearly calling into question my character and nature, especially with the prior comment about needing clinical help as well.)
Btw, I don't think that I need "clinical help", simply because I am able to see things as they more-or-less are, without the distorted viewpoint that the trappings of modern society add to the reality of human existance. I think that you are the one that might need some help in that dept., honestly, considering how you lash out at those that have disagreeing viewpoints to yours, and seem to fail to understand that one person cannot decide another's subjective factors - it is up to the individual to decide. Likewise about the "value" of any purchase. You are not in a position to say whether or not something has "value" for someone else. No way, no how. Or do you think that you are all-knowing, or all-seeing, or should be the one to make decisions for others?
It's not at all that I lack compassion - it is that I cherish my freedoms, and if that also allows other individuals to use their freedoms, even in ways that I or someone may not approve of, but is not outright illegal - then I will still defend their right to make the choice to do those things.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
First of all, perhaps you should have "looked at their Web site before" you wrote those long responses.
Why? I was responding to your inane posts, not the web site.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Your sorry excuse that follows is just that -- sorry. Maybe you should get your facts straight before mouthing off with ignorant comments next time, huh?
Excuse? Huh? And how are my comments about how life and capitalism and freedom operate, considered "ignorant"? If anything, by that comment, I detect a bit of "projection" in use there. Considering how your statements and apparent beliefs indicate a difficulty accepting "the real world".
I made that statement, to point out and make clear that my comments were indeed purely in regards to the posts in this discussion thread, and also attempting to imply that I wasn't trying to directly defend this particular operation; but only the freedom of
all buyers
and sellers in a capitalism marketplace to be able to choose the prices that they set, and choose whether or not to purchase for that price. In otherwords, I was addressing the context of the discussion in a general sense. It was not an excuse, I have no idea how you could have taken it as such.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Second of all, I never once said, or even inferred in any way, that we "somehow need more laws passed, or more administrative oversight, in order to protect one from one's own decisions in life." I stated, over and over, that this was an ethical issue, not one of legality (or more "governmental control"). I challenge you to provide one shred of supporting evidence for your patently false accusation, or apologize to me and stop your lying.
You implied that, by stating the customers "deserved" value. I don't know of any other way to enforce that, other than laws, which are enforced by the gov't. Unless you were somehow suggesting that you were able to completely re-program the entire human race?
Oh, wait, based on a statement from your PM, you apparently are:
"As for "fixing the system," I advocate fixing people, not the system in this case."
Do you somehow believe that you
can re-program people? Indeed, if so, then I would be forced to conclude you
are living in a dream world. Either that or a "disciple" (and I use that term very loosely) of L. Ron Hubbard and his brainwashing pyramid-scheme "religion".
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Third, in my PM to you I referred to your cruel, heartless Darwinian comment and then SPECIFICALLY said that I was NOT DIRECTLY COMPARING YOU TO THAT CRETIN (HITLER). Again, why are you lying? You are as blatantly dishonest as these disreputable merchants whose practices you ostensibly defend (by deflecting their responsibility onto their victims). (For those of you wondering what the heck I'm talking about, he's referring to a PM I sent him earlier after saying I was thru with this thread.)
Whether directly or indirectly ("not directly"), you clearly made that comparison. Again, I said "effectively", I didn't say "directly". Who is the one that is really being "blatantly dishonest" here - if not being dishonest with oneself about one's own statements. (And what's with the "victims" comment? Huh?)
You're clearly entitled to your opinion about my Darwinism comment. But believe me, the world itself is the one that is cruel and heartless, I was simply making an observation about it. I didn't create it, so if you feel that the world operates in error, please don't place the blame for it on me - OK?
Originally posted by: Ken90630
I don't see the world as any "giant welfare state" either -- in fact, just the opposite. Again, you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said in my posts and my PM.
You also say, "you can't legislate compassion, nor fairness, nor equity in life," implying that I did. I again challenge you to provide evidence of where I ever said any such thing or even implied that "legislating" such things is what I advocate. Either put up or shut up (and apologize).
Alright.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
I don't care how many thousands of posts you have on this site. As a result of your lies, you have zero credibility and you will not falsely accuse me or intentionally misrepresent me without being called on it.
Lies? Falsely accuse?
Perhaps you need to look into a mirror, because I don't think that you are seeing what you really are seeing, most of the time. Call it a hunch, I just get that impression about you.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
I know you didn't specify me by name, but those who followed this thread know who you were referring to. I think the mods need to step in here and lock this ridiculous thread before it gets any more out of hand (after Larry responds to my challenges). In any case, I will not dignify it any more with any more responses.
Lock? Well, it has gotten a bit off-topic, hasn't it? But in truth, it shouldn't have been posted by the OP in the tech forums anyways, since the crux of the discussion was not about the tech so much as it was the business practices of the seller and the implications of that. Which is exactly how this discussion progressed, as far as I am aware.
Originally posted by: Ken90630
Now run along and go laugh at some victims. Or, be man enough to apologize.
Yes, I apologize - for being forced to paste the contents of a private message into a public forum thread, in order to properly defend my reputation against unjust accusations. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything else that I should apologize for.
And I have NO IDEA what you are talking about with that "victims" comment. But the fact that you even made it, seems to indicate some issues on your end. I hope that you are able to get those resolved, in time. Honestly. Raw reality is harsh, life is short and rough, but it doesn't have to be that way, and people can make a difference. I think that if you truely feel that I have no compassion, then you have severely mis-judged me as a person, based on this limited online discourse.
I also think that you might wish to enhance the clarity of the themes of discussion that you present, so as not to apparently contradict yourself at times. (I'm talking about the whole "I support capitalism, but not the right of the seller to set their prices on goods freely." thing.)
PS. If anyone actually read this whole thing, here's a for you. You've probably ended up skipping a meal or two.
Edit: fixed formatting bugs only.