Scam of the week

[miketheidiot]

This is where the good computer nerds of the world come together and launch a denial of service attack on these dirt balls. :thumbsup:









No i am not advocating this.

 

[1stoff]

At least in your country you can and have the right to respond with threads such as this to immoral business practices

in OZtralia there is not a single web site that would allow a thread like this to last more than two posts before being shut down from fear of litigation:disgust:

 

[Wadded Beef]

sent this to blue hippo and will soon send it to people pc...

You work for a predatory merchant, knowingly and intentionally ripping people off.
Your company lives off of the ignorance of the customer.
Must be quite a fulfilling line of work hmm?

Am I being too harsh? I thought this might demoralize the employees of these companies and encourage them to find a new line of work.

 

[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.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: 1stoff
At least in your country you can and have the right to respond with threads such as this to immoral business practices

in OZtralia there is not a single web site that would allow a thread like this to last more than two posts before being shut down from fear of litigation:disgust:

That's what happens, when you let the "new, kinder, gentler" gov't take your guns.

See, we "uncivilized" Americans still have ours, so we can continue to say what we like, without serious fear of reprisal.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Wadded Beef
sent this to blue hippo and will soon send it to people pc...
You work for a predatory merchant, knowingly and intentionally ripping people off.
Your company lives off of the ignorance of the customer.
Must be quite a fulfilling line of work hmm?
Am I being too harsh? I thought this might demoralize the employees of these companies and encourage them to find a new line of work.

Nah, they'll just go back to telemarketing and car sales, which is where they likely came from. Maybe the management will quit that job, and start a new retail chain like BestBuy or something.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 1stoff
At least in your country you can and have the right to respond with threads such as this to immoral business practices

in OZtralia there is not a single web site that would allow a thread like this to last more than two posts before being shut down from fear of litigation:disgust:

Don't worry we got slapp suits here too. :|

It just has'nt taken over yet.

 

[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, 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.

First of all, perhaps you should have "looked at their Web site before" you wrote those long responses. 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?

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.

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.)

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).

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. 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.

Now run along and go laugh at some victims. Or, be man enough to apologize.

 

[Chinoman]

Makes an Alienware seem like a steal...

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Wadded Beef
sent this to blue hippo and will soon send it to people pc...

You work for a predatory merchant, knowingly and intentionally ripping people off.
Your company lives off of the ignorance of the customer.
Must be quite a fulfilling line of work hmm?

Am I being too harsh? I thought this might demoralize the employees of these companies and encourage them to find a new line of work.

Hate to break it to you, but if I were working there, I'd be laughing my ass off, and I'm guessing that's what they're doing right about now.

Anyone not properly researching a $1000+ purchase deserves what they get.
If I buy a $10 cable, I just don't care if I get ripped of for $8, I still just paid $10 for it, so doing research or shopping around just isn't worth it.
If I'm buying a $2400 computer on the other hand...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Anyone not properly researching a $1000+ purchase deserves what they get.
If I buy a $10 cable, I just don't care if I get ripped of for $8, I still just paid $10 for it, so doing research or shopping around just isn't worth it.
If I'm buying a $2400 computer on the other hand...

Interesting point. From a consumer's perspective, it certainly isn't a big deal to get ripped off for $8 on a purchase. However, which is more of a ripoff? Someone paying $2400 for a $1000 computer, or 200 people each paying $10 for $2 cables?

And then there are restaurants and the prices they charge for soft drinks . . . wooeee

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Sunner
Anyone not properly researching a $1000+ purchase deserves what they get.
If I buy a $10 cable, I just don't care if I get ripped of for $8, I still just paid $10 for it, so doing research or shopping around just isn't worth it.
If I'm buying a $2400 computer on the other hand...

Interesting point. From a consumer's perspective, it certainly isn't a big deal to get ripped off for $8 on a purchase. However, which is more of a ripoff? Someone paying $2400 for a $1000 computer, or 200 people each paying $10 for $2 cables?

And then there are restaurants and the prices they charge for soft drinks . . . wooeee

The cable is certainly the worse ripoff from a strictly mathematical point of view, but how many people will care?
I've bought lots of stuff for prices that I know are outrageous, simply because we're talking very small amounts, and I just don't care.
I do care about $2000 though, and I don't think I'm the only one, so in the end, for me and others who feel the same, that's all that matters.

It's kinda like cinemas, they don't make a whole lot of money from the movies themselves, heck many lose money, they make it up through outrageous markups on popcorn, cola, etc.

 

[Xab]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Sunner


And then there are restaurants and the prices they charge for soft drinks . . . wooeee

This is taking things way out of scope After all, it's pretty common knowledge that soft drinks cost less than the containers they come in, same with popcorn at the movies - the bag it comes in is worth far more than the popcorn itself.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Sunner
Anyone not properly researching a $1000+ purchase deserves what they get.
If I buy a $10 cable, I just don't care if I get ripped of for $8, I still just paid $10 for it, so doing research or shopping around just isn't worth it.
If I'm buying a $2400 computer on the other hand...

Interesting point. From a consumer's perspective, it certainly isn't a big deal to get ripped off for $8 on a purchase. However, which is more of a ripoff? Someone paying $2400 for a $1000 computer, or 200 people each paying $10 for $2 cables?

And then there are restaurants and the prices they charge for soft drinks . . . wooeee

The cable is certainly the worse ripoff from a strictly mathematical point of view, but how many people will care?
I've bought lots of stuff for prices that I know are outrageous, simply because we're talking very small amounts, and I just don't care.
I do care about $2000 though, and I don't think I'm the only one, so in the end, for me and others who feel the same, that's all that matters.

It's kinda like cinemas, they don't make a whole lot of money from the movies themselves, heck many lose money, they make it up through outrageous markups on popcorn, cola, etc.

This is what I'm talking about. This kind of "ethics breach" is nothing new. It's what our world-leading, prosperous economy is based on. As stated before, they just do a really good job of hiding it, and us good little sheep in the public keep our heads down and march in line...

...most of us, anyway.

Rule #1 if you want an honest view of the world: Don't believe anything the government or media tells you, regardless of who's in charge - liberals, conservatives, it doesn't matter - EVERYONE has an agenda, and if you want to know the real story, you have to ignore them and find out for yourselves.

Take 9/11 for example - do you think "the terrorists" (spooky scary buzzword!) are more of a threat now than before they blew up the WTC? Of course not. What are they doing differently? Trying to kill us deader?

Everyone is scared of "the terrorists" now because the media and government told them to be. George Bush and John Kerry made "security" the central issue of the last race because they knew they could grab votes off it. Ford told you to buy a new truck to support America because they could make some money off it. And now we have a paranoid populace with a growing intrinsic hate for Muslims and a fear of flying. A perfect example of how the government and media wheeled the public in this country to do exactly what they wanted - vote how you're supposed to, buy what you're supposed to, and keep those independent thoughts to yourself. Speaking out is "un-American".

I'm disappointed with this country and it has nothing to do with Bush, or Kerry, or who won, or what position France (now known as "Freedom") takes. I'm disappointed because most of the citizens have happily rolled over on command - this country used to stand for something other than blatant materialism and conformity, and I'm disappointed that it's devolved to that point. No one wants to challenge the pack or question "common knowledge" - after all, everyone knows what a big problem global warming is right?

Well, do a little research there and see how big a problem "global warming" is after you look at the scientific studies. You might be a little surprised.

Gah, that's enough tirade for now. I've gone an chucked this thread into the politics forum.

 

[toekramp]

i don't see what the problem is, they offer a product, some people want it, they pay for it...the end

 

[VirtualLarry]

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.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Regarding this:

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).

Here is my response - I am quoting your first post in this thread:

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Those people ought to be in jail.
And can you imagine how many problems those machines would have if you installed all that junk software they bundle?
It's a shame that corrupt, ethically bankrupt people like this even exist.

My impression of those statements, when taken together with some of your later statements, seems to indicate that you believe those sellers to be unethical, because of the huge price that they choose to charge over and above their costs (profit), and that they should be jailed because that unethical behavior.

Is that not almost exactly what I had claimed?

If someone is "jailed", then that is because they have done something criminal, they have broken the law. Laws are rules, created by "legislators". Hence, the act of creation of those laws is called "legislating", which is what I said. So while you may have not used that exact word in your posts - the meaning of them was quite clear, and I at least personally feel that my statement was a more-or-less accurate characterization of them. If that's not true, then .. well, too bad. That's just my opinion. Deal with it, that's life.

As far as "legislating fairness", well, again, a quote from one of your posts:

No human being has the time or resources to be able to properly educate him or herself on every product out there. From cars to appliances to homes to insurance to health care to home furnishings to computers, and a zillion other products and services we need here in 2005, we should all have the RIGHT to expect all merchants and manufacturers to advertise honestly, treat us honestly, and conduct their business in an ethical manner.

In a society, rights are often enforced by laws. Thus, again, "legislation". You are correct though, I did read between the lines a little bit, in equating the phrase "treat us honestly" and "in an ethical manner" with "fairness", although "fairness" can have several slightly different meanings in different contexts. So perhaps I took some liberty with the meaning of your phrases there, I generalized them to equate to "fairness" in my personal reading of that paragraph.

As far as the "equity in life" statement - that one was a bit more abstract, and was a sort of commentary on the fact that you seeminly took a strong offense to my Darwinism comment, since it is a pretty stark statement on the "unfairness" and "inequity" in life, and to oppose that (again, abstracting the meaning a bit), would seem to imply that one wished to somehow forcibly control life so that the inequities were removed. As far as legislating that, this comment of yours, combined with the logical extension that if you believe that sellers of goods should be jailed for adding too much profit margin to the price, thus then you oppose a capitalist system, and thus you would likewise advocate for a socialist system instead, which you also describe below. (And also claim to oppose, but your prior statements tend to contradict them - so I'm not really sure which you believe in.)

Originally posted by: Ken90630
Undoubtedly the most patently inaccurate statement so far (and that's saying something). Capitalism is the most just, fair, uplifiting and empowering economic system this planet has ever known. Socialism (which I assume you endorse?), communism and "progessivism"are exactly the opposite -- they are designed to enslave people by making them dependent on government, stifle their creativity and individuality, take their hard earned wealth away with crushing taxes and then redistribute it, and force everyone to have a standard of living determined by the lowest common human denominator. Take from the haves, give to the have-nots, and make everyone the same. Pathetic. Like any economic system, capitalism has its flaws because some humans are corrupt -- but that does not make the system itself "exploitationist." Wanna see the most "exploited" human beings? Take a look at a non-capitalistic society. This is way off topic, so that's all I'm gonna say on this tangent.

As far as seeing the world as a "giant welfare state", you didn't state that explicitly, true, but based on your comments, where you seemingly strongly disagreed that someone should be responsible for one's self, and one's own decisions (including purchasing ones) - it leads to the same logical conclusion. There's really only two choices here:
1) Self-reliance - you are responsible for your own actions and decisions.
2) Welfare - you are not responsible for your own actions and decisions, someone else is.
So which one do you believe in?

Originally posted by: Ken90630
If I go to buy, say, a refrigerator for example, it should not be my responsibility to spend dozens or hundreds of hours learning everything about refrigerators so that I won't get ripped off by a dishonest merchant. It should be the merchant's responsibility to treat me, the customer, ethically by telling me the truth about the refrigerators on his showroom floor, educate me about them if I need it

Says it all, really.

Originally posted by: Ken90630
I don't care how many thousands of posts you have on this site.

Actually, I don't either. I started a thread in Forum Issues about the possibility to simply hide your member titles. I kind of feel that they're a bit "stifling", in a way.

Originally posted by: Ken90630
As a result of your lies

Don't you think that is a bit strongly-worded, at least for the context of this thread? I'll let people decide for themselves whether or not my statements were intentionally incorrect and with malicious intent.

 

[Insomniak]

Long short:

Larry and I are on the same page. You may not like what we have to say, but that's not our fault. We're just calling things as they are, and no, they're not perfect.

As mentioned, you can either do something about it and help who you can, or you can complain about the fact that life's imperfect.

I myself think actions speak louder than words.

Either way, this thread has more than run its course. I'll be seeing you gents around.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: Viper GTSIf you're too stupid to research before you buy something it's your own damn fault if you overpay.

Good call, Viper GTS - I completely agree!

 

[DakotaEpic]

"The owner, a very schizophrenic control freak, actually buys these almost bare bones pcs on his credit card. "
From a former emplyee of Blue Hippo.

OMG this man needs to die.