| |
Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:44:37 GMT, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley)
> wrote:
>
> > I'll address this more fully in response to Larry's post, which,
> > while wrong, was a bit more thought-out than this one. :)
>
> You know, he's saying exactly the same thing I thought, and then
> figured you'd be smart enough to infer from the smart-arse reply.
> Guess not.
Wow, thanks.
> I'll explain more fully: You don't have _any_ right to a _promotion_
> cheap DVD, other than what the selling organisation grants you. The
You're certainly right about that.
> selling organisation assumes that if one person in a household
> purchases something there, they're likely to tell the other persons of
> the household about the place they found, and thus they will increase
> their full-price sales. You are, in effect, cheating them. I don't
Well, I think that's debatable in general, and ridiculous with
respect to me and my household. I haven't paid full price for any
of the 50 or so DVDs I own. Heck, I haven't paid half price for
more than a couple of them.
If I find a way to get a DVD for a few bucks (I get one or two each
week for that price) I just ask my father-in-law to get another one
for me, then I pay him for it. If the deal is truly awesome, I
might ask someone else to do the same, but that's a little more
difficult, because most of my friends have DVD players as well.
> think there's anything legally wrong with it (though, in the US court
> system, who can tell?), but it's certainly morally wrong.
Perhaps.
So if 4 college roommates share a house they shouldn't each be able
to cash in on the deal? But if each of them rents out a room within
the house, giving them each a separate address (Apt 1-4) it might be
ok? I still say there's some gray there, but it's mostly
irrelevant, because I don't have to even risk soiling my conscience
because I just have Rachael's Dad order something that is limited to
"one per household".
My point would be that the end result is the same. I get both DVDs.
Now you could say that we're actually conducting a separate
transaction after he completes his with the retailer, at no extra
expense to me (except for maybe all the free computer support he
needs) but that's just a mostly irrelevant middle step. In the end,
both DVDs end up on my rack, with the retailer making the exact same
amount from shipping them to two locations as if they had just
shipped them to one.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Yeah well, you jibe at me, I jibe back. Can't help it. (...) Yes, they should. (...) It'd still be ok then. (...) The end result is the same, though. Therefore, in my opinion at least, it is wrong. (...) Exactly. (...) A bit less, actually. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Nov-99, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Well, any rights I do have weren't given to me by any god, God, goddess, or pink elephant. Thought I'd mention that. (...) I'll address this more fully in response to Larry's post, which, while wrong, was a bit more thought-out than this one. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
