 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) ? Sure they did-- they didn't mean to mark it down by such a percentage, hence they're losing money. IE for each Slave I they sell at $24.99 they loose about $25.00. Not *REALLY* since (more likely) more are being sold than otherwise would, (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!")
|
|
(...) I guess I am just trying to give some perspective to the "us vs. them" mentality that seems to pervade these discussions -- and I insist that there is no "us" and also no "them." Human being are capable of atrocity if pushed to a point beyond (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) Huh? Target didn't lose anything---they were clearly willing to sell the sets as advertised. However, the original post clearly indicates *fraud*, in that: Two Slave Is were purchased at Target, at a cost of $50 (MSRP $100 for both). Those (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) John--which Arab governments are based on religion? In fact the most secular government in the region is Saddam Hussein's Iraq-- which is why he was our proxy against the Islamic theocratic Republic of Iran. Now, that *is* a religious (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Returning stuff to Comp USA
|
|
(...) Yeah. Suz, no offense, but you have no future in .debate if you're going to be coherent. Sheesh. ;) Actually, I've kept silent in the debate, because I'm of two minds-- yes, it's fraudulent, but in fact they've anticipated it and still do not (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!")
|
|
(...) This is the accepted wisdom, and no doubt that was a big part of the justification. But I don't think it was the only reason. (...) An interesting sidebar: Another point that's often been brought up is the less morally but far more (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) Y'know, I almost think it might depend on the manager-- After all, they'll let you return items without receipts (for store credit only, of course), which implies that they already know FULL WELL that customers can return things from other (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) No, there was a rational reason for dropping those-- to end the war, and prevent even *more* widespread killing. And it worked. That is not to say that that call was a no-brainer. It was an agonizing decision to make, and truthfully, the (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) You mean like dropping bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No argument. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Returning stuff to Comp USA
|
|
(...) Y'know, this is the kind of post that really ticks me off! It's well-reasoned, supported by anecdotal evidence and interesting marketing theory, and stated in a focused and concise manner. What is this statement doing in debate!!! -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
