 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) Not my spin. That is *totally* putting the situation WAY out of context. As I mentioned before, I kind of question the motives of people who would put *so* much importance upon this minor problem (in the context of all of the problems on earth (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Returning stuff to Comp USA
|
|
Hi folks! uh, I'm kinda new here.. (in fact, I think this is my first non-follow-up post to o.t.d) I'm not at all interested in debating anything with anyone. BUT, as far as I noticed, no one mentioned something that, I think, puts a little (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) Look at it this way. Perhaps what he is trying to point out is that a government based upon a religion *is* irrational. I am all for the separation of church and state as I'm sure you are as well-- the Arabs terrorists and Arab state (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
Go, Baby, Go!!! Talk about ethnocentric views -- could that author have had more ready judgments about other people and their way of life? And talk about your straw man arguments: Arafat at the head of a Palestinian state as the desired goal? (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
Before I start, I want to say, I respect you greatly, Tim... (...) I was out of line here. I've had one of those months. Plus, on top of that, I've been putting the finishing touches on a persuasive essay about Afghanistan being the next Vietnam, a (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) I thought that the entire article was written with a cynnical 'tongue in cheek' method. I don't think the author is racist, but rather looking at the "facts" as he sees them and saying that' "Hey, you've had just as much opportunity thru the (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) <snip> I have to say I started by reading the conclusion first. This line caught my eye: “Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens.” As I am not aware of any (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
(...) That does not really answer my question. Your point, even if true, does not justify Israel’s actions in any way. Does it? (...) To be honest, I have no idea. (...) I can't agree with that view. (...) Peace on Israel's terms? Barak went to the (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
As you wish, my master (with deep, pious bow). My mirror doesn't have a moral meter on it...can I get one installed or do I need a new mirror? -Matt . (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
Hey guys (and ladies), I have an idea...let's all do lunch some time. C'mon it'll be fun! My treat. -Matt . (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
"John Rudy" <TJJohn12@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message news:GwHLnr.Ix4@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) to (...) and (...) store (...) with (...) well (...) we (...) sake, (...) This guy didn't do anything wrong. He just sold two Lego sets to someone (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
Matt, If you're getting revenge on Wal-Mart for screwing your account in their computers, then that's understandable. (I'm all for revenge on the morons of the world.) If you're falshback-inducing experience was somewhere else though, and you just (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target
|
|
(...) If you think that the Wal-Mart prices are so high, then why are you so sure that they'll sell the sets? (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) No offense, Tim, but that's what you're doing right now. And you should know from experience that you're probably starting another argument. Those people are so unlikely to change... And as much as I (personally) may not care for it, a certain (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
*BIG BIG SIGH* Gosh I don't know where to start. I read this message within the minute after it was posted this evening while sitting in class, and instantaneously I knew it would erupt into a flamewar. When things get slow on the 'Friendliest place (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
|
(...) Well, I want to start at the gate, to see who would predict my rather predictable response. I see the core of Mr. Derbyshire's argument right here: "What a world! You can only read a certain amount of this stuff before you start to avert your (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
John, we obviously have a moral gap here. But I will say this: You and I both get treated like dirt in customer service lines. We both wait patiently for a sales associate to help us, to no avail. We frown in disgust when forced to use their (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) You waltzed in and returned two LEGO sets that were bought AT ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT. They took you on good faith that you had bought them there, Walmart inventory, though it looks identical, is different. (See Next Argument) Either way, you (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
My, my, John aren't we judgmental today! Exactly how did I cheat Walmart? They received two completely good, un-opened boxes, ready to sell at sky-high prices...and they WILL sell them! You also admit to taking advantage of a sale as well! Come on (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with John, Matt - that's not emulatable behavior for this community. Ed McGlynn (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Let's play "predict the responses"
|
|
(and also maybe to defuse the flame war that might soon be erupting about returning stuff bought at another store) (URL) can most accurately predict how each of the usual suspects will react to that one? (no need to post, you can just keep score in (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Lucas: Galactic gasbag
|
|
(...) And you have to give him "Twice Upon a Time." I'd like to think he had a direct hand in that, beyond being executive producer. I loved that movie so very, very much. best LFB (YOU ALWAYS WERE MY FAVORITE, RUDY!) (22 years ago, 20-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
(...) circle?) (...) they (...) How about people that moved into an area 1-2 years before the the country was formed by the UN. The only reason they moved there was because the Arab countries were trying to discourage the UN from putting Israel (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
(...) If the word "soldier" is used in the wide sense here, the last statement is probably flase. It is a common opinion that the ultimate Japanese capitulation was caused by the heavy civillian casualties after the atomic bomb attacks. Prior to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
(...) If "not all", then how many? Israel was able to clear 80% of Palestinians from the area (~700,000 individuals), I happen to think that had more to do with their aggression than it does alleged reports of "Jewish Vampires". However, I don’t see (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Lucas: Galactic gasbag
|
|
(...) AND all the articles it references. All thought provoking. Thought the David Brin one was especially good as it got to the heart of something that's bothered me about SW (and something I'd liked about ST, imperfect as ST was) all along. (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Lucas: Galactic gasbag
|
|
(...) Let's say this about Lucas: he set a new level for the arts of film special effects and sound quality. You just gotta give him Industrial Light & Magic and all that it means to the film industry and arts. And you have to give him "American (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
[snip] (...) That is why I used an excerpt that contained its sorce reference. (...) Arab propaganda. Not all Arabs (Palestinians) fled Israel in 1948, because they did not belive the silly things that the dictators tell them. (like the Saudi-Arabia (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | George Lucas: Galactic gasbag
|
|
I just found this article, which says exactly what I've wanted to investigate for a long time: Lucas is making up all this stuff about his influences (Joseph Campbell and all) in order to avoid being associated with the sci-fi authors he stole it (...) (22 years ago, 17-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
|
(...) Wrong. Read the quotes again. (...) Indeed. (...) We've covered that ground before. (...) How many years later? (...) Not quite. (...) He got it back because he *did* attack! His attack made Israel understand that they had to speak to him. (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
