|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
