 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
FUT off-topic.debate (...) So did everyone else, there wasn't one. I don't know if you've run the numbers, but phone calls cost money to Paul. Every call means time he has to spend on the phone, and that's time that he isn't waiting on customers. He (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, because for every hard working, self-made mi/bi/tri/etc.llionaire, there are 2.5 deadbeat, silverspooned offspring who have most likely been ignored and have no concepts of value or any other redeeming (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) The former. Those who work hard make their own chances and get their own opportunities, therefore don't need help from some sort of scheme to make things "equal" as long as the government they're under isn't actively suppressing rights. There (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Ooops - yep, thanks! (...) Agreed - equality doesn't have to be applied universally to make some things more "equal". I don't think that I implied that everything in the world should be "equal". (...) "Undeserving" is a very ambiguous term, do (...) (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) This NEEDS to go to off-topic.debate, followups set there. Suffice it to say that I'd not care to live in a world where everything was "equal". To me, "equal" means taking away from those of ability and giving to the undeserving. (25 years ago, 1-Dec-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) And a rather predatory desire on the part of someone to "take advantage" of the mistake. What I've seen on various DVD good deals forums is that the people who are the quickest and most excited (and most open) about exploiting an obvious (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) It wasn't a single instance. Each of the entries on the main page had all three data points (i.e. 'pounds off' 'current price' and 'regular price') In some of the instances, all three lined up, in the rest (the majority) the current price was (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I'd like to see this topic pursued a little further. This reference added to my belief that the offer was too good to be true, and contributed to my decision not to place an order. I think that James' "obviously wrong" assertion might be (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) Or "bait and switch" where they advertise something they don't really have to get you into the store, and then turn around and say, well, we sold out of the $20 TV, but we've got this nice model which is a lot nicer for $500. (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I agree. And anyway, after you decide you're going to "hold them to it" and they say "no" it is no longer an ethical question, but a legal one, and here in the States (and it seems in the UK too) the law sides with the "give it back" side. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
|
(...) I think what Larry is saying is that anyone who has ethics that he can respect, will accept that a mistake was made, quickly corrected, and appologies sent to those who were caught up in the mess, along with a token of goodwill. Those people (...) (25 years ago, 30-Nov-99, to lugnet.loc.uk, lugnet.market.shopping, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: About Blasters
|
|
(...) It also doesn't explain why it's okay to have all sorts of lethal weapons on the ships, and LEGO has even described them as such (laser cannons), but not in the hands of the 'figs. Lightsabers are ok too- they are definately lethal in the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Memberships - so many people I don't know
|
|
(...) even (...) seems (...) That's one of the reasons I like reading lugnet from the "main screen" (the primary URL, www.lugnet.com). It displays messages from all the newsgroups. I do some picking and choosing, of course, but it helps counter my (...) (25 years ago, 28-Nov-99, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Memberships - so many people I don't know
|
|
Good point. lugnet.people, seems to me, is just the thing to try to combat it. I think Lugnet is BIGGER than RTL is, at least in terms of people who participate regularly, although who knows about lurkers... So it's going to be hard to know (...) (25 years ago, 28-Nov-99, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Memberships - so many people I don't know
|
|
(...) Of course you can always step out of your "safe zone" periodically and check out groups/boards that you don't normally read. That way, you will have seized the opportunity to meet lots of people, rather than being passive and missing it. Just (...) (25 years ago, 28-Nov-99, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Memberships - so many people I don't know
|
|
I was just looking through the membership list and am astonished at the number of names listed that I am not familiar with. In fact, I don't know about 60% of the members. Which makes me wonder: In RTL, I can/could read who posted to any thread, (...) (25 years ago, 28-Nov-99, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) Well, just to put the $.02 in that I never did, I'd say that when writing, either avoid swears all together, or use 'em. The insult/resentment of reading a swear is not in the word itself, as Jeremy pointed out, but in the intention. Hence, (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
<SNIP> (...) WORDS (...) WORDS (...) interface (...) it (...) it's (...) case, (...) a (...) Well, then maybe you don´t like me... I write four asterisks "****" instead of a bad word, that I don´t like to use. --Tobias (...) I (...) It (...) (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is the exact meaning of MIB?
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) What I am basically saying is that if the government is going to provide a good (in this case, disability income), it has the right to set conditions on your receiving that good, just the same as a private (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is the exact meaning of MIB?
|
|
(...) law with a classic. :) Lord Doyle (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
