Dell False Advertising

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one would
challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their problem to
prove you wrong.

Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at worse
an outright lie.

Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server as the
person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I ask what
you post from?

Tom
"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>
> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
> Jeeeeez"
>
> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>> insure/ensure).
>>
>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the day
>> it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer protection law
>> that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not realistic.
>> For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was customer number
>> 3,000,001
>>
>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>> Prove it.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic comments
>>>by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>
>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items being
>>> held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was an
>>> advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that Dell
>>> offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the sales. I
>>> can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by the number who
>>> responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing more orders.
>>> Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what unethical,
>>> and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>> Jeeeeez
>>>
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on that
>>>>>page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July catalog I
>>>>>received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting limited
>>>>>quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog. Anyone else see
>>>>>this limityation in that catalog? What page?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day the
>>>>>>> catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but Would sell
>>>>>>> me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was willing to
>>>>>>> match the price anyway since it was advertised and Dell opened a
>>>>>>> store in my area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it reads:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may change
>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with other
>>>>>> select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online purchases
>>>>>> through the Dell Home Systems Electronics & Accessories site only.
>>>>>> Offer does not apply to and is not available with systems or items
>>>>>> purchased through the online systems configurator, refurbished items,
>>>>>> or spare parts. Purchase limit of 10 same items per order. Dell
>>>>>> cannot be responsible for pricing or other errors, and reserves the
>>>>>> right to cancel orders arising from such errors. Continental U.S.
>>>>>> orders only.
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Again, you miss state what I posted.
So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
"lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection
laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the
point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at the end.
You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said that
you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of them do
cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his particular
state, it may or may not be a violation.

If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it is
not me.
I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
others names, invite that sort of thing.

It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and differences
of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it from
those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars. Past
history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated here. With
insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
..




"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
> problem to prove you wrong.
>
> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at worse
> an outright lie.
>
> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server as
> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I ask
> what you post from?
>
> Tom
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>
>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>> Jeeeeez"
>>
>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>> insure/ensure).
>>>
>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the day
>>> it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer protection law
>>> that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not realistic.
>>> For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was customer number
>>> 3,000,001
>>>
>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic comments
>>>>by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items being
>>>> held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was an
>>>> advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that Dell
>>>> offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the sales.
>>>> I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by the number
>>>> who responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing more
>>>> orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>>>> unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in
>>>> some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on that
>>>>>>page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July catalog I
>>>>>>received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting limited
>>>>>>quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog. Anyone else see
>>>>>>this limityation in that catalog? What page?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day
>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but Would
>>>>>>>> sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was willing
>>>>>>>> to match the price anyway since it was advertised and Dell opened a
>>>>>>>> store in my area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it reads:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may change
>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with
>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics & Accessories
>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with systems
>>>>>>> or items purchased through the online systems configurator,
>>>>>>> refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit of 10 same items
>>>>>>> per order. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing or other errors,
>>>>>>> and reserves the right to cancel orders arising from such errors.
>>>>>>> Continental U.S. orders only.
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Irene,

Lots of words. Little content.

You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
actual knowledge. Prove it.

Tom
"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
> Again, you miss state what I posted.
> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection
> laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the
> point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at the
> end.
> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said that
> you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of them do
> cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his particular
> state, it may or may not be a violation.
>
> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it is
> not me.
> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>
> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it from
> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars.
> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated here.
> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
> .
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>
>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>> worse an outright lie.
>>
>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server as
>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I
>> ask what you post from?
>>
>> Tom
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>
>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>
>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>
>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer protection
>>>> law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not
>>>> realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was
>>>> customer number 3,000,001
>>>>
>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic comments
>>>>>by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items being
>>>>> held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was an
>>>>> advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that Dell
>>>>> offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the sales.
>>>>> I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by the number
>>>>> who responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing more
>>>>> orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>>>>> unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in
>>>>> some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July catalog
>>>>>>>I received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting
>>>>>>>limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog. Anyone
>>>>>>>else see this limityation in that catalog? What page?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day
>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but
>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was
>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised and Dell
>>>>>>>>> opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it reads:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may change
>>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with
>>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics & Accessories
>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems configurator,
>>>>>>>> refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit of 10 same items
>>>>>>>> per order. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing or other errors,
>>>>>>>> and reserves the right to cancel orders arising from such errors.
>>>>>>>> Continental U.S. orders only.
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

As usual, wrong again.

I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post, to
fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
easily:

"Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in some
states. Jeeeeez"

PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference to
"actual knowledge".


"Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good, some
are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being excessive.
None are uniform.

PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of reference
to "actual knowledge".











"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Irene,
>
> Lots of words. Little content.
>
> You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
> actual knowledge. Prove it.
>
> Tom
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
>> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection
>> laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the
>> point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at the
>> end.
>> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said that
>> you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of them do
>> cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
>> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>>
>> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it
>> is not me.
>> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>>
>> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it from
>> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars.
>> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated here.
>> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>>
>>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>>> worse an outright lie.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server as
>>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I
>>> ask what you post from?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>>
>>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>>
>>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>>
>>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
>>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer protection
>>>>> law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not
>>>>> realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was
>>>>> customer number 3,000,001
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was
>>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
>>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the
>>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by the
>>>>>> number who responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing
>>>>>> more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some
>>>>>> what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws
>>>>>> in some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July catalog
>>>>>>>>I received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting
>>>>>>>>limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog. Anyone
>>>>>>>>else see this limityation in that catalog? What page?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day
>>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but
>>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was
>>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised and
>>>>>>>>>> Dell opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may change
>>>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with
>>>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
>>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics & Accessories
>>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
>>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems
>>>>>>>>> configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit of
>>>>>>>>> 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing or
>>>>>>>>> other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders arising from
>>>>>>>>> such errors. Continental U.S. orders only.
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote in message news:Me3Ae.27909$SQ1.14982@fe09.lga...
> User N wrote:
[snip]
>> But whatever. What corporations can legally get away with is one question,
>> what consumers should tolerate/condone is another. Lets say that Dell knew
>> that they had 5 in stock and could only accept orders for 5 more, but
>> decided to widely advertise availability in the hopes of attracting customers
>> who would settle for something else. That would be highly inappropriate and
>> scummy in my book, and I'd say give them hell. But what if Dell thought it would
>> be able to handle orders, and at some point after the adverts went out, learned
>> that Canon or one of its suppliers ran into an unexpected manufacturing problem
>> and wouldn't be able to come close to this year's production goals? Should
>> people be giving Dell hell for that? I don't think so. Unfortunately, it is likely
>> that we will never know all the details surrounding why Dell stopped
>> accepting orders for that camera. So how do you call it?
>
> Your major flaw here is that you're imputing motive to Dell - try
> proving that in a US court! ;)

This comment doesn't seem relevant to what I said. Perhaps you replied to
the wrong message?

> If you don't like Dell, buy a Gateway or some other brand. Do you post
> all over Usenet insisting that the world *must* be as you think it
> *should* be? Sounds like a lot of frustration to me.

Again, I question whether this was meant for me, but I will say that I
consider it very important for consumers to play an active role in shaping
the market place, and by that I mean doing *more* than just quietly
accepting current products, policies, etc and selecting that which is least
objectionable. The same concept applies to politics and other things.
Public awareness and personal expression, discussion, and debate are
often essential to bringing about positive change, and in general I tend
to have more respect for people who speak out than those who merely
bite their tongue and accept the world as it is. Which isn't to say that
posting opinions on Usenet is the most productive approach and in and
of itself will accomplish much. Or that people shouldn't exercise some
restraint in terms of how they attempt to express themself and/or bring
about change. Or that people shouldn't have reasonable expections
wrt their rightness and what they can accomplish.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

According to one of the Dell sales people I spoke to They are not taking
orders for the camera. He said they stopped taking orders for the camera but
could not say when they stopped taking orders. Since the sale is/was
actually for the catalog month and the catalog was delivered on July 7th and
scheduled per printing on the label to arrive July 6th to July 8th a company
should have a reasonable supply on hand. And YES they can screw up and run
out early but (although the second day of a 31 day sale?!?!?) to then refuse
to take orders at all is just plain wrong.


"Dan Sgambelluri" <dsgambelluri@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1c_ze.1920407$Xk.499084@pd7tw3no...
> Jeff B wrote:
>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day the
>> catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but Would sell me
>> another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was willing to match the
>> price anyway since it was advertised and Dell opened a store in my area.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dan Sgambelluri" <dsgambelluri@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ITjze.1894744$Xk.893459@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>>Jeff B wrote:
>>>
>>>>i received the Dell July flyer today in the mail. i tried to place an
>>>>order for a Canon Powershot S2Is camera today. After 20 minutes back and
>>>>forth and hold time, they refused to take the order because it was too
>>>>backordered. The day the catalog came out they refused all orders for
>>>>it. i am arguing now with them. Customer nonservice was worthless, and I
>>>>am awaiting a supervisor. I doubt it will get me anywhere. They had a
>>>>good price, but apparently it is lie. I wish someone would sue for false
>>>>advertising/bait and switch.
>>>
>>>How is this False Advertising? They advertised the price but because it
>>>was a good price, that lots and lots of people took advantage of the
>>>deal. Dell had their backorder for it filled up. So you are blaming Dell
>>>because you were too late to get on the deal. Better luck next time.
>>>
>>>How is this Bait & Switch? Did they say one price and than give a
>>>number? Of course not.
>>
>>
>>
>
> As said before, you were just to slow to get the deal from Dell as they
> probably had a limited stock of the camera. Unless you can prove the Dell
> never intended to sell the camera that was in the deal at all. I Doubt
> you can.
>
> Did they say they matched the price for the similar camera?
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ah, so as long as I use the word POSSIBLY, I can say absolutely anything I
want.

Bob is POSSIBLY psychotic.

Bill is POSSIBLY a pedophile.

Sue is POSSIBLY a murderer.

Jean is POSSIBLY the son of God.

Irene is POSSIBLY the dumbest person on the planet earth. Oh, and it is up
to you to adminster an IQ test and prove me wrong, because I used the word
POSSIBLY.

Nice. Handy. Imply anything you want and stop short of slander because you
used the magic word POSSIBLY.

Sadly, you really don't get it. You made a statement that could not be
substantiated and instead of just admitting that your statement was just BS,
you hide behind POSSIBLY.

You are officially the queen of the anti-dellbots. Not here for anything
but negative comments about Dell, even in a situation where they are not in
the wrong.

Tom

"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
> As usual, wrong again.
>
> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post, to
> fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
> easily:
>
> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
> some states. Jeeeeez"
>
> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference to
> "actual knowledge".
>
>
> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good, some
> are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being excessive.
> None are uniform.
>
> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
> reference to "actual knowledge".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Irene,
>>
>> Lots of words. Little content.
>>
>> You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
>> actual knowledge. Prove it.
>>
>> Tom
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>>> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>>> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
>>> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
>>> Protection laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some
>>> are at the point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the
>>> "Jeeeeez" at the end.
>>> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>>> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
>>> that you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of
>>> them do cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
>>> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>>>
>>> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it
>>> is not me.
>>> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>>> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>>>
>>> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>>> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>>> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it from
>>> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars.
>>> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated here.
>>> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>>>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>>>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>>>> worse an outright lie.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server as
>>>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I
>>>> ask what you post from?
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>>>
>>>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
>>>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
>>>>>> protection law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale.
>>>>>> It's not realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he
>>>>>> was customer number 3,000,001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>>>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>>>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was
>>>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
>>>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the
>>>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by the
>>>>>>> number who responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing
>>>>>>> more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some
>>>>>>> what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection
>>>>>>> Laws in some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
>>>>>>>>>catalog I received I do not see that or any other paragraph
>>>>>>>>>suggestting limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my
>>>>>>>>>catalog. Anyone else see this limityation in that catalog? What
>>>>>>>>>page?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the day
>>>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but
>>>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was
>>>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised and
>>>>>>>>>>> Dell opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
>>>>>>>>>> change without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined
>>>>>>>>>> with other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
>>>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics & Accessories
>>>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
>>>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems
>>>>>>>>>> configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit
>>>>>>>>>> of 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be responsible for
>>>>>>>>>> pricing or other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders
>>>>>>>>>> arising from such errors. Continental U.S. orders only.
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I am in NJ. And here is a quote from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act:
"56.8-2.2 Scheme to not sell item or service advertised The advertisement
of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the item or service
so advertised or not to sell the same at the advertised price is an unlawful
practice and a violation of the act to which this act is a supplement."

So in this case it is not possibly a law it IS A LAW. The problem is it is
difficult to prove. I will/have moved on. I purchased the camera from
Staples. A VERY reputable company who even though Dell did not have the item
or intend on selling it Staples matched the advertised price. Thank You
Staples. I will continue to make as many purchases as I need from your
stores and recommend others do the same.


"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:GciAe.190172$IO.123844@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Ah, so as long as I use the word POSSIBLY, I can say absolutely anything
> I want.
>
> Bob is POSSIBLY psychotic.
>
> Bill is POSSIBLY a pedophile.
>
> Sue is POSSIBLY a murderer.
>
> Jean is POSSIBLY the son of God.
>
> Irene is POSSIBLY the dumbest person on the planet earth. Oh, and it is
> up to you to adminster an IQ test and prove me wrong, because I used the
> word POSSIBLY.
>
> Nice. Handy. Imply anything you want and stop short of slander because
> you used the magic word POSSIBLY.
>
> Sadly, you really don't get it. You made a statement that could not be
> substantiated and instead of just admitting that your statement was just
> BS, you hide behind POSSIBLY.
>
> You are officially the queen of the anti-dellbots. Not here for anything
> but negative comments about Dell, even in a situation where they are not
> in the wrong.
>
> Tom
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
>> As usual, wrong again.
>>
>> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
>> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
>> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
>> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
>> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post,
>> to fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
>> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
>> easily:
>>
>> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
>> some states. Jeeeeez"
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference
>> to "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
>> some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being
>> excessive. None are uniform.
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
>> reference to "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> Irene,
>>>
>>> Lots of words. Little content.
>>>
>>> You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
>>> actual knowledge. Prove it.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>>>> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>>>> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
>>>> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
>>>> Protection laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and
>>>> some are at the point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the
>>>> "Jeeeeez" at the end.
>>>> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>>>> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
>>>> that you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of
>>>> them do cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
>>>> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>>>>
>>>> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it
>>>> is not me.
>>>> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>>>> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>>>> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>>>> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
>>>> from those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's
>>>> regulars. Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are
>>>> treated here. With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>>>>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>>>>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>>>>> worse an outright lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server
>>>>> as the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet.
>>>>> May I ask what you post from?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>>>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>>>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>>>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
>>>>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
>>>>>>> protection law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale.
>>>>>>> It's not realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an
>>>>>>> he was customer number 3,000,001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>>>>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>>>>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was
>>>>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
>>>>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the
>>>>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by
>>>>>>>> the number who responded and to limit their losses, they began
>>>>>>>> refusing more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business,
>>>>>>>> but some what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer
>>>>>>>> Protection Laws in some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
>>>>>>>>>>catalog I received I do not see that or any other paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>suggestting limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my
>>>>>>>>>>catalog. Anyone else see this limityation in that catalog? What
>>>>>>>>>>page?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> day the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it
>>>>>>>>>>>> but Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples
>>>>>>>>>>>> was willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Dell opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>>>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
>>>>>>>>>>> change without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be
>>>>>>>>>>> combined with other select offers or discounts. Valid for new
>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. online purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics
>>>>>>>>>>> & Accessories site only. Offer does not apply to and is not
>>>>>>>>>>> available with systems or items purchased through the online
>>>>>>>>>>> systems configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Purchase limit of 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for pricing or other errors, and reserves the right
>>>>>>>>>>> to cancel orders arising from such errors. Continental U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> orders only.
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I refuse to stoop down to your level. I told you more than once what I
posted and what my reasoning was for posting what I did.
If you choose to SPIN it around and deliberately attempt to alter the
meaning of my comments to serve your own one sided purpose, so be it. I
can't stop you.
But the fact remains, I have repeated my comments and explained them and all
I can hope is that no one chooses to SPIN and alter the meaning of one of
your posts in the same manner that you do to myself and others.

This is not the first time you have done this to someone and based on your
past history in this and other groups, I am sure it will not be the last.
Not withstanding your apologies for your behavior, your weak and broken
promises not to behave in such a manner in the future, and your bloviating
about the "Golden Rule", I expect you to continue your demonstrated behavior
in this and other groups that you frequent.

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:GciAe.190172$IO.123844@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Ah, so as long as I use the word POSSIBLY, I can say absolutely anything
> I want.
>
> Bob is POSSIBLY psychotic.
>
> Bill is POSSIBLY a pedophile.
>
> Sue is POSSIBLY a murderer.
>
> Jean is POSSIBLY the son of God.
>
> Irene is POSSIBLY the dumbest person on the planet earth. Oh, and it is
> up to you to adminster an IQ test and prove me wrong, because I used the
> word POSSIBLY.
>
> Nice. Handy. Imply anything you want and stop short of slander because
> you used the magic word POSSIBLY.
>
> Sadly, you really don't get it. You made a statement that could not be
> substantiated and instead of just admitting that your statement was just
> BS, you hide behind POSSIBLY.
>
> You are officially the queen of the anti-dellbots. Not here for anything
> but negative comments about Dell, even in a situation where they are not
> in the wrong.
>
> Tom
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
>> As usual, wrong again.
>>
>> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
>> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
>> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
>> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
>> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post,
>> to fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
>> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
>> easily:
>>
>> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
>> some states. Jeeeeez"
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference
>> to "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
>> some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being
>> excessive. None are uniform.
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
>> reference to "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> Irene,
>>>
>>> Lots of words. Little content.
>>>
>>> You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
>>> actual knowledge. Prove it.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>>>> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>>>> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
>>>> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
>>>> Protection laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and
>>>> some are at the point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the
>>>> "Jeeeeez" at the end.
>>>> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>>>> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
>>>> that you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of
>>>> them do cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
>>>> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>>>>
>>>> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it
>>>> is not me.
>>>> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>>>> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>>>>
>>>> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>>>> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>>>> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
>>>> from those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's
>>>> regulars. Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are
>>>> treated here. With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>>>>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>>>>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>>>>> worse an outright lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server
>>>>> as the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet.
>>>>> May I ask what you post from?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>>>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>>>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>>>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
>>>>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
>>>>>>> protection law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale.
>>>>>>> It's not realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an
>>>>>>> he was customer number 3,000,001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>>>>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>>>>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was
>>>>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
>>>>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the
>>>>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by
>>>>>>>> the number who responded and to limit their losses, they began
>>>>>>>> refusing more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business,
>>>>>>>> but some what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer
>>>>>>>> Protection Laws in some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
>>>>>>>>>>catalog I received I do not see that or any other paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>suggestting limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my
>>>>>>>>>>catalog. Anyone else see this limityation in that catalog? What
>>>>>>>>>>page?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> day the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it
>>>>>>>>>>>> but Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples
>>>>>>>>>>>> was willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Dell opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
>>>>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>>>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
>>>>>>>>>>> change without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be
>>>>>>>>>>> combined with other select offers or discounts. Valid for new
>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. online purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics
>>>>>>>>>>> & Accessories site only. Offer does not apply to and is not
>>>>>>>>>>> available with systems or items purchased through the online
>>>>>>>>>>> systems configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Purchase limit of 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for pricing or other errors, and reserves the right
>>>>>>>>>>> to cancel orders arising from such errors. Continental U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> orders only.
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Jeff B wrote:
>
> I am in NJ. And here is a quote from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act:
> "56.8-2.2 Scheme to not sell item or service advertised The advertisement
> of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the item or service
> so advertised or not to sell the same at the advertised price is an unlawful
> practice and a violation of the act to which this act is a supplement."
>
> So in this case it is not possibly a law it IS A LAW. The problem is it is
> difficult to prove. I will/have moved on. I purchased the camera from
> Staples. A VERY reputable company who even though Dell did not have the item
> or intend on selling it Staples matched the advertised price. Thank You
> Staples. I will continue to make as many purchases as I need from your
> stores and recommend others do the same.

First you say "The problem is it is difficult to prove."

Then, pray tell, how can you say "... Dell did not have
the item or intend on selling it?"

You can't have it both ways!

Notan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
news:42d1c2b7$1@news1.warwick.net...
>I am in NJ. And here is a quote from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act:
>"56.8-2.2 Scheme to not sell item or service advertised The
>advertisement of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the
>item or service so advertised or not to sell the same at the advertised
>price is an unlawful practice and a violation of the act to which this act
>is a supplement."
>
> So in this case it is not possibly a law it IS A LAW. The problem is it is
> difficult to prove. I will/have moved on. I purchased the camera from
> Staples. A VERY reputable company who even though Dell did not have the
> item or intend on selling it Staples matched the advertised price. Thank
> You Staples. I will continue to make as many purchases as I need from your
> stores and recommend others do the same.
>
>

<snip>


Problem solved.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Irene wrote:
>
> I refuse to stoop down to your level. I told you more than once what I
> posted and what my reasoning was for posting what I did.
> If you choose to SPIN it around and deliberately attempt to alter the
> meaning of my comments to serve your own one sided purpose, so be it. I
> can't stop you.
> But the fact remains, I have repeated my comments and explained them and all
> I can hope is that no one chooses to SPIN and alter the meaning of one of
> your posts in the same manner that you do to myself and others.
>
> This is not the first time you have done this to someone and based on your
> past history in this and other groups, I am sure it will not be the last.
> Not withstanding your apologies for your behavior, your weak and broken
> promises not to behave in such a manner in the future, and your bloviating
> about the "Golden Rule", I expect you to continue your demonstrated behavior
> in this and other groups that you frequent.
>
> <snip>

Just an FYI, Irene...

NO ONE spins better than you!

(Or should I say, "Possibly, NO ONE spins better than you!" That way,
I can kinda backtrack, and tell you that you've interpreted my post
incorrectly.)

Notan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Sorry, but I'm part of the No Spin Zone. >g<


"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42D1E050.C1B04306@ddress.com...
> Irene wrote:
>>
>> I refuse to stoop down to your level. I told you more than once what I
>> posted and what my reasoning was for posting what I did.
>> If you choose to SPIN it around and deliberately attempt to alter the
>> meaning of my comments to serve your own one sided purpose, so be it. I
>> can't stop you.
>> But the fact remains, I have repeated my comments and explained them and
>> all
>> I can hope is that no one chooses to SPIN and alter the meaning of one of
>> your posts in the same manner that you do to myself and others.
>>
>> This is not the first time you have done this to someone and based on
>> your
>> past history in this and other groups, I am sure it will not be the last.
>> Not withstanding your apologies for your behavior, your weak and broken
>> promises not to behave in such a manner in the future, and your
>> bloviating
>> about the "Golden Rule", I expect you to continue your demonstrated
>> behavior
>> in this and other groups that you frequent.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Just an FYI, Irene...
>
> NO ONE spins better than you!
>
> (Or should I say, "Possibly, NO ONE spins better than you!" That way,
> I can kinda backtrack, and tell you that you've interpreted my post
> incorrectly.)
>
> Notan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Jeff;
To many facts are not available to make any sort of judgement.
You may be correct in some or all of your assumptions.
Can you prove any assumptions you have made or you assuming and leaving it
at that?
You already have the catalo with the dates.
Do you have specifics of the quantity Dell sold?
Do you know exactly why the camera is no longer being sold?
Do you know how many Dell ordered?
Do you know how many the manufacturer shipped?
If the manufacturer did not ship quantity ordered, do you know why?
Without the answers to those and other questions, you are assuming and
nothing more.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
news:42d1bc12$1@news1.warwick.net...
> According to one of the Dell sales people I spoke to They are not taking
> orders for the camera. He said they stopped taking orders for the camera
> but could not say when they stopped taking orders. Since the sale is/was
> actually for the catalog month and the catalog was delivered on July 7th
> and scheduled per printing on the label to arrive July 6th to July 8th a
> company should have a reasonable supply on hand. And YES they can screw up
> and run out early but (although the second day of a 31 day sale?!?!?) to
> then refuse to take orders at all is just plain wrong.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jupiter Jones" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:ZajAe.127485$tt5.81079@edtnps90...
> Jeff;
> To many facts are not available to make any sort of judgement.
> You may be correct in some or all of your assumptions.
> Can you prove any assumptions you have made or you assuming and leaving
> it at that?
> You already have the catalo with the dates.
> Do you have specifics of the quantity Dell sold? Do you know exactly why
> the camera is no longer being sold?
> Do you know how many Dell ordered?
> Do you know how many the manufacturer shipped?
> If the manufacturer did not ship quantity ordered, do you know why?
> Without the answers to those and other questions, you are assuming and
> nothing more.
>

Those type of answers would be left for the consumer protection agensies to
find out. there's no way for me to get these answers as Dell would never
easily admit it.


> --
> Jupiter Jones
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
> news:42d1bc12$1@news1.warwick.net...
>> According to one of the Dell sales people I spoke to They are not taking
>> orders for the camera. He said they stopped taking orders for the camera
>> but could not say when they stopped taking orders. Since the sale is/was
>> actually for the catalog month and the catalog was delivered on July 7th
>> and scheduled per printing on the label to arrive July 6th to July 8th a
>> company should have a reasonable supply on hand. And YES they can screw
>> up and run out early but (although the second day of a 31 day sale?!?!?)
>> to then refuse to take orders at all is just plain wrong.
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Does anyone really care? Is it worth taking Dell to court over? If so, I
hope that you have really deep pockets and lots of time to wait. Why not
just find another source or wait for Dell to run the same or better deal
down the road?

Andy

"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
> As usual, wrong again.
>
> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post, to
> fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
> easily:
>
> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
some
> states. Jeeeeez"
>
> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference to
> "actual knowledge".
>
>
> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
some
> are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being excessive.
> None are uniform.
>
> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
reference
> to "actual knowledge".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Irene,
> >
> > Lots of words. Little content.
> >
> > You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies some
> > actual knowledge. Prove it.
> >
> > Tom
> > "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
> >> Again, you miss state what I posted.
> >> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did I
> >> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
Protection
> >> laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at
the
> >> point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at the
> >> end.
> >> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
> >> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
that
> >> you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of them
do
> >> cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
> >> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
> >>
> >> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you it
> >> is not me.
> >> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
> >> others names, invite that sort of thing.
> >>
> >> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
> >> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
> >> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
from
> >> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars.
> >> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated
here.
> >> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
> >>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
> >>> problem to prove you wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
> >>> worse an outright lie.
> >>>
> >>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server
as
> >>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May I
> >>> ask what you post from?
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
> >>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
> >>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
> >>>>
> >>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
> >>>> Jeeeeez"
> >>>>
> >>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
> >>>>> insure/ensure).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on the
> >>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
protection
> >>>>> law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not
> >>>>> realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was
> >>>>> customer number 3,000,001
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a violation'.
> >>>>> Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tom
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
> >>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
> >>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
> >>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this was
> >>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
> >>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on the
> >>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by
the
> >>>>>> number who responded and to limit their losses, they began refusing
> >>>>>> more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some
> >>>>>> what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection
Laws
> >>>>>> in some states. Jeeeeez
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
> >>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
> >>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
> >>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
catalog
> >>>>>>>>I received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting
> >>>>>>>>limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog.
Anyone
> >>>>>>>>else see this limityation in that catalog? What page?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
day
> >>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but
> >>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples was
> >>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised and
> >>>>>>>>>> Dell opened a store in my area.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
> >>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too many
> >>>>>>>>> back-orders.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
> >>>>>>>>> reads:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
change
> >>>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with
> >>>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
> >>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics &
Accessories
> >>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
> >>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems
> >>>>>>>>> configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit
of
> >>>>>>>>> 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing
or
> >>>>>>>>> other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders arising
from
> >>>>>>>>> such errors. Continental U.S. orders only.
> >>>>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I think you directed this to the wrong person. It was "Jeff B" that
originated the thread and experienced the problem.

<texaseitz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rijAe.111$zw4.69@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Does anyone really care? Is it worth taking Dell to court over? If so, I
> hope that you have really deep pockets and lots of time to wait. Why not
> just find another source or wait for Dell to run the same or better deal
> down the road?
>
> Andy
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
>> As usual, wrong again.
>>
>> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
>> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
>> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
>> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
>> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post,
>> to
>> fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
>> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
>> easily:
>>
>> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
> some
>> states. Jeeeeez"
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference
>> to
>> "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
> some
>> are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being excessive.
>> None are uniform.
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
> reference
>> to "actual knowledge".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> > Irene,
>> >
>> > Lots of words. Little content.
>> >
>> > You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies
>> > some
>> > actual knowledge. Prove it.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> > "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>> >> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>> >> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did
>> >> I
>> >> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
> Protection
>> >> laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at
> the
>> >> point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at
>> >> the
>> >> end.
>> >> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>> >> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
> that
>> >> you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of them
> do
>> >> cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
>> >> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>> >>
>> >> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you
>> >> it
>> >> is not me.
>> >> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>> >> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>> >>
>> >> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>> >> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>> >> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
> from
>> >> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's regulars.
>> >> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated
> here.
>> >> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>> >>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>> >>> problem to prove you wrong.
>> >>>
>> >>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>> >>> worse an outright lie.
>> >>>
>> >>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server
> as
>> >>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet. May
>> >>> I
>> >>> ask what you post from?
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom
>> >>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>> >>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>> >>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>> >>>> Jeeeeez"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>> >>>>> insure/ensure).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
> protection
>> >>>>> law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not
>> >>>>> realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was
>> >>>>> customer number 3,000,001
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a
>> >>>>> violation'.
>> >>>>> Prove it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tom
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>> >>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>> >>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>> >>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this
>> >>>>>> was
>> >>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader") that
>> >>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by
> the
>> >>>>>> number who responded and to limit their losses, they began
>> >>>>>> refusing
>> >>>>>> more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some
>> >>>>>> what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection
> Laws
>> >>>>>> in some states. Jeeeeez
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>> >>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>> >>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>> >>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
> catalog
>> >>>>>>>>I received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting
>> >>>>>>>>limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog.
> Anyone
>> >>>>>>>>else see this limityation in that catalog? What page?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>> >>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
> day
>> >>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it but
>> >>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples
>> >>>>>>>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised and
>> >>>>>>>>>> Dell opened a store in my area.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>> >>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too
>> >>>>>>>>> many
>> >>>>>>>>> back-orders.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>> >>>>>>>>> reads:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "
>> >>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
> change
>> >>>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined with
>> >>>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
>> >>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics &
> Accessories
>> >>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
>> >>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems
>> >>>>>>>>> configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase limit
> of
>> >>>>>>>>> 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be responsible for pricing
> or
>> >>>>>>>>> other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders arising
> from
>> >>>>>>>>> such errors. Continental U.S. orders only.
>> >>>>>>>>> "
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Then your accusations are largely baseless assumptions since you lack the
necessary information.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
news:42d1d25c$1@news1.warwick.net...
> Those type of answers would be left for the consumer protection agensies
> to find out. there's no way for me to get these answers as Dell would
> never easily admit it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Jeff B has resolved the issue on his own. Can this topic go away? What an
incredible waste of time .....

Andy

"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KPkAe.3275$5R1.600@fe07.lga...
> I think you directed this to the wrong person. It was "Jeff B" that
> originated the thread and experienced the problem.
>
> <texaseitz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:rijAe.111$zw4.69@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> > Does anyone really care? Is it worth taking Dell to court over? If so, I
> > hope that you have really deep pockets and lots of time to wait. Why not
> > just find another source or wait for Dell to run the same or better deal
> > down the road?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
> >> As usual, wrong again.
> >>
> >> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
> >> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
> >> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
> >> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
> >> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post,
> >> to
> >> fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
> >> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
> >> easily:
> >>
> >> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
> >> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
> > some
> >> states. Jeeeeez"
> >>
> >> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference
> >> to
> >> "actual knowledge".
> >>
> >>
> >> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
> > some
> >> are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being
excessive.
> >> None are uniform.
> >>
> >> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
> > reference
> >> to "actual knowledge".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> > Irene,
> >> >
> >> > Lots of words. Little content.
> >> >
> >> > You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies
> >> > some
> >> > actual knowledge. Prove it.
> >> >
> >> > Tom
> >> > "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
> >> >> Again, you miss state what I posted.
> >> >> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor
did
> >> >> I
> >> >> "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
> > Protection
> >> >> laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and some are at
> > the
> >> >> point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the "Jeeeeez" at
> >> >> the
> >> >> end.
> >> >> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
> >> >> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
> > that
> >> >> you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of
them
> > do
> >> >> cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of his
> >> >> particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you
> >> >> it
> >> >> is not me.
> >> >> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and
call
> >> >> others names, invite that sort of thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
> >> >> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
> >> >> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
> > from
> >> >> those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's
regulars.
> >> >> Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are treated
> > here.
> >> >> With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
> >> >> .
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> >>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no
one
> >> >>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
> >> >>> problem to prove you wrong.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and
at
> >> >>> worse an outright lie.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news
server
> > as
> >> >>> the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet.
May
> >> >>> I
> >> >>> ask what you post from?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Tom
> >> >>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
> >> >>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
> >> >>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some
states.
> >> >>>> Jeeeeez"
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> >>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
> >> >>>>> insure/ensure).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>> day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
> > protection
> >> >>>>> law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale. It's not
> >> >>>>> realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an he was
> >> >>>>> customer number 3,000,001
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a
> >> >>>>> violation'.
> >> >>>>> Prove it.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Tom
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
> >> >>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
> >> >>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
> >> >>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this
> >> >>>>>> was
> >> >>>>>> an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader")
that
> >> >>>>>> Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit on
> >> >>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>> sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got surprised by
> > the
> >> >>>>>> number who responded and to limit their losses, they began
> >> >>>>>> refusing
> >> >>>>>> more orders. Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but
some
> >> >>>>>> what unethical, and possibly a violation the Consumer Protection
> > Laws
> >> >>>>>> in some states. Jeeeeez
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> >>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
> >> >>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
> >> >>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT
on
> >> >>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
> > catalog
> >> >>>>>>>>I received I do not see that or any other paragraph suggestting
> >> >>>>>>>>limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my catalog.
> > Anyone
> >> >>>>>>>>else see this limityation in that catalog? What page?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
> >> >>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
> > day
> >> >>>>>>>>>> the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it
but
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately Staples
> >> >>>>>>>>>> was
> >> >>>>>>>>>> willing to match the price anyway since it was advertised
and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Dell opened a store in my area.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE
taking
> >> >>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too
> >> >>>>>>>>> many
> >> >>>>>>>>> back-orders.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
> >> >>>>>>>>> reads:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> "
> >> >>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
> > change
> >> >>>>>>>>> without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be combined
with
> >> >>>>>>>>> other select offers or discounts. Valid for new U.S. online
> >> >>>>>>>>> purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics &
> > Accessories
> >> >>>>>>>>> site only. Offer does not apply to and is not available with
> >> >>>>>>>>> systems or items purchased through the online systems
> >> >>>>>>>>> configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts. Purchase
limit
> > of
> >> >>>>>>>>> 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be responsible for
pricing
> > or
> >> >>>>>>>>> other errors, and reserves the right to cancel orders arising
> > from
> >> >>>>>>>>> such errors. Continental U.S. orders only.
> >> >>>>>>>>> "
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

texaseitz@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> Jeff B has resolved the issue on his own. Can this topic go away? What an
> incredible waste of time .....

Sorry, Andy, but that's why God invented kill filters! <g>

Notan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Thanks and will POSSIBLY be using them more often!
Andy

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:42D1E0B7.16822EF1@ddress.com...
> texaseitz@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > Jeff B has resolved the issue on his own. Can this topic go away? What
an
> > incredible waste of time .....
>
> Sorry, Andy, but that's why God invented kill filters! <g>
>
> Notan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I thought you wanted this thread to go away, yet you add to it.

<texaseitz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yxlAe.327$zw4.246@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Thanks and will POSSIBLY be using them more often!
> Andy
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:42D1E0B7.16822EF1@ddress.com...
>> texaseitz@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> >
>> > Jeff B has resolved the issue on his own. Can this topic go away? What
> an
>> > incredible waste of time .....
>>
>> Sorry, Andy, but that's why God invented kill filters! <g>
>>
>> Notan
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The key words are "plan or scheme". That requires premeditation. Just like
Murder 1 vs. Murder 2.

Do you, in your heart, believe that Dell would print a catalog with an item
that they intentionally knew they would not have?

Why?

Tom
"Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
news:42d1c2b7$1@news1.warwick.net...
>I am in NJ. And here is a quote from the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act:
>"56.8-2.2 Scheme to not sell item or service advertised The
>advertisement of merchandise as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the
>item or service so advertised or not to sell the same at the advertised
>price is an unlawful practice and a violation of the act to which this act
>is a supplement."
>
> So in this case it is not possibly a law it IS A LAW. The problem is it is
> difficult to prove. I will/have moved on. I purchased the camera from
> Staples. A VERY reputable company who even though Dell did not have the
> item or intend on selling it Staples matched the advertised price. Thank
> You Staples. I will continue to make as many purchases as I need from your
> stores and recommend others do the same.
>
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:GciAe.190172$IO.123844@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Ah, so as long as I use the word POSSIBLY, I can say absolutely anything
>> I want.
>>
>> Bob is POSSIBLY psychotic.
>>
>> Bill is POSSIBLY a pedophile.
>>
>> Sue is POSSIBLY a murderer.
>>
>> Jean is POSSIBLY the son of God.
>>
>> Irene is POSSIBLY the dumbest person on the planet earth. Oh, and it is
>> up to you to adminster an IQ test and prove me wrong, because I used the
>> word POSSIBLY.
>>
>> Nice. Handy. Imply anything you want and stop short of slander because
>> you used the magic word POSSIBLY.
>>
>> Sadly, you really don't get it. You made a statement that could not be
>> substantiated and instead of just admitting that your statement was just
>> BS, you hide behind POSSIBLY.
>>
>> You are officially the queen of the anti-dellbots. Not here for anything
>> but negative comments about Dell, even in a situation where they are not
>> in the wrong.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:E8gAe.17589$zA.6584@fe04.lga...
>>> As usual, wrong again.
>>>
>>> I simply stated that various consumer protection laws existed.
>>> No where did I say or imply that I had "actual knowledge"; and most
>>> importantly "actual knowledge" of the laws of this person's particular
>>> state. I don't even think he posted his place of residence.
>>> I know your habit of spinning anything and everything that others post,
>>> to fit your particular purpose, and this is just another example of it.
>>> Again and in a distinct separate paragraphs, so you can read it more
>>> easily:
>>>
>>> "Not at all uncommon in the retail business, but some what
>>> unethical, and possibly a violation of the Consumer Protection Laws in
>>> some states. Jeeeeez"
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE THE WORD "POSSIBLY" indicating an obvious lack of reference
>>> to "actual knowledge".
>>>
>>>
>>> "Many of the 50 states have Consumer Protection laws. Some are good,
>>> some are not. Some are too weak and some are at the point of being
>>> excessive. None are uniform.
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE THE OBVIOUS GENERALIZATION, again indicating a lack of
>>> reference to "actual knowledge".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IYbAe.150610$VH2.17261@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> Irene,
>>>>
>>>> Lots of words. Little content.
>>>>
>>>> You made the statement about Consumer Protection laws. That implies
>>>> some actual knowledge. Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%KaAe.18460$x82.5279@fe03.lga...
>>>>> Again, you miss state what I posted.
>>>>> So, I will explain in detail. No, I didn't make up anything, nor did
>>>>> I "lie". Here are the facts Many of the 50 states have Consumer
>>>>> Protection laws. Some are good, some are not. Some are too weak and
>>>>> some are at the point of being excessive. None are uniform. Hence, the
>>>>> "Jeeeeez" at the end.
>>>>> You said and I quote, " I find it entertaining when people throw out
>>>>> 'possibly a violation'. " I didn't "throw out" anything. I only said
>>>>> that you needed to read some of the consumer protection laws. Some of
>>>>> them do cover this kind of advertising and depending on the laws of
>>>>> his particular state, it may or may not be a violation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have someone "stalking" you all over the Usenet, I assure you
>>>>> it is not me.
>>>>> I would, however, offer this observation. People who insult, and call
>>>>> others names, invite that sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a shame that issues regarding Dell can't be discussed and
>>>>> differences of opinion voiced without insults and name calling.
>>>>> But as I posted to this group before, I don't expect to ever see it
>>>>> from those that make up a large percentage of this Usenet Group's
>>>>> regulars. Past history most certainly indicates how such posters are
>>>>> treated here. With insults, vulgarity, and name calling.
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KR5Ae.189088$IO.156645@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>> So in other words, you made up something about the law, hoping no one
>>>>>> would challenge you and when you were challenged, you made it their
>>>>>> problem to prove you wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you can prove it, I consider it at best unsubstantiated and at
>>>>>> worse an outright lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. I never noticed that you post from the same news server
>>>>>> as the person with many names that is stalking me all over Usenet.
>>>>>> May I ask what you post from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Hx1Ae.18010$x82.14094@fe03.lga...
>>>>>>> Some one needs to read a few of the consumer protection laws.
>>>>>>> I didn't say that I agreed with all of them, I said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " possibly a violation the Consumer Protection Laws in some states.
>>>>>>> Jeeeeez"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the last word of my last sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:KZSze.188598$IO.134217@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>> I'm guessing they actually ACCEPT orders (common mitake, like
>>>>>>>> insure/ensure).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My grocery store is out of at least one item in the weekly ad on
>>>>>>>> the day it starts every single week. Post a link to a consumer
>>>>>>>> protection law that says a vendor can't run out of an item on sale.
>>>>>>>> It's not realistic. For all you know they had 3 million of them an
>>>>>>>> he was customer number 3,000,001
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it entertaining when people throw out 'possibly a
>>>>>>>> violation'. Prove it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:WXRze.17995$Si3.13497@fe06.lga...
>>>>>>>>>I tried to stay out of this but I can't ignore the unrealistic
>>>>>>>>>comments by the pro-Dell group any longer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Oh, please." Oh please, indeed. Dell excepts orders for items
>>>>>>>>> being held for "back order" every day. Why not just admit this
>>>>>>>>> was an advertising gimmick(we in retail call it a "loss leader")
>>>>>>>>> that Dell offered a very low price on and failed to place a limit
>>>>>>>>> on the sales. I can't find a limit, either. Then Dell got
>>>>>>>>> surprised by the number who responded and to limit their losses,
>>>>>>>>> they began refusing more orders. Not at all uncommon in the
>>>>>>>>> retail business, but some what unethical, and possibly a violation
>>>>>>>>> the Consumer Protection Laws in some states. Jeeeeez
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:fPMze.224439$w15.132403@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Oh please. It was popular. They ran out. Live with it.
>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:42cf5437$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>I relooked at the page with the ad. The below paragraph IS NOT on
>>>>>>>>>>>that page or the next page. As a matter of fact, in the July
>>>>>>>>>>>catalog I received I do not see that or any other paragraph
>>>>>>>>>>>suggestting limited quantities. The camera was on page 44 in my
>>>>>>>>>>>catalog. Anyone else see this limityation in that catalog? What
>>>>>>>>>>>page?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:ZMlze.108646$yV4.16515@okepread03...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jeff B" <JBlank@warwick.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:42cddd73$1@news1.warwick.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all its Bait & Switch/false advertising because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> day the catalogue came out they were not taking orders for it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Would sell me another "similar" camera. Fortunately
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staples was willing to match the price anyway since it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> advertised and Dell opened a store in my area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is still NOT 'Bait and Switch and they obviously WERE taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> orders the day it came out or there would not have been too
>>>>>>>>>>>> many back-orders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may also want to look at the bottom of the page where it
>>>>>>>>>>>> reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prices, specifications, availability and terms of offer may
>>>>>>>>>>>> change without notice. Taxes are extra, and vary. May be
>>>>>>>>>>>> combined with other select offers or discounts. Valid for new
>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. online purchases through the Dell Home Systems Electronics
>>>>>>>>>>>> & Accessories site only. Offer does not apply to and is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> available with systems or items purchased through the online
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems configurator, refurbished items, or spare parts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Purchase limit of 10 same items per order. Dell cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for pricing or other errors, and reserves the right
>>>>>>>>>>>> to cancel orders arising from such errors. Continental U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> orders only.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, they are currently available for order on-line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I give up. I've never met anyone so obstinate and unwilling to admit their
error.


"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p5nAe.3302$5R1.329@fe07.lga...
> Sorry, but I'm part of the No Spin Zone. >g<
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Do I need to do another Google search and post the result again?

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:tZqAe.228140$w15.75719@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>I give up. I've never met anyone so obstinate and unwilling to admit their
>error.
>
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p5nAe.3302$5R1.329@fe07.lga...
>> Sorry, but I'm part of the No Spin Zone. >g<
>>
>
>
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N Prebuilt & Enterprise 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY