TrojanHorse wrote: Yes, you\'re right - they\'re a totally above board seller.
BrianO wrote: I never said that. Don\'t put (idiotic) words in my mouth.
TrojanHorse wrote: I\'m not sure why you\'re being so cantankerous about defending a sleazeball organization like Wall Street Photo...
I\'m not defending Wall Street Photo. YOU asked if this was a case of bait and switch; and I\'m pointing out how IN THIS CASE it doesn\'t seem likely to be.
I am a proponent of logical thinking, and when I see people posting illogic, I\'ll point it out.
TrojanHorse wrote: ...your assertion was that the price discrepancy was a simple mistake. I attribute simple mistakes to above board organizations. Since they do it repeatedly and offer dramatically over priced older products, my presumption is they\'re scamming people. Coupled with the on line reviews at multiple sites, I think my guess is correct...
This is a prime example of an error in logic. Only honest people make mistakes? That\'s stupid.
Gunzorro wrote: Brian -- Yes, please read the reviews from the independent site that Trojan posted. Wall St. has been scamming people for years. What\'s to lose? Tell me, have you ever heard of companies that sell CC to third parties? My CC is being tagged for the $159 as held in reserve against the purchase.
If they had been deliberately fishing for CC numbers I think they would have chosen to place an ad that would have at leat looked somewhat legit. In this case, only a fool -- sorry, but it\'s true -- would have made a purchase.
Again, not defending WSP; their record is not exemplary. But IN THIS CASE it is not an example of \"bait and switch,\" which is what this thread is about.
Dec 17, 2011 at 01:03 PM
Previous versions of BrianO's message #10174341 « Bait and switch? You decide »
