It\'s not misguided because you\'ve decided you disagree with it! Return fraud and abuse apparently cost retailers billions of dollars a year. You can\'t win an argument simply by slinging insults. I can write about all sorts of things I find repugnant. I have the right to voice my opinion, same as you do yours.
We simply have a different approach, wickerprints; you try to control the discussion by asserting everyone here is agreeing on things on which there is no agreement, etc., which I see as a dishonest argumentation tactic. When people dare to continue to disagree with you, they have a \"misguided sense of morality\". I think you have a lack of a moral compass, since you think that taking advantage of others is not a breach of basic fairness, all issues of legality aside.
Also, I haven\'t seen you post any sources for your assertion that return abuse is completely legal, just more bare assertions by you. Just because something is rarely or never prosecuted, or hard to combat, doesn\'t mean it\'s legal or valid. Return abuse basically works like this: the \"buyer\" engages in a contract with the vendor, and pays the vendor; the \"buyer\'s\" end of the bargain is to pay and to deal in good faith, which involves keeping the item he bought unless there is a problem or it\'s unsuitable; but completely at odds with those ideas, the \"buyer\" buys with the idea of returning the item, essentially renting it at the vendor\'s expense. Implicit in the \"buyer\"/renter\'s dealings with the vendor is the assertion by the buyer that they will honor the contract, which the \"buyer\"/renter then fails to do, all according to the initial plan. I\'m astounded that that sounds perfectly fine and above-board to you.
I imagine that what\'s underlying your posts here is that you\'ve actually engaged in this practice before. I am sorry you are so upset, but you can\'t shut people up by the sheer number of your words.
EDIT: Interestingly, it looks like those with a \"misguided sense of morality\", whereby they think that buyers shouldn\'t engage in return abuse, are in the majority here in this discussion. One wonders at the prevalence of those engaging in return abuse within the buying public, but with camera lenses I would certainly hope it is far, far less than 50%. I suspect that it is, for a combination of reasons including that most buyers would tend to honor a contract, and that most don\'t have the money to buy three fairly high-dollar-value items at once, and/or the realization that there is likely no need for such a practice if one\'s aim is to get a product that works.
It\'s not misguided because you\'ve decided you disagree with it! Return fraud and abuse apparently cost retailers billions of dollars a year. You can\'t win an argument simply by slinging insults. I can write about all sorts of things I find repugnant. I have the right to voice my opinion, same as you do yours.
We simply have a different approach, wickerprints; you try to control the discussion by asserting everyone here is agreeing on things on which there is no agreement, etc., which I see as just one of your dishonest argumentation tactics. Another is your use of hyperbole or \"straw man\" tactics (e.g. no one suggested that free market would \"collapse\" due to the OP\'s and similar return fraud or abuse). When people dare to continue to disagree with you, they have a \"misguided sense of morality\". I think you have a lack of a moral compass, since you think that taking advantage of others is not a breach of basic fairness, all issues of legality aside.
Also, I haven\'t seen you post any sources for your assertion that return abuse is completely legal, just more bare assertions by you. Just because something is rarely or never prosecuted, or hard to combat, doesn\'t mean it\'s legal or valid. Return abuse basically works like this: the \"buyer\" engages in a contract with the vendor, and pays the vendor; the \"buyer\'s\" end of the bargain is to pay and to deal in good faith, which involves keeping the item he bought unless there is a problem or it\'s unsuitable; but completely at odds with those ideas, the \"buyer\" buys with the idea of returning the item, essentially renting it at the vendor\'s expense. Implicit in the \"buyer\"/renter\'s dealings with the vendor is the assertion by the buyer that they will honor the contract, which the \"buyer\"/renter then fails to do, all according to the initial plan. I\'m astounded that that sounds perfectly fine and above-board to you.
I imagine that what\'s underlying your posts here is that you\'ve actually engaged in this practice before. I am sorry you are so upset, but you can\'t shut people up by the sheer number of your words.
EDIT: Interestingly, it looks like those with a \"misguided sense of morality\", whereby they think that buyers shouldn\'t engage in return abuse, are in the majority here in this discussion. One wonders at the prevalence of those engaging in return abuse within the buying public, but with camera lenses I would certainly hope it is far, far less than 50%. I suspect that it is, for a combination of reasons including that most buyers would tend to honor a contract, and that most don\'t have the money to buy three fairly high-dollar-value items at once, and/or the realization that there is likely no need for such a practice if one\'s aim is to get a product that works.
It\'s not misguided because you\'ve decided you disagree with it! Return fraud and abuse apparently cost retailers billions of dollars a year. You can\'t win an argument simply by slinging insults. I can write about all sorts of things I find repugnant. I have the right to voice my opinion, same as you do yours.
We simply have a different approach, wickerprints; you try to control the discussion by asserting everyone here is agreeing on things on which there is no agreement, etc., which I see as just one of your dishonest argumentation tactics. Another is your use of hyperbole or \"straw man\" tactics (e.g. no one suggested that free market would \"collapse\" due to the OP\'s and similar return fraud or abuse). When people dare to continue to disagree with you, they have a \"misguided sense of morality\". I think you have a lack of a moral compass, since you think that taking advantage of others is not a breach of basic fairness, all issues of legality aside.
Also, I haven\'t seen you post any sources for your assertion that return abuse is completely legal, just more bare assertions by you. Just because something is rarely or never prosecuted, or hard to combat, doesn\'t mean it\'s legal or valid. Return abuse basically works like this: the \"buyer\" engages in a contract with the vendor, and pays the vendor; the \"buyer\'s\" end of the bargain is to pay and to deal in good faith, which involves keeping the item he bought unless there is a problem or it\'s unsuitable; but completely at odds with those ideas, the \"buyer\" buys with the idea of returning the item, essentially renting it at the vendor\'s expense. Implicit in the \"buyer\"/renter\'s dealings with the vendor is the assertion by the buyer that they will honor the contract, which the \"buyer\"/renter then fails to do, all according to the initial plan. I\'m astounded that that sounds perfectly fine and above-board to you.
I imagine that what\'s underlying your posts here is that you\'ve actually engaged in this practice before. I am sorry you are so upset, but you can\'t shut people up by the sheer number of your words.
EDIT: Interestingly, it looks like those with a \"misguided sense of morality\", whereby they think that buyers shouldn\'t engage in return abuse, are in the majority here in this discussion. One wonders at the prevalence of those engaging in return abuse within the buying public, but with camera lenses I would certainly hope it is far, far less than 50%.
Return fraud and abuse apparently cost retailers billions of dollars a year. You can\'t win an argument simply by slinging insults. I can write about all sorts of things I find repugnant. I have the right to voice my opinion, same as you do yours.