I suspect this may be my last post on the topic as I've said all I needed to, however you have requested a direct response so here it is.
No, it is not OK, but it is the responsibility of the customer to check what they are being charged and what change they are being given.
The difference for me, as I have already stated, is that I view the rights, responsibilities, and status of the two parties- individual and corporate entity- to be completely different.
I feel that the whole purpose of the multi national is to part you from your money- not to provide you with fish, that's just a consequence of their money making activities. All I do is go there to get what I want for the lowest price possible- with the notable caveat that both parties agree to the exchange (i.e. NOTHING is stolen).
Well, it it could be said that if you want to insulate against someone deciding they don't like the way you are talking to someone else, that it's actually you that needs to be awfully careful about how you write those words.
I posted, what, 10 quotes? from two posts where you were making direct black and white statements accusing the OP of something or other- none of them were questions, or suggestions, they were dictations. For the most part your posts have dictated what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, and what the OP should and shouldn't have done.
I still wish to know, whilst we're on the subject of directly responding, is what it is that you feel qualifies you to dictate to anyone else what is right or wrong.
Again, without meaning to sound condescending, but I did tell you in my last post. You suggest what they might or could have done, not what they should or should have done. You state that you believe something to be wrong, not that it is wrong.
Indeed, and that is what I too have done in this thread. You have no right to dictate to anyone whether what they did was right or wrong. I would have done the same as the OP, I believe that it was not wrong what they did. The treatment of the OP by you and others, I disagreed with.
Who are you to have a monopoly on morality? Whilst I am not in total alignment with tobigara, they make an interesting point.
There are grey areas with regards these things. You never found a dollar/pound and kept it? Or a penny/cent?
In my view pricing errors are fair game. In my view if a multi national can't train or supervise their staff, it is perfectly acceptable to take full advantage and fill your boots.
The extension of your assertion is that they might as well not bother spending on staff at all, and leave a set of nets, and a pot out, with a note saying "please leave correct change here".
It's not ripping them off. It is simply allowing them to not make as much profit as they might have intended, solely because they themselves are too lazy and tight fisted to conduct their business properly.
I do not care about correcting the wrong of a multi national company, when it is put in comparison with protecting my own pocket. Simple as that, this question is not relevant to me in this very specific individual example.
It is not stealing Bignose, pure and simple- you are wrong in my view. With specific reference to your definition of stealing, the OP had the permission of the company's representative to take those particular fish at that particular price. It was not by "unjust means". Money was exchanged- this is the standard means by which the company conducts it's business!
Consider that Petsmart do not make a loss, they make a profit. Consider that the sole consequence of "that loss" is that the profits pouring into the individual pockets of the shareholders of the firm will be ever so marginally reduced, due to the cost cutting (or profit increasing) business practises of the company they own. Tough luck for them, why should we subsidise their money making driven laziness and inattention? My belief is that we have no such responsibility. There will be no wholesale passback of costs even if every single customer in the world adopted the same attitude as me/the OP.
Is it fair that some people live by fish shops who make more pricing errors than others? No, but who ever said life was fair?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It does come down to personal belief Bignose you are correct there. This is my whole point. You have absolutely no right to dictate to anyone that your personal belief is any more valid or correct than anyone else's- and that is something you have done consistently since your first post in this thread, and that is what I have taken issue with. Your own personal view is not worth a jot more than anyone else's.
You will no doubt have noticed that I too have consistently encouraged the OP to consider their actions, and the consequences of them- the difference between you and I is that I have then encouraged the OP to make their own decision.
No, it is not OK, but it is the responsibility of the customer to check what they are being charged and what change they are being given.
The difference for me, as I have already stated, is that I view the rights, responsibilities, and status of the two parties- individual and corporate entity- to be completely different.
I feel that the whole purpose of the multi national is to part you from your money- not to provide you with fish, that's just a consequence of their money making activities. All I do is go there to get what I want for the lowest price possible- with the notable caveat that both parties agree to the exchange (i.e. NOTHING is stolen).
Well, it it could be said that if you want to insulate against someone deciding they don't like the way you are talking to someone else, that it's actually you that needs to be awfully careful about how you write those words.
I posted, what, 10 quotes? from two posts where you were making direct black and white statements accusing the OP of something or other- none of them were questions, or suggestions, they were dictations. For the most part your posts have dictated what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, and what the OP should and shouldn't have done.
I still wish to know, whilst we're on the subject of directly responding, is what it is that you feel qualifies you to dictate to anyone else what is right or wrong.
Again, without meaning to sound condescending, but I did tell you in my last post. You suggest what they might or could have done, not what they should or should have done. You state that you believe something to be wrong, not that it is wrong.
Indeed, and that is what I too have done in this thread. You have no right to dictate to anyone whether what they did was right or wrong. I would have done the same as the OP, I believe that it was not wrong what they did. The treatment of the OP by you and others, I disagreed with.
Who are you to have a monopoly on morality? Whilst I am not in total alignment with tobigara, they make an interesting point.
There are grey areas with regards these things. You never found a dollar/pound and kept it? Or a penny/cent?
In my view pricing errors are fair game. In my view if a multi national can't train or supervise their staff, it is perfectly acceptable to take full advantage and fill your boots.
The extension of your assertion is that they might as well not bother spending on staff at all, and leave a set of nets, and a pot out, with a note saying "please leave correct change here".
It's not ripping them off. It is simply allowing them to not make as much profit as they might have intended, solely because they themselves are too lazy and tight fisted to conduct their business properly.
I do not care about correcting the wrong of a multi national company, when it is put in comparison with protecting my own pocket. Simple as that, this question is not relevant to me in this very specific individual example.
It is not stealing Bignose, pure and simple- you are wrong in my view. With specific reference to your definition of stealing, the OP had the permission of the company's representative to take those particular fish at that particular price. It was not by "unjust means". Money was exchanged- this is the standard means by which the company conducts it's business!
Consider that Petsmart do not make a loss, they make a profit. Consider that the sole consequence of "that loss" is that the profits pouring into the individual pockets of the shareholders of the firm will be ever so marginally reduced, due to the cost cutting (or profit increasing) business practises of the company they own. Tough luck for them, why should we subsidise their money making driven laziness and inattention? My belief is that we have no such responsibility. There will be no wholesale passback of costs even if every single customer in the world adopted the same attitude as me/the OP.
Is it fair that some people live by fish shops who make more pricing errors than others? No, but who ever said life was fair?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It does come down to personal belief Bignose you are correct there. This is my whole point. You have absolutely no right to dictate to anyone that your personal belief is any more valid or correct than anyone else's- and that is something you have done consistently since your first post in this thread, and that is what I have taken issue with. Your own personal view is not worth a jot more than anyone else's.
You will no doubt have noticed that I too have consistently encouraged the OP to consider their actions, and the consequences of them- the difference between you and I is that I have then encouraged the OP to make their own decision.
