blockbuster trick YMMV

iemee so sdrujik= riht now nthothing now!
i will improvisational all that u dont think is true! that is that now 2:03 pm.............. will reply when sober when majors classes are over. ciao bye bye
 
what do i have to do with it?

I'll say this, if someone brings me 3 games when I'm clerkin', I'll scan it the cheapass way.
 
[quote name='Gojtron']what do i have to do with it?

I'll say this, if someone brings me 3 games when I'm clerkin', I'll scan it the cheapass way.[/quote]

cool, spoken like a true CAGer! :p
 
[quote name='paz9x']

You can stop posting about how good a theif you are/were to validate your previous comments/boasts. Like I said you dont need to be filling some of the kids on this sites minds with that garbage.[/quote]

With that, I think this thread should be locked.
 
Two different topics but both have been covered in this thread:

1. You would think that BlockB would have their registers automatically take off the lowest priced of the three. Most other stores have their registers do it automatically. Although when CC had that buy 3 get % off, some CC stores had registers that did it auto and some had to depend on the employee to do it.

2. For anyone who has or does work security for stores, I've always wondered if I looked suspicious to the Target security. I don't try to steal or anything but I'm constantly rifling through their games, sometimes I'll come across a couple of cases that have been opened and stolen by someone but I put those down pretty quickly. I'll take a whole bunch (of still sealed ones) to be scanned and then I walk around the end aisles looking hard to see if any errant games were left laying around. Sometimes I'll scan 10 games but I'll put them all back and not buy a single one. I've never gotten stopped but just wondered how suspicious I look to a security person?
 
i don't think you look suspicious. i do this all the time and never get hassled. besides, how else would we know about those awesome target clearances :D

actually, you can alway print out the bar codes and just go in there and scan those. it might be less suspicious if you're worried about that.
 
Do you guys like this website?
Well, there is likely not to be one if you continue to post new methods of commiting crimes.

Taking something from a store without paying for it is stealing, regardless of your likelyhood of getting caught.

I'd prefer not to spend my CAG time editing messages, so please use some common sense before hitting the post button.
 
I think we need to draw up a Morality Spectrum from 1-10 with 1 being totally moral and 10 being totally immoral. I think the BBuster think would be about a 4 and the axe thing about an 8. (The axe thing reminds me of the guy at the Walmart who grabbed an axe and tried to rob the cashier with it. The cashier told him he'd have to pay for the axe first.)

Seriously, there's one thing about not being exactly honest with the wording of the deal and another with passing something off as something you own.
 
Gee, with threads like this I wonder why Blockbuster would want to drop the affiliate program with the website.

I know, how about you guys scare off a couple more investors and advertisers for CheapyD!

We are cheapasses, not theives. We don't deal in expoits, scams and theft.
If thats something that intrests you, go elsewhere. Maybe they'll look kindly on you at fatwallet, but I kind of doubt it.
 
One time at Blockbuster about a year ago they mispriced a TON of PS2 games at about 2.99 each. And it was Buy 2 get 1 free time also! I grabbed up about 15 of em...then I took em to the counter. The woman was all like "these are all priced wrong, I have to credit you the difference for EACH ONE, then ring them all up at buy 2 get 1 free and then take the credit off."

For example, if the 2.99 games were regularly 7.99, I got 5.00 credit x 3....15.00....then had them all rung up at regular price, 7.99 x 3 = 24.00. THEN they took the one off free making 16.00....THEN they took the 15.00 off. Hard to explain, but I left with 15 games for about 6.00.

The manager was fully aware of what she was doing too....went back and got more the next day! :) I just like to share this story, that's all.

Please continue.
 
ok i am just curious, why all the hate for fatwallet.com? i figure there are the same people here and at fatwallet, but there are cheapassgamer.com haters over there and fatwallet haters over here, someone explain this to me (please)?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Gee, with threads like this I wonder why Blockbuster would want to drop the affiliate program with the website.

I know, how about you guys scare off a couple more investors and advertisers for CheapyD!

We are cheapasses, not theives. We don't deal in expoits, scams and theft.
If thats something that intrests you, go elsewhere. Maybe they'll look kindly on you at fatwallet, but I kind of doubt it.[/quote]

geez, i'm glad that you know the EXACT definition for cheapass. you should change your name to mr. righteous or something. take it easy.

cheapyD, please delete the thread if it's not up to cheapass standards. thanks.
 
[quote name='dracula']ok i am just curious, why all the hate for fatwallet.com? i figure there are the same people here and at fatwallet, but there are cheapassgamer.com haters over there and fatwallet haters over here, someone explain this to me (please)?[/quote]

I don't actually hate fatwallet. It just happens to be one of the few other reasonably similar sites. I've only been there a couple of times, but their userbase seems to be more similar in attitude to other "deal" websites and not other videogame websites.

I was just trying to use that as emphasis... they kick your ass out of fat wallet for this kind of stuff just as quickly as Cheapy D would.

The main point I was trying to get across was that explainations of how to commit criminal acts in the name of cheapness are not acceptable nor appropriate to post here.
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal'][quote name='JSweeney']Gee, with threads like this I wonder why Blockbuster would want to drop the affiliate program with the website.

I know, how about you guys scare off a couple more investors and advertisers for CheapyD!

We are cheapasses, not theives. We don't deal in expoits, scams and theft.
If thats something that intrests you, go elsewhere. Maybe they'll look kindly on you at fatwallet, but I kind of doubt it.[/quote]

geez, i'm glad that you know the EXACT definition for cheapass. you should change your name to mr. righteous or something. take it easy.

cheapyD, please delete the thread if it's not up to cheapass standards. thanks.[/quote]

I've always found legality to be a good delination point.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='dracula']ok i am just curious, why all the hate for fatwallet.com? i figure there are the same people here and at fatwallet, but there are cheapassgamer.com haters over there and fatwallet haters over here, someone explain this to me (please)?[/quote]

I don't actually hate fatwallet. It just happens to be one of the few other reasonably similar sites. I've only been there a couple of times, but their userbase seems to be more similar in attitude to other "deal" websites and not other videogame websites.

I was just trying to use that as emphasis... they kick your ass out of fat wallet for this kind of stuff just as quickly as Cheapy D would.

The main point I was trying to get across was that explainations of how to commit criminal acts in the name of cheapness are not acceptable nor appropriate to post here.[/quote]

the only problem i got with reading what you wrote is did you even read the whole thread? comparing stealing a toolbox to "trying to save a few bucks by getting a more expensive game for free in a legit deal" is not a good comparison. i wouldn't knock fw either. i'm sure a lot of deals were found on there first, and likewise of course.
 
The thread as a whole is judged by the sum of it's parts. I never made a distinction about that. I was talking about the state of the thread, and not commenting on the rather unethical "deal" that all of you were proposing. If you didn't have some misgivings about what you were doing, I doubt you'd overreact as much as you did.

i wouldn't knock fw either. i'm sure a lot of deals were found on there first, and likewise of course.

Did you even read what you qouted?

I don't actually hate fatwallet. It just happens to be one of the few other reasonably similar sites. I've only been there a couple of times, but their userbase seems to be more similar in attitude to other "deal" websites and not other videogame websites.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in that am I knocking fatwallet. Anyone who's looked over there and posted there will tell you that the environment here and the enviroment there are fairly different.
 
misgivings? what're you talking about? overreacting? did you ever see what you first wrote? that's what i call overreacting.

...and i'm only reacting to what you first wrote and not to what i originally posted.
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']misgivings? what're you talking about? overreacting? did you ever see what you first wrote? that's what i call overreacting.

...and i'm only reacting to what you first wrote and not to what i originally posted.[/quote]

Well lets see.. this is what I posted.

Gee, with threads like this I wonder why Blockbuster would want to drop the affiliate program with the website.

I know, how about you guys scare off a couple more investors and advertisers for CheapyD!

We are cheapasses, not theives. We don't deal in expoits, scams and theft.
If thats something that intrests you, go elsewhere. Maybe they'll look kindly on you at fatwallet, but I kind of doubt it.
Click to expand...

In this thread, there was a LENGTHY discussion of how to steal toolsets from Sears and return them for credit. THAT IS PART OF THE THEAD.
A thread is but the sum of all it's parts, so that part taints the rest of this thread. What I posted wasn't overreacting. THIS THREAD DISCUSSED THEFT IN A CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EASY TO FOLLOW MANNER. THESE TYPES OF THREADS ARE WHAT COSTS CHEAPY D SUPPORT FROM ADVERTISERS.

I stand behind every word I said. This tread casts a terrible taint across the rest of the boards, and I for one will be very happy when it is locked, deleted, or cycled out.
 
okok, whatever jsweeney. to me, it looked like you overreacted and the same likewise. i'm not gonna pay anymore attention to you b/c this sh*t shoulda been dropped already. arguing with you is like reading a contract everytime b/c of the way you reply to peoples post. it's a waste of time to do that and if anything, you're only stating your own opinion and i'm stating, and entitled, to mine. we don't see eye to eye and i'm willing to leave it at that. i'm not gonna respond with my "own" common sense and i'm gonna ignore yours. geez... i hate reading threads like this.

if you realllllllly want this thread to die, then just leave it be. :roll: same goes for all your other arguments.

ah shit, i can't keep my mouth shut. what you say is that it taints the thread right? so if i write, "i wanna steal something from sears" in another thread, then it's automatically tainted too???

aight aight, i'm stopping now. dang... my original post didn't say anything about "stealing." wtf are you arguing with me? pointless....
 
okok, whatever jsweeney. to me, it looked like you overreacted and the same likewise.

Nope. I may have been overly broad in my tossing out of the blame, but this thread went from a slightly unethical method for getting games cheaper to a completely unethical explaination of how to steal from department stores and make money from it. Take only the blame which belongs to you... those deserving of being chastised should know that it is them being pointed out.


i'm not gonna pay anymore attention to you b/c this sh*t shoulda been dropped already.

Yes, it should have, but right now this thread stands as a shining example of how not to behave on this board... Cheapy D's post was rather clear in that point.


arguing with you is like reading a contract everytime b/c of the way you reply to peoples post.
Well thought out, meaningful and all encompassing?


it's a waste of time to do that and if anything, you're only stating your own opinion and i'm stating, and entitled, to mine.

Yes, but I have the law, ethics and blockbuster's corporate policy to back me up. I have more than met the burden of proof to show the validity of my opinion.


we don't see eye to eye and i'm willing to leave it at that. i'm not gonna respond with my "own" common sense and i'm gonna ignore yours. geez... i hate reading threads like this.

You know, the little "kiddy" blockbuster scam only bothered me slightly.. and I wasn't even going to bother to post... I was when the thread dipped into the areas of shoplifting, retail fraud and such that I really didn't care for it.


if you realllllllly want this thread to die, then just leave it be. :roll: same goes for all your other arguments.

Maybe because you continue to try to validate it? This thread went far from its orginal intent, which was detailing yoru little exploit ( which isn't exactly ethical.. a decent prima facia could be made to refer to it as fraud),
and turned into a little primer on how to steal from Sears and make money off of it.

ah shit, i can't keep my mouth shut. what you say is that it taints the thread right? so if i write, "i wanna steal something from sears" in another thread, then it's automatically tainted too???

Not exactly.. but when you write out exactly what you should steal, and then go about explaining what to do afterwords to get the most bang for your buck, you most definately have.

aight aight, i'm stopping now. dang... my original post didn't say anything about "stealing." wtf are you arguing with me? pointless

Because you picked the fight. I NEVER ONCE MADE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN STEALING FROM SEARS AND YOUR LITTLE EXPLOIT.
GO BACK AND REREAD THE POSTS IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.
 
[quote name='optimolife']^^ what a loser[/quote]

Well excuse me, oh all knowing arbiter of cool.
I'm sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
I'll work to assimilate myself into that cadre of addle-brained jackasses that you refer to as "cool".
 
OMGOODNESS, i don't believe i have to pull the same shit you do...

"Nope. I may have been overly broad in my tossing out of the blame, but this thread went from a slightly unethical method for getting games cheaper to a completely unethical explaination of how to steal from department stores and make money from it. Take only the blame which belongs to you... those deserving of being chastised should know that it is them being pointed out."

that's right, you were.

"Well thought out, meaningful and all encompassing?"

nope, i didn't think so. again, that's your own opinion.

"You know, the little "kiddy" blockbuster scam only bothered me slightly.. and I wasn't even going to bother to post... I was when the thread dipped into the areas of shoplifting, retail fraud and such that I really didn't care for it."

i had nothing to do with the stealing part. as for the kiddy portion, oh well... at least i'm getting a game cheaper than usual. it's their computer system that is faulty and if the guy scans the most expensive game last and doesn't notice, who am i to point it out? it's not my job to police everything. also, if you're gonna go word for word, it was scamming sears, not shoplifting.

"Maybe because you continue to try to validate it? This thread went far from its orginal intent, which was detailing yoru little exploit ( which isn't exactly ethical.. a decent prima facia could be made to refer to it as fraud), and turned into a little primer on how to steal from Sears and make money off of it."

again, i personally didn't say anything about stealing from sears.

"Not exactly.. but when you write out exactly what you should steal, and then go about explaining what to do afterwords to get the most bang for your buck, you most definately have. "

nice comeback... if you're going word for word, you should read what you wrote. (In this thread, there was a LENGTHY discussion of how to steal toolsets from Sears and return them for credit. THAT IS PART OF THE THEAD. A thread is but the sum of all it's parts, so that part taints the rest of this thread.)

"Because you picked the fight. I NEVER ONCE MADE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN STEALING FROM SEARS AND YOUR LITTLE EXPLOIT. GO BACK AND REREAD THE POSTS IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME."

reread the first thing you said: (I may have been overly broad in my tossing out of the blame....) I am allowed to defend myself and if you want to keep arguing, go ahead.

damn waste of time. :roll: 99% your posts must be from you arguing with people, quoting this and quoting that. i think you need to get a life. i tried to end this in a "i'm not gonna change your mind, you're not gonna change your mind," kind of way, but you come back with i'm always right attitude. geez, maybe i gotta be like deadzone and get a picture of you to get you off of my ass.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='optimolife']^^ what a loser[/quote]

Well excuse me, oh all knowing arbiter of cool.
I'm sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
I'll work to assimilate myself into that cadre of addle-brained jackasses that you refer to as "cool".[/quote]

um... who's acting like they're all knowing? all you do is quote people and try to prove them otherwise. oh shnaps, i'm asking for more "quotes!" :roll:
 
that's right, you were.
While I may have been overly broad in my chastising, you still were behaving outsite the boundaries of acceptable ethics. You don't have the moral authority to take the "high and mighty" postition right now.

nope, i didn't think so. again, that's your own opinion.
I've never stated it's anything but. I hate when people try to use that "but it's only your opinion." agrument. No kidding... unless it is nothing but uncontravertible fact, it carries the bias of the poster along with it.
Trying to argue that something is invalid just because it is an opinion is a wasted effort.

i had nothing to do with the stealing part. as for the kiddy portion, oh well... at least i'm getting a game cheaper than usual.
I find my dignity and self-respect are more valuable that a couple dollars savings on a used game.


it's their computer system that is faulty and if the guy scans the most expensive game last and doesn't notice, who am i to point it out?

Because even before the the thread turned to talk of stealing from Sears, you and a couple other people were talking about how to con the register clerk into either scanning them in the order you stacked them or running back to get a third one for the express purpose of cheating Blockbuster out of a couple dollars.


it's not my job to police everything. also, if you're gonna go word for word, it was scamming sears, not shoplifting.

Techincally, it was retail fraud.

again, i personally didn't say anything about stealing from sears.

Yet you're still trying to agrue that this thread doesn't taint the rest of the boards. It really doesn't matter if you didn't post it or not... the taint is on the thread.

"Not exactly.. but when you write out exactly what you should steal, and then go about explaining what to do afterwords to get the most bang for your buck, you most definately have. "

nice comeback... if you're going word for word, you should read what you wrote. (In this thread, there was a LENGTHY discussion of how to steal toolsets from Sears and return them for credit. THAT IS PART OF THE THEAD. A thread is but the sum of all it's parts, so that part taints the rest of this thread.)

You're just arguing for argument's sake now... you're getting ridiculous, It's basically just the same thing restated. THE THREAD, NOT THE PEOPLE IN THE THREAD, IS TAINTED DUE TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WENT ON.
IT WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME IF IT HAPPENED IN ANY OTHER THREAD. This thread was just a little less than honest to begin with, so it made for fertile ground for this crap to grow in.


I am allowed to defend myself and if you want to keep arguing, go ahead.

You don't want to do that. You're little scam in this thread wasn't exactly legal or right either.

damn waste of time. :roll: 99% your posts must be from you arguing with people, quoting this and quoting that.

And? Only through examination of bais can a group of people ever hope to gain true knowledge.

i think you need to get a life.

Yep, because being argumentative is so much worse of a character trait than being a thief.

i tried to end this in a "i'm not gonna change your mind, you're not gonna change your mind," kind of way, but you come back with i'm always right attitude.

Most likely it would be because you keep trying to tie a couple of parting shots into what you think you are offering as a concession.
A concession states things in such a manner that it would be acceptable to both parties to accept it as an end to thier argument. Nowhere in your posts do you post anything that could be considered a clear, concise statement of concession, summing up both the points of the argument on which we would both agree upon, and the parts of the argument which we would have to agree to disagree on. You seem to try at a few points, but you just can help yourself from trying to get a few parting shots in.

You know, don't even bother trying to draw deadzone into this. She had a couple of issues when she started posting and tended toward the more ridiculous, and I had no trouble calling her on that issue.
Now, she greatly straigtened up her act, and is a credit to the boards. While she still may get a little hyperactive at times(which clearly show in her posts), she keeps all of that constrained in the off-topic thread.


geez, maybe i gotta be like deadzone and get a picture of you to get you off of my ass.

Anyways, if you had to stoop to that type of tactic, all it would show is a marked lack of maturity, an utter lack of decorum, and a grasp of rhetoric so tenous that you have to try to stoop to embarassment and mockery to make a point.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
geez, maybe i gotta be like deadzone and get a picture of you to get you off of my ass.

Anyways, if you had to stoop to that type of tactic, all it would show is a marked lack of maturity, an utter lack of decorum, and a grasp of rhetoric so tenous that you have to try to stoop to embarassment and mockery to make a point.[/quote]

Dude you should just give up now. You're not going to win an argument against JSweeney, especially when your cheap shots don't land. :lol:
 
While I may have been overly broad in my chastising, you still were behaving outsite the boundaries of acceptable ethics. You don't have the moral authority to take the "high and mighty" postition right now.

let me guess.... you've never went past the speed limit, you've never d/l an mp3 using kazaa, napster, etc. you've never jaywalked in your life... those are also "slightly unethical." i can say for a fact that you've bent a rule in your life, WHETHER SMALL OR BIG! you also don't have a right to be judging people on one post, and don't have the moral authority to be shooting people down for saying one thing that you don't agree with. like you said before, you have the law on your side, blah blah blah. well, in those cases, i would have the law on my side, the RIAA (fuq them), etc. as well.

I've never stated it's anything but. I hate when people try to use that "but it's only your opinion." agrument. No kidding... unless it is nothing but uncontravertible fact, it carries the bias of the poster along with it.
Trying to argue that something is invalid just because it is an opinion is a wasted effort.

no duh, everybody is bias... including you! when did i use it as an argument? i'm just stating that it's your own opinion. when i said, "that's your own opinion" i was merely stating the obvious.

I find my dignity and self-respect are more valuable that a couple dollars savings on a used game.

good for you. i don't lose any respect for myself either. everybody has their own limit for saying what's right and what's wrong. your limit is "sainthood."

Because even before the the thread turned to talk of stealing from Sears, you and a couple other people were talking about how to con the register clerk into either scanning them in the order you stacked them or running back to get a third one for the express purpose of cheating Blockbuster out of a couple dollars.

like i said before, "have you ever d/l an mp3 from kazaa/napster/etc, have you ever went above the speed limit...." you're in no position to judge anybody since everybody has done something "slightly unethical" whether it's within the boundaries of the law/blockbuster's policy, etc or if it's straight out illegal.

Technically, it was retail fraud.

well, for a person who knows everything, you shoulda called it that since the beginning.

Yet you're still trying to agrue that this thread doesn't taint the rest of the boards. It really doesn't matter if you didn't post it or not... the taint is on the thread.

if that's the way you want to take my arguing, then that's not the way i meant it. i'm defending myself b/c of what you initially wrote, and i felt it was directed at me. if you think i'm defending people who are stealing from sears, you're jumping to conclusions.

nice comeback... if you're going word for word, you should read what you wrote. (In this thread, there was a LENGTHY discussion of how to steal toolsets from Sears and return them for credit. THAT IS PART OF THE THEAD. A thread is but the sum of all it's parts, so that part taints the rest of this thread.)

You're just arguing for argument's sake now... you're getting ridiculous, It's basically just the same thing restated. THE THREAD, NOT THE PEOPLE IN THE THREAD, IS TAINTED DUE TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WENT ON.
IT WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME IF IT HAPPENED IN ANY OTHER THREAD. This thread was just a little less than honest to begin with, so it made for fertile ground for this crap to grow in.

i'm just quoting what you originally stated, and proving my points in one of my posts. i am arguing against you and likewise. imo, you're getting ridiculous and yes, this is going in circles.

You don't want to do that. You're little scam in this thread wasn't exactly legal or right either.

refer to the first thing i said in this post. if you've never done anything that is even remotely (in your words) "unethical" then i should just call you JESUS b/c you've never done anything wrong in your life (speeding, jaywalking, etc.)

And? Only through examination of bais can a group of people ever hope to gain true knowledge.

true knowledge? so everything you say is right? i doubt it.

Yep, because being argumentative is so much worse of a character trait than being a thief.

in some cases, yes.

Most likely it would be because you keep trying to tie a couple of parting shots into what you think you are offering as a concession.
A concession states things in such a manner that it would be acceptable to both parties to accept it as an end to thier argument. Nowhere in your posts do you post anything that could be considered a clear, concise statement of concession, summing up both the points of the argument on which we would both agree upon, and the parts of the argument which we would have to agree to disagree on. You seem to try at a few points, but you just can help yourself from trying to get a few parting shots in.

concession? why would i concede anything? i'm not gonna agree with you and you're not gonna agree with me. that's the way i tried to end it. as for the parting shots, what can i say? you're just annoying me b/c you're judging people on one thread. let me guess, the "j" in your name stands for JESUS.

You know, don't even bother trying to draw deadzone into this. She had a couple of issues when she started posting and tended toward the more ridiculous, and I had no trouble calling her on that issue.
Now, she greatly straigtened up her act, and is a credit to the boards. While she still may get a little hyperactive at times(which clearly show in her posts), she keeps all of that constrained in the off-topic thread.

i'm not trying to draw anybody into our argument. i used her "picture" incident as an example so anybody reading it could know what i was talking about. i hate to point it out, but from what i noticed, you only "conceded" to her after she brought up that picture. shows how far your self-respect goes huh? it was half argument/half joke.

Anyways, if you had to stoop to that type of tactic, all it would show is a marked lack of maturity, an utter lack of decorum, and a grasp of rhetoric so tenous that you have to try to stoop to embarassment and mockery to make a point.

nope, i'm just stooping to that tactic b/c that's the only time i've ever seen you stop talking. btw, it was a joke.
 
let me guess.... you've never went past the speed limit, you've never d/l an mp3 using kazaa, napster, etc. you've never jaywalked in your life... those are also "slightly unethical." i can say for a fact that you've bent a rule in your life, WHETHER SMALL OR BIG! you also don't have a right to be judging people on one post, and don't have the moral authority to be shooting people down for saying one thing that you don't agree with. like you said before, you have the law on your side, blah blah blah. well, in those cases, i would have the law on my side, the RIAA (fuq them), etc. as well.

There is a difference between doing things yourself and inciting others to do it. I could care less what one person does of thier own accord. But it bothers me when they go tell everyone else to do this thing. You know why napster and kazaa got in some much trouble? Everyone and thier mother knew about it and knows how to use it, and incited all of thier friends to do it, so the lawyers and such had to come crashing down on it.... the serious piracy goes on in the newsgroups... studio tests of music, reviewer copies of unreleased movies, any PC game before it's released, and even tons and tons of videogame roms? Why don't you hear about this?
1. It's not as easy to do as Kazaa and Napster.
2. Most of its users are smarter than to go "ha ha ha ha we 15 1337 P1R4735" like the stupid kazaa and napster noobs were.

You see, I haven't, and don't make it a practice to, incite people to commit illegal or unethical acts. You were. Based upon that, I can claim the moral highground. Whether or not I've ever commited a crime is actually irrelavant.


no duh, everybody is bias... including you! when did i use it as an argument? i'm just stating that it's your own opinion. when i said, "that's your own opinion" i was merely stating the obvious.

Stating something so blinding obvious is not the path to discrediting something. You were trying to use other people's bias against me to try to discredit what I was saying simply because "It's only my opinion". Whether it's my opinion doesnt' make it any more or any less correct.. but your implication was designed to function otherwise.


good for you. i don't lose any respect for myself either. everybody has their own limit for saying what's right and what's wrong. your limit is "sainthood."

So you're dignity and self-respect can be purchased for a scant few dollars? Good to know. :)




like i said before, "have you ever d/l an mp3 from kazaa/napster/etc, have you ever went above the speed limit...." you're in no position to judge anybody since everybody has done something "slightly unethical" whether it's within the boundaries of the law/blockbuster's policy, etc or if it's straight out illegal.

As I stated before, so long as I am not inciting people to commit illegal acts, I am well within my bounds to claim the moral highground.


well, for a person who knows everything, you shoulda called it that since the beginning.

Yes, because we always stick to the technical terms from everything here,
and every single post, argument and discussion adheres to Robert's Rules of order.



if that's the way you want to take my arguing, then that's not the way i meant it. i'm defending myself b/c of what you initially wrote, and i felt it was directed at me. if you think i'm defending people who are stealing from sears, you're jumping to conclusions.

If I'm jumping to conclusions, it due to a distinct lack of clarity and focus in your posts. Your agruments are so general that they apply to the ENTIRE thread, and not just your posts and involvement in it. Any reasonable person would have derived the exact same conclusions from your posts as I did.

i'm just quoting what you originally stated, and proving my points in one of my posts. i am arguing against you and likewise. imo, you're getting ridiculous and yes, this is going in circles.

This is all symptomatic of the distinct lack of clarity in your posts, as your intent appears to be to argue about your involvement in the thread, yet your posts read as if they are discussing the entire thread. The reason it is circular is because you keep throwing your exact same argument, unclear as it ever was, and then expect the answer to the question you intended to ask and not the questions you actually did ask.



refer to the first thing i said in this post. if you've never done anything that is even remotely (in your words) "unethical" then i should just call you JESUS b/c you've never done anything wrong in your life (speeding, jaywalking, etc.)

As I've already stated, commiting illegal acts and inciting others are radically different. Even a convicted felon would be well within his rights to claim the moral high ground if another was inciting people to commit crimes (even if it were the same one the felon was convicted for).

true knowledge? so everything you say is right? i doubt it.
I never said it was. To gain true knowledge is the endeavor of every form of study, experiment, agrument and debate. Through a logical and reasoned discourse with others, people can sometimes seperate the wheat from the chaff, and cast off thier own baises... eventually coming closer to true knowledge.

in some cases, yes.
In the rare case where theft is a matter of life and death, yes.
This is not one of those cases.


concession? why would i concede anything? i'm not gonna agree with you and you're not gonna agree with me. that's the way i tried to end it.

Even in that situation, you would concede that your just going to have to agree to disagree.

as for the parting shots, what can i say? you're just annoying me b/c you're judging people on one thread.

A thread in which people are inciting others to commit illegal acts. Yes, I think it's well within reason to judge people based upon thier words and actions.


let me guess, the "j" in your name stands for JESUS.
No, but it's never a bad thing to have that comparison made.

i'm not trying to draw anybody into our argument. i used her "picture" incident as an example so anybody reading it could know what i was talking about. i hate to point it out, but from what i noticed, you only "conceded" to her after she brought up that picture. shows how far your self-respect goes huh? it was half argument/half joke.

No, I conceeded a few things because after taking a break from reading the board, I went back over my posts and realized that in her case that some of the jokes, specifically those at her expense were somewhat uncalled for. The post of the picture just escalated an already poor situation. Deadzone, as well as myself, realized that continuing such foolish acts would only be damaging to the board and our enjoyment of the board. My self-respect and hubris had nothing to do with that situation. We both realized we were wrong and came to a mutual agreement.


nope, i'm just stooping to that tactic b/c that's the only time i've ever seen you stop talking. btw, it was a joke.

You obviously didn't read the threads after that picture was posted... I posted more on that day that any other day, and had PM's sent to all parties involved in said situation (Cheapy D, all of the mods, and Deadzone)

Even if deadzone wouldn't have pulled the picture of her own accord, it wouldn't have stayed up much longer anyway... I had angelfire pull her site due to copyright infringement before I even tried to sort out that argument.
 
There is a difference between doing things yourself and inciting others to do it. I could care less what one person does of thier own accord. But it bothers me when they go tell everyone else to do this thing. You know why napster and kazaa got in some much trouble? Everyone and thier mother knew about it and knows how to use it, and incited all of thier friends to do it, so the lawyers and such had to come crashing down on it.... the serious piracy goes on in the newsgroups... studio tests of music, reviewer copies of unreleased movies, any PC game before it's released, and even tons and tons of videogame roms? Why don't you hear about this?
1. It's not as easy to do as Kazaa and Napster.
2. Most of its users are smarter than to go "ha ha ha ha we 15 1337 P1R4735" like the stupid kazaa and napster noobs were.
You see, I haven't, and don't make it a practice to, incite people to commit illegal or unethical acts. You were. Based upon that, I can claim the moral highground. Whether or not I've ever commited a crime is actually irrelavant.

you're just playing with your words. based on your past argument, you said that i don't have a claim on the moral highground b/c of unethical acts. however, whether or not you're inciting people to do it, you're still committing an unethical act if you jaywalk, speed, run the red, etc. it doesn't matter if you encourage it or not.

just b/c it's not as easy to do as napster/kazaa is a lame excuse. jaywalking through the streets of new york can be much tougher than handing a guy behind the counter 3 games in specific order. does that make it more unethical than getting a better game for free? :roll: based on the way you simply said it, yes.

as for the "why didn't you hear about this?" i did hear about it from fw. obviously it's not gonna be as popular as file sharing, but it will be to people who want to save a few bucks.

Stating something so blinding obvious is not the path to discrediting something. You were trying to use other people's bias against me to try to discredit what I was saying simply because "It's only my opinion". Whether it's my opinion doesnt' make it any more or any less correct.. but your implication was designed to function otherwise.

what i meant was that everything you're saying is only your opinion. those statements of how you're right and i'm wrong are what you think are right, but to me they're not. "using other people's bias?" more word play. "your implication was designed to function otherwise." i think you assume too much. if i said, "fu(k you" online, you can't tell whether i'm saying it as a joke or not. you're using everything i say in your own manner. more word play.

So you're dignity and self-respect can be purchased for a scant few dollars? Good to know.

again, more play. i never said you could purchase my self-respect. all i said was i felt no shame in doing it. if you want to add your own translation to things, fine. but i can assume just the same and everybody can be ignorant.

As I stated before, so long as I am not inciting people to commit illegal acts, I am well within my bounds to claim the moral highground.

if a murderer doesn't tell people to kill others, he's still has the moral highground huh? your answer doesn't cut it....

If I'm jumping to conclusions, it due to a distinct lack of clarity and focus in your posts. Your agruments are so general that they apply to the ENTIRE thread, and not just your posts and involvement in it. Any reasonable person would have derived the exact same conclusions from your posts as I did.

lack of clarity? read what you wrote yourself (I may have been overly broad in my tossing out of the blame...).

This is all symptomatic of the distinct lack of clarity in your posts, as your intent appears to be to argue about your involvement in the thread, yet your posts read as if they are discussing the entire thread. The reason it is circular is because you keep throwing your exact same argument, unclear as it ever was, and then expect the answer to the question you intended to ask and not the questions you actually did ask.

it is circular b/c you and i will never agree with each other. as for the unclear/clarity portion, refer to what i said above. you're not perfect either.

As I've already stated, commiting illegal acts and inciting others are radically different. Even a convicted felon would be well within his rights to claim the moral high ground if another was inciting people to commit crimes (even if it were the same one the felon was convicted for).

again, if this person did a drive-by and killed an innocent kid, he has the moral highgrounds? i think you're sadly mistaken. in your opinion, as long as somebody doesn't "incite" anybody to do something unethical, they have the moral high grounds? i think your judgment is skewed.

In the rare case where theft is a matter of life and death, yes.
This is not one of those cases.

1st off, those aren't the only cases. if you're trying to make things black and white, yes or no, you need to get out into the real world instead of staying on the CAG boards arguing.

Even in that situation, you would concede that your just going to have to agree to disagree.

that might be so in this case, but i still have to argue the point that i conceeded to your posts in the past.

A thread in which people are inciting others to commit illegal acts. Yes, I think it's well within reason to judge people based upon thier words and actions.

sure :roll: what i said to try out was "illegal." let's see. if only i could find out about EVERYTHING you've ever said and did in your life, i bet i could find many reasons to judge you as well.

You obviously didn't read the threads after that picture was posted... I posted more on that day that any other day, and had PM's sent to all parties involved in said situation (Cheapy D, all of the mods, and Deadzone)

Even if deadzone wouldn't have pulled the picture of her own accord, it wouldn't have stayed up much longer anyway... I had angelfire pull her site due to copyright infringement before I even tried to sort out that argument.

i didn't read everything after that b/c it was a waste of time. if you want to argue a 14 year old (or however old she is) to death, that's your business. actually, that's just plain sad. if this girl is young, she may be naive, not mature, etc. for you to be shoving your own morals/standards, etc into her face is a waste of time. she'll learn the ways of the world as she grows up.
 
There is a difference between doing things yourself and inciting others to do it. I could care less what one person does of thier own accord. But it bothers me when they go tell everyone else to do this thing. You know why napster and kazaa got in some much trouble? Everyone and thier mother knew about it and knows how to use it, and incited all of thier friends to do it, so the lawyers and such had to come crashing down on it.... the serious piracy goes on in the newsgroups... studio tests of music, reviewer copies of unreleased movies, any PC game before it's released, and even tons and tons of videogame roms? Why don't you hear about this?
1. It's not as easy to do as Kazaa and Napster.
2. Most of its users are smarter than to go "ha ha ha ha we 15 1337 P1R4735" like the stupid kazaa and napster noobs were.
You see, I haven't, and don't make it a practice to, incite people to commit illegal or unethical acts. You were. Based upon that, I can claim the moral highground. Whether or not I've ever commited a crime is actually irrelavant.

you're just playing with your words. based on your past argument, you said that i don't have a claim on the moral highground b/c of unethical acts. however, whether or not you're inciting people to do it, you're still committing an unethical act if you jaywalk, speed, run the red, etc. it doesn't matter if you encourage it or not. just b/c it's not as easy to do as napster/kazaa is a lame excuse. jaywalking through the streets of new york can be much tougher than handing a guy behind the counter 3 games in specific order. does that make it more unethical than getting a better game for free? :roll:

That entire part of my post only mentioned ethics right at the end of it.
Inciting other to commit illegal acts is far beyond just commiting the acts yourself. You seem to keep missing this point, and throwing in a bunch of red herrings just to try to make yourself less guity of inciting the people in this thread to commit an illegal/unethical act.

as for the "why didn't you hear about this?" i did hear about it from fw. obviously it's not gonna be as popular as file sharing, but it will be to people who want to save a few bucks.

That was a rhetorical question about why people didn't hear about piracy on newsgroups and did here and pass around the knowledge of Kazaa and napster. You know, it's easier to form cohesive and believable arguments if you actually try to follow the logical flow of a post instead of just taking things out of thier context. From the context that question was in, and the answers to that question obviously written out right after it, anyone with even a moderate level of reading comprehension should have been able to follow the flow of that argument/paragraph. It's hard to make it any more clear without spelling it out word for word.

Stating something so blinding obvious is not the path to discrediting something. You were trying to use other people's bias against me to try to discredit what I was saying simply because "It's only my opinion". Whether it's my opinion doesnt' make it any more or any less correct.. but your implication was designed to function otherwise.

what i meant was that everything you're saying is only your opinion. those statements of how you're right and i'm wrong are what you think are right, but to me they're not. "using other people's bias?" more word play. "your implication was designed to function otherwise." i think you assume too much. if i said, "fu(k you" online, you can't tell whether i'm saying it as a joke or not. you're using everything i say in your own manner. more word play.

There is absolutely no word play there. I'll spell it out for you. Some people here don't like me. You keep insisting on saying that it's "only my opinion" so that you can have those people discredit anything I decide to post just because it is me posting it. Either that, or I'm just overestimating your intelligence.


So you're dignity and self-respect can be purchased for a scant few dollars? Good to know.

again, more play. i never said you could purchase my self-respect. all i said was i felt no shame in doing it. if you want to add your own translation to things, fine. but i can assume just the same and everybody can be ignorant.

No word play there either. You just don't place the same value on dignity, honesty, and self respect as I do. From your perception, that's fine. From mine, it looks like your willing to sell your dignity off for just a couple of dollars. Neither of us is actually right.. that's all just perception, and that will vary for every other person who may decide to look in this thread.

As I stated before, so long as I am not inciting people to commit illegal acts, I am well within my bounds to claim the moral highground.

if a murderer doesn't tell people to kill others, he's still has the moral highground huh? your answer doesn't cut it....

If he's telling others not to do something that our society views a unethical/illegal? Yes. While people are defined by thier actions, that doesn't mean that any one person is infallible and correct all the time.


If I'm jumping to conclusions, it due to a distinct lack of clarity and focus in your posts. Your agruments are so general that they apply to the ENTIRE thread, and not just your posts and involvement in it. Any reasonable person would have derived the exact same conclusions from your posts as I did.

lack of clarity? read what you wrote yourself (I may have been overly broad in my tossing out of the blame...).

Being overly board does not mean it was unclear. The opposite of clear is unclear. The opposite of broad is concise. If I were concise in tossing out the blame in that particular statement, I would have only mentioned the threads that discussed Sears.


This is all symptomatic of the distinct lack of clarity in your posts, as your intent appears to be to argue about your involvement in the thread, yet your posts read as if they are discussing the entire thread. The reason it is circular is because you keep throwing your exact same argument, unclear as it ever was, and then expect the answer to the question you intended to ask and not the questions you actually did ask.

it is circular b/c you and i will never agree with each other. as for the unclear/clarity portion, refer to what i said above. you're not perfect either.

No, that statement wasn't unclear, as I stated. On top of that, that was a point that I was conceding in hopes of constraining the argument to a few more salient points...it's a stadard practice.

As I've already stated, commiting illegal acts and inciting others are radically different. Even a convicted felon would be well within his rights to claim the moral high ground if another was inciting people to commit crimes (even if it were the same one the felon was convicted for).

again, if this person did a drive-by and killed an innocent kid, he has the moral highgrounds? i think you're sadly mistaken. in your opinion, as long as somebody doesn't "incite" anybody to do something unethical, they have the moral high grounds? i think your judgment is skewed.

No, this is a on a per-case basis. One doesn't claim the moral high-ground permenantly.. that would be foolish. One only claims the moral high-ground in specific arguments/discussions. If a drive-by shooter told a jaywalker not to go rob a bank, he would most definately have the moral high ground.

I have the moral high ground in this thread. Will I keep it when I go to another? I don't know. It would all depend on the circumstances in that thread.


In the rare case where theft is a matter of life and death, yes.
This is not one of those cases.

1st off, those aren't the only cases. if you're trying to make things black and white, yes or no, you need to get out into the real world instead of staying on the CAG boards arguing.

That's the only case. Things are black and white. Even if you can justify what you did, it doesn't make it right. It is possible to the wrong thing for the right reason (and the right thing for the wrong)... again, this isn't one of those situations. Your being selfish and cheating someone just because you want to save a few dollars.

Even in that situation, you would concede that your just going to have to agree to disagree.

that might be so in this case, but i still have to argue the point that i conceeded to your posts in the past.

I stopped trying to convice you long ago. You can't do anything if someone refuses to even discuss things... I'm willing to accept many things, but something just cross the line. Right now I'm just trying to make an example out of you, and just show people that it is a bad idea to come on to these boards and try to incite illegal/unethical practices.


A thread in which people are inciting others to commit illegal acts. Yes, I think it's well within reason to judge people based upon thier words and actions.

sure :roll: what i said to try out was "illegal." let's see. if only i could find out about EVERYTHING you've ever said and did in your life, i bet i could find many reasons to judge you as well.

Probably not. I don't hold people to a standard that I'm not willing to adhere to myself.

You obviously didn't read the threads after that picture was posted... I posted more on that day that any other day, and had PM's sent to all parties involved in said situation (Cheapy D, all of the mods, and Deadzone)

Even if deadzone wouldn't have pulled the picture of her own accord, it wouldn't have stayed up much longer anyway... I had angelfire pull her site due to copyright infringement before I even tried to sort out that argument.

i didn't read everything after that b/c it was a waste of time. if you want to argue a 14 year old (or however old she is) to death, that's your business. actually, that's just plain sad. if this girl is young, she may be naive, not mature, etc. for you to be shoving your own morals/standards, etc into her face is a waste of time. she'll learn the ways of the world as she grows up.

The only way you deal with immaturity is by answering it with maturity. Deadzone has become a good poster since then, and has become markedly more mature in her topics (especially those existing outside of Off Topic). It obviously wasn't a waste of time discussing things with her in a mature manner.. it obviously had an effect, as the situation was solved without incident (I didn't post a thread asking to have her banned, did I?), and she has become a very good poster since. I can't think of any way that the situation could have been solved any better.
 
That entire part of my post only mentioned ethics right at the end of it.
Inciting other to commit illegal acts is far beyond just commiting the acts yourself. You seem to keep missing this point, and throwing in a bunch of red herrings just to try to make yourself less guity of inciting the people in this thread to commit an illegal/unethical act.

less guilty for posting? i don't think so. actually, i'm proud that i've been trying to save people money and participating in this community. whether people want to do it is up to them. if it's really unethical and SO FAR OUT THERE that it's unacceptable, then the mods should just delete it. whatever it is, you're judging me and blah blah blah. i keep hearing the same things from you as well.

That was a rhetorical question about why people didn't hear about piracy on newsgroups and did here and pass around the knowledge of Kazaa and napster. You know, it's easier to form cohesive and believable arguments if you actually try to follow the logical flow of a post instead of just taking things out of thier context. From the context that question was in, and the answers to that question obviously written out right after it, anyone with even a moderate level of reading comprehension should have been able to follow the flow of that argument/paragraph. It's hard to make it any more clear without spelling it out word for word.

nice comeback. i liked how you didn't specifically attack what i said, but how you commented on how i shouldn't even have answered the question.

from your post before, you obviously didn't understand the context in which i was saying that i needed to get a picture of you to make you stop. that was a joke. i think i should type everything out word for word as well so you'll know what i'm talking about.

There is absolutely no word play there. I'll spell it out for you. Some people here don't like me. You keep insisting on saying that it's "only my opinion" so that you can have those people discredit anything I decide to post just because it is me posting it. Either that, or I'm just overestimating your intelligence.

when you add words to what i say in order to demean me, that is word play. if you think i'm not intelligent. that's your own opinion. my college degrees, money in my bank account, etc will show otherwise.

No word play there either. You just don't place the same value on dignity, honesty, and self respect as I do. From your perception, that's fine. From mine, it looks like your willing to sell your dignity off for just a couple of dollars. Neither of us is actually right.. that's all just perception, and that will vary for every other person who may decide to look in this thread.

it's not that i don't place the same value on dignity, honesty and self-respect, it's just that we have a different concept and degree of each of those traits.
as for the underlined portion, i finally agree with you.

If he's telling others not to do something that our society views a unethical/illegal? Yes. While people are defined by thier actions, that doesn't mean that any one person is infallible and correct all the time.

what if he keeps killing and doesn't say anything?

as for the infallible portion, doesn't seem to me that you believe in that considering you said you'd judge me as a thief/stealer period.

Being overly board does not mean it was unclear. The opposite of clear is unclear. The opposite of broad is concise. If I were concise in tossing out the blame in that particular statement, I would have only mentioned the threads that discussed Sears.

more word play

No, this is a on a per-case basis. One doesn't claim the moral high-ground permenantly.. that would be foolish. One only claims the moral high-ground in specific arguments/discussions. If a drive-by shooter told a jaywalker not to go rob a bank, he would most definately have the moral high ground.

I have the moral high ground in this thread. Will I keep it when I go to another? I don't know. It would all depend on the circumstances in that thread.

hmmm, the way you state your argument says otherwise. In the rare case where theft is a matter of life and death, yes. sounds pretty much black and white to me. in fact, just b/c it's life and death doesn't mean it's justified. if somebody stole food from a store b/c they're starving, did you ever think of the store owner? what if he's poor as well with a negative profit margin? are you gonna justify that? we can both come up with valid examples.

That's the only case. Things are black and white. Even if you can justify what you did, it doesn't make it right. It is possible to the wrong thing for the right reason (and the right thing for the wrong)... again, this isn't one of those situations. Your being selfish and cheating someone just because you want to save a few dollars.

i reiterate my first point. just b/c you don't tell people to jaywalk, and you still do it, doesn't make it right. kind of repeating what i already said. as for being selfish... if i were selfish, i wouldn't be posting deals on this forum.

Probably not. I don't hold people to a standard that I'm not willing to adhere to myself.

that's bs. nobody's perfect including you. nice answer :roll:

The only way you deal with immaturity is by answering it with maturity. Deadzone has become a good poster since then, and has become markedly more mature in her topics (especially those existing outside of Off Topic). It obviously wasn't a waste of time discussing things with her in a mature manner.. it obviously had an effect, as the situation was solved without incident (I didn't post a thread asking to have her banned, did I?), and she has become a very good poster since. I can't think of any way that the situation could have been solved any better.

good for her. i'm glad she's learning as she's growing. maybe you had something to do with it, maybe you didn't. i'm not gonna jump to any conclusions.
 
That entire part of my post only mentioned ethics right at the end of it.
Inciting other to commit illegal acts is far beyond just commiting the acts yourself. You seem to keep missing this point, and throwing in a bunch of red herrings just to try to make yourself less guity of inciting the people in this thread to commit an illegal/unethical act.

less guilty for posting? i don't think so. actually, i'm proud that i've been trying to save people money and participating in this community. whether people want to do it is up to them. if it's really unethical and SO FAR OUT THERE that it's unacceptable, then the mods should just delete it. whatever it is, you're judging me and blah blah blah. i keep hearing the same things from you as well.

Blockbuster had the policy in plave for a reason.. and your trying to defraud them to save yourself a couple dollars. Cheapy D himself posted that he found this thread unacceptable. Just because the mods are leinent doesn't mean what you did was right or acceptable.

That was a rhetorical question about why people didn't hear about piracy on newsgroups and did here and pass around the knowledge of Kazaa and napster. You know, it's easier to form cohesive and believable arguments if you actually try to follow the logical flow of a post instead of just taking things out of thier context. From the context that question was in, and the answers to that question obviously written out right after it, anyone with even a moderate level of reading comprehension should have been able to follow the flow of that argument/paragraph. It's hard to make it any more clear without spelling it out word for word.

nice comeback. i liked how you didn't specifically attack what i said, but how you commented on how i shouldn't even have answered the question.

Kind of what the point of a rhetorical question is. You don't answer it
unless you take issue to the answers that person provides to that rhetorical question. Even if you were trying to do that, you didn't even answer the question correctly. The question was why people had heard of Kazaa and Napster and not newsgroups.



from your post before, you obviously didn't understand the context in which i was saying that i needed to get a picture of you to make you stop. that was a joke. i think i should type everything out word for word as well so you'll know what i'm talking about.

I dropped that rather quickly. Everything after that point was discussing the value of having handled that situation reasonably with deadzone.


There is absolutely no word play there. I'll spell it out for you. Some people here don't like me. You keep insisting on saying that it's "only my opinion" so that you can have those people discredit anything I decide to post just because it is me posting it. Either that, or I'm just overestimating your intelligence.

when you add words to what i say in order to demean me, that is word play. if you think i'm not intelligent. that's your own opinion. my college degrees, money in my bank account, etc will show otherwise.

No, word play is taking something out of context and twisting a person's words. I just took what you said and clarified it. No word play there.

IQ is measured in pieces of paper and dollars? That's new to me.
Just because you have a college degree and make a decent wage doesn't mean you are intelligent. In fact, those are very poor metrics.



No word play there either. You just don't place the same value on dignity, honesty, and self respect as I do. From your perception, that's fine. From mine, it looks like your willing to sell your dignity off for just a couple of dollars. Neither of us is actually right.. that's all just perception, and that will vary for every other person who may decide to look in this thread.

it's not that i don't place the same value on dignity, honesty and self-respect, it's just that we have a different concept and degree of each of those traits.
as for the underlined portion, i finally agree with you.

So I guess you're ok with people believing that you're willing to sell your dignity and self respect for a couple of dollars. Fine with me.

If he's telling others not to do something that our society views a unethical/illegal? Yes. While people are defined by thier actions, that doesn't mean that any one person is infallible and correct all the time.

what if he keeps killing and doesn't say anything?

That's a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

as for the infallible portion, doesn't seem to me that you believe in that considering you said you'd judge me as a thief/stealer period.

Considering your actions in this thread, it's a pretty safe bet. Especially when your the one in here trying to incite people to commit unethical acts, and then try to back-peddle and say that you aren't accountable for what they do.

Being overly board does not mean it was unclear. The opposite of clear is unclear. The opposite of broad is concise. If I were concise in tossing out the blame in that particular statement, I would have only mentioned the threads that discussed Sears.

more word play
Proper definition is not word play. Just because you can't grasp the topic doesn't mean that I'm trying to just talk around a subject. Perhaps I should write smaller posts and use more small words?


hmmm, the way you state your argument says otherwise. In the rare case where theft is a matter of life and death, yes. sounds pretty much black and white to me. in fact, just b/c it's life and death doesn't mean it's justified.

If the theft decides whether you live or die, it is justifiable. The drive for self-preseravation always overrides the sensibilities of ethics.

if somebody stole food from a store b/c they're starving, did you ever think of the store owner?

No. Starvation leads to death. Poverty doesn't. If the only way a person can survive is by stealing food, that is justified. It isn't ethical, but self respect and ethics aren't going to keep your body functioning. There are almost always other ways, but that just complicates that scenario.
Just because it's justifable doesn't mean it's right.

what if he's poor as well with a negative profit margin? are you gonna justify that?
Yes, the thief's need for self-perservation overrides the store owner's need for profits. It's easy to justify things like, especially when one is right at the bottom of the heirarchy of needs, and is just barely able to maintain thier own existance.




That's the only case. Things are black and white. Even if you can justify what you did, it doesn't make it right. It is possible to the wrong thing for the right reason (and the right thing for the wrong)... again, this isn't one of those situations. Your being selfish and cheating someone just because you want to save a few dollars.

i reiterate my first point. just b/c you don't tell people to jaywalk, and you still do it, doesn't make it right.

I never said it did. It just makes it less wrong. One person doing something wrong is just an illegal act. One person telling other people to commit an illegal act raises it not only commiting an illegal act, but also conspiracy to commit an illegal act.


kind of repeating what i already said. as for being selfish... if i were selfish, i wouldn't be posting deals on this forum.

You're still selfish.. you're depriving a store of legitimate profits, just to save yourself a couple of dollars. You're selfish needs seem to outweigh you're desire to conduct business with them in a fair and equitable manner.

Probably not. I don't hold people to a standard that I'm not willing to adhere to myself.

that's bs. nobody's perfect including you. nice answer :roll:

I never said I was perfect. But I don't hold people to a standard I wouldn't hold myself to.
 
I never thought I'd see a flame fight between you two. Well, not that I think about it, but whatever. But I guess JSweeney will eventually do this with every CAG on the forums.

Anway, back to subject, unlike some ppl.......*cough* JSweeney and doraemonkerpal *cough*......Ok, I'd like to try this deal, but I'm not totally sure about this. My BB has alot of old SNES and Super Genesis games that are $5.99 and some that are like $3.99. Could I buy two of those old, cheap games and get one Xbox game for free? Or does the purchase have to be atleast so and so amount? And if they don't scan the last, most expensive item that I purposely gave them last, or the computer doesn't do it that way, then they ask me for my money, then what do I do? Just say, "Nevermind, I was trying to get the last game free, I'll just put it back"? I'm pretty sure almost none of my BB employees know what they're doing, or is it more a matter of how nice they are? Or I could go up to the counter and ask questions about the sale, like I have know idea about any of it, till I find my answers.
 
Blockbuster had the policy in plave for a reason.. and your trying to defraud them to save yourself a couple dollars. Cheapy D himself posted that he found this thread unacceptable. Just because the mods are leinent doesn't mean what you did was right or acceptable.

and just b/c you don't tell people to jaywalk, illegally d/l music, go faster than the speed limit, etc doesn't mean it's right.

as for cheapyd posting it himself, you could have left it at that. i think people got the point after he said something... but no, you had to come in here and start this flame war b/c of what you initially said. you think people would listen to you more than cheapyd? :roll:

No, word play is taking something out of context and twisting a person's words. I just took what you said and clarified it. No word play there.

you clarifying what i said? basically you're putting words in my mouth.

IQ is measured in pieces of paper and dollars? That's new to me.
Just because you have a college degree and make a decent wage doesn't mean you are intelligent. In fact, those are very poor metrics.

harrassing EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with you doesn't show that you're a genius either. in fact, it shows very low emotional IQ.

also, if you're so against this thread, why do you keep on bumping it? any publicity is good publicity and you might be spreading the word on the original topic... and you're supposed to be genius?

So I guess you're ok with people believing that you're willing to sell your dignity and self respect for a couple of dollars. Fine with me.

repeating yourself. that's just more word play. i never said i'd sell my dignity or self respect for a few bucks. that's your interpretation, not mine. i'm happy with who i am. sharing some money-saving tricks for CAGers is what i was trying to do. i never had the intention of starting an "illegal" thread.

That's a red herring and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

yes it does, i was using those examples to disprove your point on how "as long as I don't spread the word, illegal acts are ok."

Considering your actions in this thread, it's a pretty safe bet. Especially when your the one in here trying to incite people to commit unethical acts, and then try to back-peddle and say that you aren't accountable for what they do.

i already said i put it up on CAG b/c i try to find any deal i can. more word play... you seem to only listen to what you want to hear.

Proper definition is not word play. Just because you can't grasp the topic doesn't mean that I'm trying to just talk around a subject. Perhaps I should write smaller posts and use more small words?

who is asking for the definition? as long as you're "smart" enough to know what i mean, you don't need to know the exact word. i guess i gotta find a dictionary and use those words in order for YOU TO UNDERSTAND!

If the theft decides whether you live or die, it is justifiable. The drive for self-preseravation always overrides the sensibilities of ethics.

just b/c it's a natural instinct in humans doesn't make it right. if we did everything our instincts told us to do, then we would be no different from animals.

No. Starvation leads to death. Poverty doesn't. If the only way a person can survive is by stealing food, that is justified. It isn't ethical, but self respect and ethics aren't going to keep your body functioning. There are almost always other ways, but that just complicates that scenario.
Just because it's justifable doesn't mean it's right.

it's not ethical... exactly... and you keep proving my point. thanks. before, i kept hearing you say "as long as i don't incite people to do it...."

Yes, the thief's need for self-perservation overrides the store owner's need for profits. It's easy to justify things like, especially when one is right at the bottom of the heirarchy of needs, and is just barely able to maintain thier own existance.

Just because it's justifable doesn't mean it's right.
 
[quote name='XboxMaster']I never thought I'd see a flame fight between you two. Well, not that I think about it, but whatever. But I guess JSweeney will eventually do this with every CAG on the forums.

Anway, back to subject, unlike some ppl.......*cough* JSweeney and doraemonkerpal *cough*......Ok, I'd like to try this deal, but I'm not totally sure about this. My BB has alot of old SNES and Super Genesis games that are $5.99 and some that are like $3.99. Could I buy two of those old, cheap games and get one Xbox game for free? Or does the purchase have to be atleast so and so amount? And if they don't scan the last, most expensive item that I purposely gave them last, or the computer doesn't do it that way, then they ask me for my money, then what do I do? Just say, "Nevermind, I was trying to get the last game free, I'll just put it back"? I'm pretty sure almost none of my BB employees know what they're doing, or is it more a matter of how nice they are? Or I could go up to the counter and ask questions about the sale, like I have know idea about any of it, till I find my answers.[/quote]

yea, sorry for flaming this thread to death. i guess it was bound to happen b/c of his personality. write one wrong thing against him, or something that he doesn't agree with... you're asking for it! :roll:
 
Xboxmaster, I don't think it works...I tried a few BB's and they all told me the computer would automatically give you the cheapest item for free, but I haven't been able to get a clerk to ring up the most expensive item last, so then again I'm not totally sure they were telling me the truth.
 
doraemonkerpal and JSweeney ... have yall noticed yall are basically the only people to say anything in the last couple of pages... i mean common.. y dont yall just PM flame each other or something lol... this thread should be locked
 
[quote name='Cracka']doraemonkerpal and JSweeney ... have yall noticed yall are basically the only people to say anything in the last couple of pages... i mean common.. y dont yall just PM flame each other or something lol... this thread should be locked[/quote]

LOL, sorry man. i feel i gotta defend myself... especially since it's his "personal mission" to make an example out of me (in his own words).

oh yea, you'll be getting a break soon b/c i might be gone for the weekend. enjoy! :p
 
I never thought I'd see a flame fight between you two. Well, not that I think about it, but whatever. But I guess JSweeney will eventually do this with every CAG on the forums.

Most likely. I'm an equal opportunity offender.

Anway, back to subject, unlike some ppl.......*cough* JSweeney and doraemonkerpal *cough*

This argument was completely germane, considering the content of both the argument and the thread preceding it.


......Ok, I'd like to try this deal, but I'm not totally sure about this. My BB has alot of old SNES and Super Genesis games that are $5.99 and some that are like $3.99. Could I buy two of those old, cheap games and get one Xbox game for free?

Not unless the person checking you out was either:
1. Completely inept and not worthy to do thier job.
2. So disenfranchised with BBV that they'd just ring it in otherwise.

This is not an ethical thing to do, and if you try to weasel your way around it, it could actually be looked at by some as fraud.


Or does the purchase have to be atleast so and so amount? And if they don't scan the last, most expensive item that I purposely gave them last, or the computer doesn't do it that way, then they ask me for my money, then what do I do?

Your screwed, basically.
In fact, any cashier worth thier salt would look through the games you handed them and restacked them in the order from most expensive to least expensive. This method talked about in this thread is nothing but a scam.. trying to either prey on the laziness of an employee or purposly defraud them.



Just say, "Nevermind, I was trying to get the last game free, I'll just put it back"? I'm pretty sure almost none of my BB employees know what they're doing, or is it more a matter of how nice they are?
1. You'll look stupid.
2. If they're smart enough to catch what is going on, they'll make a mental note of you trying to advantage of the store.

Despite the lack of faith most people have for people working minimum wage jobs, most of them can follow the simple instructions that any good manager would give them about ring up a sale for this promotion.
The YMMV in this exploit is whether or not you pull of your scam or not.

Or I could go up to the counter and ask questions about the sale, like I have know idea about any of it, till I find my answers.
They'll point you to the fine print on the sale flyer/sign which explain rather clearly that you get the game of lesser/equal value for free.
 
I think when JSweeney gets to be around 80, he'll look back and realize how ridiculous and obnoxious his posts here were.
 
and just b/c you don't tell people to jaywalk, illegally d/l music, go faster than the speed limit, etc doesn't mean it's right.

No it doesn't, but inciting other to do it compounds upon that intial wrong.
This is a point that you just don't seem to be grasping. If someone breaks the laws or rules established by a society, they are wrong. If someone then goes on an incites others to do so, they are more wrong.
I've already repeated this multiple times, and I have no problem repeating it a couple more.

as for cheapyd posting it himself, you could have left it at that. i think people got the point after he said something... but no, you had to come in here and start this flame war b/c of what you initially said. you think people would listen to you more than cheapyd?

Considering most of you just don't seem to listen to CheapyD, yes, I think people would, because I keep bringing up the issue. CheapyD said it once, and yes, one post from him carries more weight than one post from me....but I've posted on this many, many times now.


you clarifying what i said? basically you're putting words in my mouth.

If I was putting words in your mouth, than it's your responsibility to correct what I had incorrectly assumed, the burned of having your points stated correctly is yours, not mine. Saying that I'm just "playing with your words" does nothing... as my explaination of your point is the the defacto standard for the converstion, as your's isn't clarified to a point where it is usable, tenable, or of any value whatsoever.


harrassing EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with you doesn't show that you're a genius either. in fact, it shows very low emotional IQ.

Being lectured on emotional IQ by someone who has so little empathy for others that they have no trouble trying to defraud someone. That's a good one. Maybe next you'd like to give a lecture on proper ethics, decorum and good citizenship?

also, if you're so against this thread, why do you keep on bumping it? any publicity is good publicity and you might be spreading the word on the original topic... and you're supposed to be genius?

You seem to fail to understand that now that my posts are starting to be an overwhelming force in this thread, that the point of view and spin being placed upon this thread is mine, not yours... and that while most of my points are contradicting yours rather well, your agruments and points just aren't hitting thier mark.

repeating yourself. that's just more word play. i never said i'd sell my dignity or self respect for a few bucks. that's your interpretation, not mine. i'm happy with who i am. sharing some money-saving tricks for CAGers is what i was trying to do. i never had the intention of starting an "illegal" thread.

You're thead, even in it's orginal incarnation was to pass along to others a method of defrauding blockbuster video. Fraud is neither legal nor ethical. You are not blameless in the post CheapyD made chastising you and the others in thread for coming here to discuss your illegal tricks.




yes it does, i was using those examples to disprove your point on how "as long as I don't spread the word, illegal acts are ok."

The thing is, that entire argument you are trying to slide in is a red herring itself. I never said that illegal acts were "ok" so long as you didn't spread the word. I did say that one person acting alone committing minor civil infractions didn't bother me too much, but that when people incite others to do it it is worse. I still stand by that. It still doesn't mean that what the did was right... but no one is flawless, and therefore I'm not going to enforce an unattainable standard on others or myself.


i already said i put it up on CAG b/c i try to find any deal i can. more word play... you seem to only listen to what you want to hear.

The thing is, it's not a deal, it's a scam. If the only way that you actually can get a deal is if you have to sneak around someone, or hope they are derilict in thier duties, it's a scam, not a deal.
This is Cheapassgamer, not Theifassgamer... people don't want to read about scams and exploits... and if they do, they are in the wrong place.

Proper definition is not word play. Just because you can't grasp the topic doesn't mean that I'm trying to just talk around a subject. Perhaps I should write smaller posts and use more small words?

who is asking for the definition? as long as you're "smart" enough to know what i mean, you don't need to know the exact word. i guess i gotta find a dictionary and use those words in order for YOU TO UNDERSTAND!

Proper definition is more that just using the proper word. It is also clarifying arguments and such so that they state what they actually mean.
If my clarification in search of properly defining and argument is incorrect in your eyes, the burden is on you, not me, to correct it. If you don't or can't, my contention stands as the defacto standard.

If the theft decides whether you live or die, it is justifiable. The drive for self-preseravation always overrides the sensibilities of ethics.

just b/c it's a natural instinct in humans doesn't make it right. if we did everything our instincts told us to do, then we would be no different from animals.

Right and justifyable aren't synonyms. Right and wrong are black and white. Justification lies in the scenario where an action exists. Even if something is justifable, that doesn't mean it's right.
Of course, you already quoted me where I said that. I guess it's actually pretty safe to say that you really aren't even bothering to read what I'm saying... you're just going to post what you want to anyway.


No. Starvation leads to death. Poverty doesn't. If the only way a person can survive is by stealing food, that is justified. It isn't ethical, but self respect and ethics aren't going to keep your body functioning. There are almost always other ways, but that just complicates that scenario.
Just because it's justifable doesn't mean it's right.

it's not ethical... exactly... and you keep proving my point. thanks. before, i kept hearing you say "as long as i don't incite people to do it...."

Defrauding someone because you want to save a couple dollars on games is in no way justifyable. It's not a similar situation at all. You don't NEED games to live. The are a luxury item, and you are not entitled to them.
You don't need games for self preservation.. if you do, seek psychological help immediately.. that's not normal.

You still don't seem to be grasping the rather simple difference between Right and Justifiable.

Yes, the thief's need for self-perservation overrides the store owner's need for profits. It's easy to justify things like, especially when one is right at the bottom of the heirarchy of needs, and is just barely able to maintain thier own existance.

Just because it's justifable doesn't mean it's right.
 
[quote name='sTaTIx']I think when JSweeney gets to be around 80, he'll look back and realize how ridiculous and obnoxious his posts here were.[/quote]

Nope, the entire process is rather trival, but so is posting on message boards in general. With the rare exception of the few posters from this board that I've spoken to in other mediums, this entire board is trivial to me, and places no burden on my conscience the second I leave it. I log of this board and it's gone.
 
[quote name='optimolife']Xboxmaster, I don't think it works...I tried a few BB's and they all told me the computer would automatically give you the cheapest item for free, but I haven't been able to get a clerk to ring up the most expensive item last, so then again I'm not totally sure they were telling me the truth.[/quote]

Most Blockbusters will have that algorithm already built into thier computer system. The stores that would be most apt to fall to this sort of scam would be those owned by franchise owners, and thier store databases, and the algorithms that govern the actions of thier terminals would be more apt to be out of date that a company owned chain store. Blockbuster corporate is smart enough to realize if they offer this sale enough times that it's worth it to just put a time constrained (the length of the sale) algorithm in the computer which checks for product offered under the terms of the promotion and does the correct ringing seemlessly.

Of course, some stores may have even had a training issue and the clerks may even enter the prices manually for the games under this promotion... which would incorporate the human element which the person taking part in this scam would require to be able to pull off thier scam.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='sTaTIx']I think when JSweeney gets to be around 80, he'll look back and realize how ridiculous and obnoxious his posts here were.[/quote]

Nope, the entire process is rather trival, but so is posting on message boards in general. With the rare exception of the few posters from this board that I've spoken to in other mediums, this entire board is trivial to me, and places no burden on my concious the second I leave it. I log of this board and it's gone.[/quote]

Yet your posts keep coming.
 
[quote name='paz9x'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='sTaTIx']I think when JSweeney gets to be around 80, he'll look back and realize how ridiculous and obnoxious his posts here were.[/quote]

Nope, the entire process is rather trival, but so is posting on message boards in general. With the rare exception of the few posters from this board that I've spoken to in other mediums, this entire board is trivial to me, and places no burden on my concious the second I leave it. I log of this board and it's gone.[/quote]

Yet your posts keep coming.[/quote]

Well, the thread is still here when I log on, isn't it.
If this thread got locked or deleted, I wouldn't be making another thread just to continue on this argument.
Just because it is a trival endeavor, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. Videogames are a trivial endeavor, as is watch TV or movies, listening to music, etc. Anything that the only purpose of it it's entertainment value is a trivial endeavor. You know, this thread continuing is the work of more that one person... I've only been answering posts for the great majority of this thread. If this thread just died out because no one posted in it, I wouldn't be very likely to revive it.
I'm not the only person whose still posting in this thread... if I were, that would be a good hint that the interest is gone. There's actual been more activity in this thread recently (including your post)... so obviously the interest isn't completely gone... even if it is just morbid curiosity.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='sTaTIx']I think when JSweeney gets to be around 80, he'll look back and realize how ridiculous and obnoxious his posts here were.[/quote]

Nope, the entire process is rather trival, but so is posting on message boards in general. With the rare exception of the few posters from this board that I've spoken to in other mediums, this entire board is trivial to me, and places no burden on my concious the second I leave it. I log of this board and it's gone.[/quote]

You're not fooling anyone. You seem to make a real concerted effort in finding any opportunity you can to spew your self-righteous, sanctimonious philosophical ramblings on this particular cheap-deals forum, don't you?
 
[quote name='sTaTIx']You're not fooling anyone. You seem to make a real concerted effort in finding any opportunity you can to spew your self-righteous, sanctimonious philosophical ramblings on this particular cheap-deals forum, don't you?[/quote]

newbie7.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top