Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation. I
don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the Bush
regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again. When
well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even those
who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the people
and for the people? Heck no!!!

You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only be
characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years. We've
gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and equally
horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11 and the
dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South, AIG and
all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting taxes and
increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in Washington do
the math? ... Ben Myers

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
switch! ... Ben Myers

Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?

The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
always had the same stance on his positions.

So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.

Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
about it.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into the
iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i also can
not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered (and still
suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a place that
remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.

11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
kerry
http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message
...
Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation.
I
don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the
Bush
regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again.
When
well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even
those
who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the
people
and for the people? Heck no!!!

You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only
be
characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years.
We've
gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and
equally
horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11 and
the
dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South,
AIG and
all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting
taxes and
increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in
Washington do
the math? ... Ben Myers

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
objectively to
the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
bait and
switch! ... Ben Myers

Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?

The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
always had the same stance on his positions.

So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.

Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
about it.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

wrong link... should be
http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/20...2004Recaps.pdf

"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
news:0O2Vd.38197$ya6.36610@trndny01...
well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into
the iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i
also can not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered
(and still suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a
place that remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.

11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
kerry
http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote in message
...
Honesty and complete presentation of the facts were not part of the last
presidential campaign. BOTH candidates were full of fog and obfuscation.
I
don't hate Bush, but because I am not in the top 1% of wage earners, the
Bush
regimes policies have hit me in the pocketbook, time and again and again.
When
well over half of the people in this country take an economic hit, even
those
who voted for Bushie, can we call this government of the people, by the
people
and for the people? Heck no!!!

You and I and all our children will pay and pay dearly for what can only
be
characterized as the reckless economic policy of the last four years.
We've
gone from a healthy budgetary surplus to horrific budget deficits and
equally
horrific balance of payment issues in just over four years. Yes, 9/11
and the
dot-com implosion helped. So did Enron, Arthur Anderson, Health South,
AIG and
all the other corporate thieves. But the bottom line is that cutting
taxes and
increasing spending results in deficits. Duh! Doesn't anyone in
Washington do
the math? ... Ben Myers

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:51 GMT, Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented
objectively to
the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your
bait and
switch! ... Ben Myers

Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented
facts
and other information that was completely honest and correct all the
time?

The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
always had the same stance on his positions.

So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president, just
get over it, accept it, and be happy that you don't have a two faced,
dishonorable, gumby looking, double talker, idiot in the office now.

Dell is about as guilty of Bait-Switch as this thread is - they present
you with options and if you want something else it's not B&S by Dell. I'm
sure that if they only offered two products someone would still complain
about it.

--

remove 999 in order to email me

"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
news:0O2Vd.38197$ya6.36610@trndny01...
well said. and least we forget the defective thinking that got us into
the iraq mess where another 122 innocent people died earlier today. i
also can not help wondering why new york city, the place that suffered
(and still suffers from) the greatest loss from the 9/11 attacks, and a
place that remains to be the most likely target for future attacks, voted
overwhelmingly against bush. bush won, but the country lost.

11/2004 presidential election results for nyc were 16% for bush, 78% for
kerry
http://www.miata.net/faq/wheel_weights.html



Lest we forget that well over 100,000 Americans died in the U.S. Civil War.
I suppose we could've avoided all of that abolition stuff and simply
negotiated with the confederacy. We'd all be better off today, no? sarcasm

I really do hate it when this group rails of topic into politics. I find
myself at odds with many in here whose opinions I otherwise hold in high
regard.


Stew

"Jerry Park" wrote:
Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Jerry Park" wrote:

Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
an effect is on good companies who do want to do
a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
charge more for their product
than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.



And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
"frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
practices.

*TimDaniels*

No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.

To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
class action.


While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class action suits,
we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They can drag
on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why they are
frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees, and the
company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits, and
companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I agree that
class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but in the
absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?

*TimDaniels*

Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Jerry Park" wrote:

Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Jerry Park" wrote:

Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
an effect is on good companies who do want to do
a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them
to charge more for their product
than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.




And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
"frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
practices.

*TimDaniels*


No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.

To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small
benefit is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of
business by class action.



While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class
action suits,
we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They
can drag
on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why
they are
frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees,
and the
company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits,
and
companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I
agree that
class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but
in the
absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?

*TimDaniels*

Free market forces?

GB wrote:

"Jerry Park" wrote in message
.. .

All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.


The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
any other country.

True

That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

Only in that the US has even more lawyers now.

Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
making work for themselves.

Obviously.

Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Jerry Park" wrote:

Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
an effect is on good companies who do want to do
a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
charge more for their product
than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
and which are "non-frivolous"?

Judges should have leeway in making this decision.

Leythos wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:05:52 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
switch! ... Ben Myers

Sheesh, and I suppose that you believe the Kerry camp just presented facts
and other information that was completely honest and correct all the time?

The only bait and switch was Kerry, he would bait people into attending
his SHOWS and then change his position for the next SHOW, at least Bush
always had the same stance on his positions.

So, instead of whining about it until Hillaryious becomes president

You've just established yourself as a Rush lapdog & have lost all
credibility whatsoever.

Social Security ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:

one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for
this
presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing
underclass in
the United States... Ben Myers

Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
stop whining.

--

remove 999 in order to email me



Don't bait the RDDB's......

;-)


Stew