 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again: LLLR is a small boutique label; he's already said they can't afford to eat titles for 75%. Their profit pre-funds future releases and releases that haven't sold out.
So, why don't you tell us, exactly how much if a financial loss you'd like MV and his label to take to satisfy you? What's the dollar amount?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, now you want to talk reading comprehension. Okay, I'll play along since you are failing at it:
You have not been talking about "you", you have been saying the sale end date should be honored for what's listed on the site, that means EVERYBODY who orders from the site and sees that date should get that discount.
Changing directions is not a good sign for your stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And MV has already spoken. You're going in a loop.
So, again, why don't you tell us, exactly how much of a financial loss you'd like MV and his label to take to satisfy you? What's the dollar amount?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we are buyers, we do not run the business.
What, if anything, does that have to do with it?
The sale was $10, that is it, that simple, really really simple.
No, you still aren't paying attention. Again, since it's on the site, that would be for every single person who buys those titles from the site passed that date, so it's not $10. You've turned the simple into a weird mess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 11, 2018 - 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
we are buyers, we do not run the business.
What, if anything, does that have to do with it?
The sale was $10, that is it, that simple, really really simple.
No, you still aren't paying attention. Again, since it's on the site, that would be for every single person who buys those titles from the site passed that date, so it's not $10. You've turned the simple into a weird mess.
When a retailers post a sales price, yes, anyone can get that price, till the stock runs out.
You are the one making this into astronomy or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skipping passed the points and the fact you errored -- another interesting side road!
For some reason you think a small specialty boutique label with limited funds can afford to eat a loss because of a mistake on their part they already corrected in a post here at the forum (it's irrelevant it's still on the site at this point).
So, by this erroneous logic, when a label lists a higher price -- accidentally -- on their site (and this has happened before), you should have to pay the higher price even though the label head later says the higher price is incorrect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sign of a bad position that can't be backed up is ignoring the points and making a personal attack against the other side.
Had you pulled this on the Intrada forum with Roger or Doug, you'd have been banned.
And I'd defend any [legal] label this happens with, including even ones run by Ford. It's what's right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable debate wasn't for Ado. With a weak position and inability to stay on point, he simply took the small man's way out and put me on ignore. But he should not see this, so I shouldn't see a response from him on it.
Oh, poor thing -- I guess he'll just have to wait for one of the near monthly sales the label has now.
Malcolm Reynolds: "Honestly -- there may be tears."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, the "discussion" ended when MV posted the correction here. He's the one who has the final say on the price.
The wheels of site edits always move slowly unless you personally oversea it and often mistakes aren't caught even after an update. I remember, for example, a world-wide company listing a product on their site still that was discontinued and not longer for sale anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know that's hotlinking, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
